calling her a Pelosi sellout for not performing your preferred brand of outrage is nonsense.
AOC specifically said that progressives need to "continue to pressure the Democrats after the election." She has also said that progressives need to force a vote on M4A.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held. It is a prime opportunity to do follow through on those promises.
Progressives won't have leverage again for awhile. They might as well get every house member on the record for M4A. That would help a lot of progressive challenges in 2022.
From what I've seen from Dore, he's pissed and wants to hold AOC accountable over this. How is that "performative outrage?"
I feel like I'm watching Liberals process Obama's first term all over again in this thread.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held. It is a prime opportunity to do follow through on those promises.
Progressives won’t have leverage again for awhile.
Do they actually have leverage now? That is, can the AOC-wing of the party keep Pelosi from being elected speaker if they force the issue, or do they still have too few votes?
If they don't have the votes to boot Pelosi, we're just talking about something performative.
Depending on the results in the last two seats, they would need 5-7 votes.
I really genuinely would not give a shit about this if it was just performative. But they have a real opportunity to express political power here, and there is no will.
So I think they would need 7 (to make the vote 218-217 in favor of Republicans), and we'd have a Republican speaker. It looks possible, but I don't think it's a clear-cut decision. They don't really have anything to win (Medicare for All isn't passing the Senate, especially if the Georgia races go red) and Biden said he'd veto it if it gets to him -- that's all assuming it passes the House, which it still probably wouldn't. As for what there is to lose, it's a pretty bad look (to put it mildly) to vote with Republicans, I don't know what damage a Republican speaker could do, and if they successfully force the vote but it doesn't even pass the House that would be used as "too radical for America" bait for years.
The progressives have a clear opportunity to express political power. There are people demanding they use that to follow through on a campaign promise (get a floor vote on M4A). The response from the progressives to that demand is "No."
Every single swing state Democrat who opposed M4A lost. Opposing health care during a pandemic is incredibly unpopular. Every Democratic M4A "no" vote is an open progressive seat in 2022.
There is no reason to make excuses for them. Leftists turning into pundits is exactly how you create the Obama phenomenon.
Yeah I'm assuming that discussions are ongoing now because Pelosi would probably want to avoid public challenges atthe start of the term. That's not a bad thing, provided they either get what they want now or mount a public challenger next month
They definitely don’t have the power to actually pass any policy, that’s for sure.
Of course they are not going to pass any policy. Anyone who thinks they are is delusional. So, they need to find other ways to score political wins.
As I said before:
Every single swing state Democrat who opposed M4A lost. Opposing health care during a pandemic is incredibly unpopular. Every Democratic M4A “no” vote is an open progressive seat in 2022.
The Democratic base is extremely pro-M4A. Exposing all the Democrats who oppose it is good. Many conservative Democrats get by just saying "I support affordable health care for all" when their constituents want M4A.
Who? A talking head
All of the social democratic media is supporting it, and it is receiving a positive response.
is there real support from a bunch of actual people?
90% of the Democratic Party (70% of the country) support M4A. It is not that surprising they would support a vote on it. Most people do not have pundit-brain.
The default assumption should be that this is performative, then.
Exposing all the Democrats who oppose it is good.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, it doesn't take much to arrange the votes so that it just fails in the House, and then you have all but a handful of Democrats on record supporting M4A. Now it's easier for the ghouls of the party to run on their "support" of it. And it would take even less to have every single House Democrat vote to pass it and then watch it die in the Senate.
There's some value to this idea, but how much is an open question. A comparable vote would be the recent one on decriminalizing marijuana -- the House passed it, but it's going nowhere. That moves the needle a bit, sure, but ultimately it's not much.
All of the social democratic media is supporting it
Who? I've heard Jimmy Dore supporting it, who isn't exactly a household name, but that's it. And M4A being popular among the Democratic base =/= the Democratic base demanding a vote that will not produce M4A.
So all we can do is just talk idly about policies that we may or may not support in our own respective camps, but when it comes to actually voting them into law... it's just performative to even attempt to sway party leadership into doing so?
sounds like hypocrisy or nefarious hand-waving either way
They claim they can never do anything because it's all performative, but then say shit like "we can't 100 years for M4A, we need it now." Their current tactics are no different than any other Democratic Progressive Caucus.
I haven't paid attention to the Democratic Party in awhile, this shit is insane lol
but when it comes to actually voting them into law
That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about a vote (the House speaker election) to force a vote (the House vote on M4A) that is still unlikely -- at best -- to pass anything into law.
If you force a vote you know will fail, yes, odds are that's performative. It might have some value, but that's debatable.
Voting something into law isn't performative. A vote that will fail but has some real consequences -- e.g., the people who vote "no" are likely to get bounced -- probably isn't performative either.
But if you know a vote will fail, and you know there will likely be no consequences for its opponents? Yeah, probably performative.
Now it’s easier for the ghouls of the party to run on their “support” of it.
They do that now with the "co-sponsors" list.
Who?
So far, I've seen TYT, The Hill, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski - the entire Justice Democrat world seems to be pushing it. That seems like the largest networks supporting progressives, which means the largest viewership supporting progressives.
M4A being popular among the Democratic base =/= Democratic base demanding a vote that will not produce M4A
The Democratic base wants M4A. Why would putting it for a vote be so controversial? I don't understand that
Showing people which Democratic members do not support M4A is useful for the Democratic base.
So... this would be no different? I'm not seeing a whole lot of benefit here, certainly not if the Senate stays Republican. I don't know when the speaker will be elected; maybe they're waiting to get the Senate results in.
The Democratic base wants M4A. Why would putting it for a vote be so controversial?
Well, look at the discussion in this thread. It's not simply "do you want M4A, yes or no?" M4A likely isn't even on the table, so we're talking about secondary, non-material, tactical benefits, the value of which is debatable. It's reasonable to think a list of who voted for the bill would be more valuable than the co-sponsors list, but it's also reasonable to think that's not gaining much at all. It's reasonable to think the risk of centrist Democrats calling the bluff and forcing a choice between Pelosi/no M4A vote or a Republican speaker is worth it, but it's reasonable to think that could blow up in our faces, too.
about secondary, non-material, tactical benefits, the value of which is debatable
No we are not. We are talking about demonstrating to people that progressives will fight for health care. Right now, they are all talk on the issue on everyone's mind right now.
this would be no different?
No it is not.
If progressive were to run with the attack line: "[dipshit politician] voted against health care in a pandemic." right now, they would be lying. That line of attack would be important for insurgents, since 90% of Democrats support M4A.
It’s reasonable to think the risk of centrist Democrats calling the bluff and forcing a choice between Pelosi/no M4A vote or a Republican speaker is worth it
You need to play politics in the Democratic Party. Blue Dogs drag the House right every election by threatening to withhold their vote.
If you are going to play liberal democracy, at least put some thought into it. I feel like Democrat Entryists never do that.
Right now, they are all talk on the issue on everyone’s mind right now.
But this is all talk, too -- it's not going to produce M4A. At most it will produce a few targets for primary campaigns, and it's not even guaranteed to do that.
“[dipshit politician] voted against health care in a pandemic.”
Right now they can just say "[dipshit politician] is on record against M4A." I don't see the difference. And every single congressional Democrat could vote in favor of M4A and it is still virtually guaranteed to fail, so it might even put us in a worse spot than where we are now.
Blue Dogs drag the House right every election by threatening to withhold their vote
Pelosi is much closer to Blue Dog Democrats than she is to the AOC/Bernie wing of the party. And threatening to withhold your vote is a good strategy only if you get something valuable from it. I don't see the value here.
Taking extremely unpopular votes is a quick way to lose political support. You understand that, right? Democrats got railed in 2010 for their recession response.
Public opinion shows health care to be the pressing issue, especially given the pandemic. Progressives would have a lot to win by being the only faction in the House which supports it.
There is a big benefit politically, and no cost. But there is no will to power.
You're not reading what I'm writing. Every single congressional Democrat could vote for M4A and it still wouldn't pass. Forcing a vote would not force the ones who oppose M4A to go on record as such. They could just vote tactically (which is common) and then hold their votes for it up against progressive primary challengers. There's a very realistic way this could do less than nothing. There's no guarantee whatsoever that it would do anything positive.
Every single congressional Democrat could vote for M4A and it still wouldn’t pass.
The medical industry will not allow their politicians to vote unanimously for M4A. The Democrats do not want M4A to be their wedge issue with Republicans.
They could just vote tactically (which is common) and then hold their votes for it up against progressive primary challengers.
They can do that already by promising to vote for M4A when it comes up for a vote. The vote actually has to happen for a line to be drawn.
There’s no guarantee whatsoever that it would do anything positive.
If an easy political lay-up is not possible, the Democratic entryists need to admit this is a dead end.
The medical industry will not allow their politicians to vote unanimously for M4A. The Democrats do not want M4A to be their wedge issue with Republicans.
Why not, if it won't pass? Why wouldn't the medical industry (insurance companies, primarily) be OK with their pet politicians voting in a way that will (a) keep them in power, and (b) not cost the industry a dime? Why wouldn't Democrats be OK with taking up a popular policy, especially if they won't have to take a serious vote on it for years, and if when they do they can drag their feet on it for years longer, and then pass a half-baked version that's still a handout to insurance companies?
They know how the game is played. They know how to grandstand without accomplishing anything.
They can do that already by promising to vote for M4A when it comes up for a vote.
Again -- if they can already do something, there's nothing to be gained here.
an easy political lay-up
A layup gets you points on the board. There are no points to put on the board here, because nothing will get passed.
The same reason many Democrats refuse to run on M4A. They don't want that to be the national conversation.
Again – if they can already do something, there’s nothing to be gained here.
Again, voting "no" on extremely popular legislation is disastrous for politicians.
If you're promising M4A, why would the M4A voter oppose you? If you vote against M4A, the reason is obvious.
A layup gets you points on the board. There are no points to put on the board here, because nothing will get passed.
If that's the metric, this project to do entryism in the Democratic Party is a more resounding failure. I was under the impression the entryists were working to build their numbers in the House.
The same reason many Democrats refuse to run on M4A.
They don't refuse to run on it. They run on it, nearly all of them, but they water it down in the form of "Medicare for all who want it" (Rat Boy) or proposing some multi-year rollout that of course will never happen (Warren). I even had some Biden jackass on r*ddit tell me about how Medicare for All isn't the only way to do universal healthcare. It's all politician dodging the issue bullshit, but they aren't sticking to a flat "no."
voting “no” on extremely popular legislation is disastrous
Every single congressional Democrat could vote for it and it still wouldn't pass. What is so difficult about this concept? Exactly zero Democrats would be forced to vote no, and we still wouldn't get M4A.
I was under the impression the entryists were working to build their numbers in the House.
Yes, because with 8 progressives in the House you can't do anything meaningful -- all you can do is performative stuff like this.
And calling entryism a failure at this point is like dieting for a day and asking why you haven't lost weight. The strategy isn't wrong, it just isn't a magical fix that instantly works.
Can you find a source on that quote? She went after Biden's transition team in August saying that adopting GOP talking points is wrong. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1296480664561291264?s=20
I misspoke there. It was that they need to "continue to push Democrats after the election." I did not mean to imply anything about the election cycle. I'll update my comment.
The progressives will likely have the votes to prevent Pelosi from getting the speakership. It is insane that they are not making a public show of that leverage. The centrist Democrats do it every cycle.
It is very concerning that they not making any use of that leverage. The progressive project would gain a lot of popularity by both undermining Pelosi - who is incredibly unpopular - and fighting for the most popular legislation in the country, which was also a campaign promise.
People have been doing political work on the ground for years. AOC et al are only in office because of mass organizing to support them. Now, they have an opportunity to express political power, and there is no will. It really does give me Obama vibes.
That's fair, but we should remember that the AOC wing of the party did get a pledge from Pelosi that she would step down in 2022. I get that it could be too little too late, but that's already more than the Obama wing of the party ever tried to do. And AOC's replies to Justin Jackson/Kyle Kulinski's twitter - that she's working on things such as getting a M4A opponent off the major committee or forcing votes on things the Democrats have promised or rolling back PAYGO. That doesn't give me an "Obama vibe" as much as a "it's the best we can do with only 5 or so comrades in Congress right now" vibe.
that she’s working on things such as getting a M4A opponent off the major committee or forcing votes on things the Democrats have promised or rolling back PAYGO
Promising that progress is being made behind closed doors is the biggest thing I remember from the Obama admin.
There is an obvious lever of political power that they are refusing to touch. Why would Pelosi concede anything?
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held.
Shot at the Queen, you best not miss.
If AOC's caucus can't rally the votes, they've got a Speaker who will have traded away their committee assignments and legislative favors to someone else - almost guaranteed to be hostile to their left-wing interests.
This is only a good idea if AOC had a superior pick to Pelosi with a plurality of support in the party. And - win or lose - this coalition could leverage the median House Dem to compel better policy out of the House. I don't think they have that. I think folks like James Clyburn and Richard Neal and Adam Schiff have the lion's share of leverage.
From what I’ve seen from Dore, he’s pissed and wants to hold AOC accountable over this.
Just like every other media circus freak, he wants to attach his name to AOC's because she's high profile and he's not. Dan fucking Crenshaw does this all the time. Fling shit at AOC and see what sticks.
I feel like I’m watching Liberals process Obama’s first term all over again in this thread.
Always fighting the last war. AOC isn't Obama. I know this because I don't see her heels propped up on the Resolute Desk.
This is only a good idea if AOC had a superior pick to Pelosi with a plurality of support in the party
Why? How does a plurality in the Party help anything? Pelosi needs their votes to be Speaker. They can require that Pelosi make a public concession to their wing of the party. After this moment passes, Pelosi has no reason to listen to them again until 2022.
Just like every other media circus freak, he wants to attach his name to AOC’s because she’s high profile and he’s not. Dan fucking Crenshaw does this all the time. Fling shit at AOC and see what sticks.
The fact that Democratic Entryists see "following up on campaign promises" as "flinging shit" is why nothing will ever happen from this strategy.
Always fighting the last war. AOC isn’t Obama. I know this because I don’t see her heels propped up on the Resolute Desk.
I do not care about signaling. This sounds like Libs defending Obama because he does not golf every weekend.
Here is the similarity between AOC and Obama: they both refuse to use their leverage - mass public support and opportunities of political power - to demand concessions in the public square. They are only interested in what's "achievable" in back-door deals.
This moment is the best leverage they will have in a very long time. It is incredibly lucky that the small progressive wing can swing the Speaker vote. At their current trajectory, progressives are decades away from controlling the House. We do not have that kind of time. They need to use this opportunity to its fullest.
Instead, they want us to believe they are working really really hard in back-door deals. Democratic careerists would much rather just say they are fighting for you behind closed doors.
It is such a fall from grace to see AOC go from occupying Pelosi's office with climate protestors in 2018. If there was ever a time to bring out your supporters for leverage, it is now. But back in 2018, they were harmless. It made for a good photo-op.
I imagine you supported that move by AOC. To go from that, to "shoot at the Queen, you best not miss" is embarrassing. She missed in 2018, and lost nothing.
Because Pelosi isn't the final boss in a video game and beating her doesn't mean you win.
I do not care about signaling.
Going to do a Communism, but without communicating intent or efficacy to the proletariat. This vanguard can't fail.
Here is the similarity between AOC and Obama: they both refuse to use their leverage
Obama routinely used his leverage... to benefit institutions of capital and the police state. Let me know when AOC is campaigning for Joe Lieberman, re-upping Robert Gates to the Pentagon, and nixing a basketball walkout in protest of police brutality.
It is such a fall from grace to see AOC go from occupying Pelosi’s office with climate protestors in 2018.
Cortez is currently backing a Ro Khanna's state-based M4A legislation, a law that has a much better chance of passing than blanket national M4A. Picking a fight with Pelosi right now would undermine that effort, given that both she and incoming HHS secretary Xavier Becerra support it.
Cortez is currently backing a Ro Khanna’s state-based M4A legislation, a law that has a much better chance of passing than blanket national M4A
M4A is not passing any time soon. Most of the Democratic Party is owned by Big Pharma and Biden has said he will veto. Anyone talking about "the chances of M4A passing" is lying to your face. That is what AOC and Ro Khanna are doing.
The goal right now is to expose the Democratic establishment. They are not interested in that.
to benefit institutions of capital and the police state. Let me know when AOC is campaigning for Joe Lieberman, re-upping Robert Gates to the Pentagon, and nixing a basketball walkout in protest of police brutality.
We are about to see AOC vote for every single ghoul in Biden's administration. We can dig through her voting record and see countless evil bills she's voted on. She is not as powerful as Obama. She does not have the political clout to kill a basketball strike.
The goal right now is to expose the Democratic establishment.
Joe Biden is already President. He'll be walking around with his pants at his knees for the next four years. They're exposed. Nobody is going to remember a quixotic M4A vote inside a month of it being cast.
We are about to see AOC vote for every single ghoul in Biden’s administration.
The House doesn't vote on Presidential appointments, dummy.
To get opponents on record? You know, normal political tactics?
Why spend your time working on a bill that will not pass? All the efforts in the progressive bloc should be about delegitimizing the Democratic establishment. That is, if they were at all serious.
Nobody is going to remember a quixotic M4A vote inside a month of it being cast
That all depends on how willing the progressive wing is willing to rail on Dems who voted against health care in a pandemic. There is no will to power in the progressive bloc, so we know that won't happen. They just want to be including in Democratic back-door dealings.
The House doesn’t vote on Presidential appointments
Her progressive friends in the Senate will. She will play her role in the House.
Again, you are caught up in the same political game that Obama fans were in 2009.
Why spend your time working on a bill that will not pass?
That's what I'm asking you. You're ready to fight Pelosi for her speakership on this issue.
All the efforts in the progressive bloc should be about delegitimizing the Democratic establishment.
That's some naval gazing inside baseball shit. Nobody on the ground gives a shit. Congress already has a sub-10% approval rating. All you're doing is playing into the pissing contest.
That all depends on how willing the progressive wing is willing to rail on Dems who voted against health care in a pandemic.
Where is the political economy in this? Who cares? You're not doing a thing about material condition.
No they are not. No one is on record voting for M4A. Stop lying.
That’s what I’m asking you. You’re ready to fight Pelosi for her speakership on this issue.
I want progressives to fight for a vote on M4A. No M4A bill is getting passed until, at least, 2024. The only way it will pass is if progressives win the presidency and can browbeat Congress to pass it.
The only way this will happen if the progressive make a clear distinction between themselves and the rest of the Democratic Party on popular issues - such as M4A. There is no difference between AOC and, say, Kamala Harris on this issue. They are both co-sponsors of the bill.
Right now, the only people who believe AOC is different than the Democratic machine are the people who want to believe her signaling is genuine. It is the same way Trump and Obama maintain their support despite doing nothing.
That’s some naval gazing inside baseball shit. Nobody on the ground gives a shit.
Bernie's entire political power came from pushing Congress on issues that would never pass.
He would not have been successful in 2016 if not for the fact that he voted against the war in Iraq and the bank bailouts. The entire propaganda effort for his campaign centered on these votes as proof of his legitimacy.
If you disagree with this tactic of building power, you should not be supporting any Democratic Party entryist.
Where is the political economy in this? Who cares?
Where is the political economy in withholding health care during a pandemic? How dense can you be?
Have you been paying attention to the outrage over withholding stimulus? Every person in my life who is not tuned into politics is pissed about the stimulus negotiations right now. People see M4A as pandemic relief.
The current proposed legislation has 118 co-sponsors. That's your list. If they're not on the list, you can pretty much guarantee they don't support this bill.
The only way this will happen if the progressive make a clear distinction between themselves and the rest of the Democratic Party
I haven't seen any indication that this is "the only way" M4A advances. Just to the contrary, I see a host of amendments that could advance M4A by other means. The Ro Khanna amendment is a big one.
Right now, the only people who believe AOC is different than the Democratic machine are the people who want to believe her signaling is genuine.
Who the fuck are you to make such a declaration? You're talking out your ass.
Bernie’s entire political power came from pushing Congress on issues that would never pass.
Bernie was The Rollcall Amendment King. He passed oodles of lines of legislation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in policy. Far from being ineffectual, he was hugely influential in shaping American policy.
Where is the political economy in withholding health care during a pandemic?
The capitalist system benefits from selectively administering health care as a means of compelling labor. There is a great deal of political economy in the status quo and quite a few Congressmen on both sides of the aisle defend it. This isn't some kind of secret that only a floor vote on M4A will expose. It's nakedly apparent.
The current proposed legislation has 118 co-sponsors. That’s your list. If they’re not on the list, you can pretty much guarantee they don’t support this bill.
The Senate equivalent had Warren and Kamala as co-sponsors. Co-sponsoring and not co-sponsoring are not the same as a "yes" or "no" vote, especially in the eyes of voters.
Who the fuck are you to make such a declaration? You’re talking out your ass.
The fact that her approval rating is comparable to Nancy Pelosi's. She supposedly supports the most popular legislation in the country, but no one has a reason to believe her. She looks like a normal Democrat.
Bernie was The Rollcall Amendment King. He passed oodles of lines of legislation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in policy. Far from being ineffectual, he was hugely influential in shaping American policy
Bernie did not run on "I passed roll-call amendments." He ran on "I opposed the Iraq War and the bank bailout. You can trust that I will vote in your interests on M4A, GND, etc." I worked on both campaigns extensively. No one would ever bring up roll-call votes when spreading propaganda.
The capitalist system benefits from selectively administering health care as a means of compelling labor. There is a great deal of political economy in the status quo and quite a few Congressmen on both sides of the aisle defend it. This isn’t some kind of secret that only a floor vote on M4A will expose. It’s nakedly apparent.
The political economy of the imperialism was obvious to anyone paying attention in 2003. And yet, the vote for the Iraq War has become the most important issue in elections since. What's "nakedly apparent" to you is not to everyone else.
Co-sponsoring and not co-sponsoring are not the same as a “yes” or “no” vote
Bring the bill to the floor of the McConnell Senate and they can vote for it, the bill can still fail, and you can still insist they weren't really seriously in favor of the legislation.
If there was the will to pass it in the House, Pelosi would have brought it up by now. She did the Marijuana decriminalization, even though it will fail in the Senate.
There is no reason to play cover for the Democrats holding up M4A.
Progressives are clearly in the wrong for failing to leverage the Speakership vote publicly. There is no reason to defend them over it, even if you generally like them.
You can use the leverage on something that gives you some permanent form of leverage. An M4A vote is not that since we all know what the results of that vote would be. Voting for Pelosi in exchange for this vote would be letting her off easy, it is letting her appease the left without anything at all changing
My biggest issue is that no conversation about leveraging their votes is happening in the progressive caucus.
That's because it's all taking place next month. The Dems have only a 4 person majority so I'm sure various groups within the Dems are thinking about how to make the most of this situation. It's Pelosi's last term as Speaker and she probably would want to avoid conflict at the beginning of Biden's term
AOC specifically said that progressives need to "continue to pressure the Democrats after the election." She has also said that progressives need to force a vote on M4A.
Threaten to vote against Pelosi unless a M4A vote is held. It is a prime opportunity to do follow through on those promises.
Progressives won't have leverage again for awhile. They might as well get every house member on the record for M4A. That would help a lot of progressive challenges in 2022.
From what I've seen from Dore, he's pissed and wants to hold AOC accountable over this. How is that "performative outrage?"
I feel like I'm watching Liberals process Obama's first term all over again in this thread.
Do they actually have leverage now? That is, can the AOC-wing of the party keep Pelosi from being elected speaker if they force the issue, or do they still have too few votes?
If they don't have the votes to boot Pelosi, we're just talking about something performative.
Depending on the results in the last two seats, they would need 5-7 votes.
I really genuinely would not give a shit about this if it was just performative. But they have a real opportunity to express political power here, and there is no will.
I'm assuming Democrats lost 11 net seats, which would bring them down to a 224-211 majority. It looks like all Representatives vote between the nominees each party puts forth.
So I think they would need 7 (to make the vote 218-217 in favor of Republicans), and we'd have a Republican speaker. It looks possible, but I don't think it's a clear-cut decision. They don't really have anything to win (Medicare for All isn't passing the Senate, especially if the Georgia races go red) and Biden said he'd veto it if it gets to him -- that's all assuming it passes the House, which it still probably wouldn't. As for what there is to lose, it's a pretty bad look (to put it mildly) to vote with Republicans, I don't know what damage a Republican speaker could do, and if they successfully force the vote but it doesn't even pass the House that would be used as "too radical for America" bait for years.
The progressives have a clear opportunity to express political power. There are people demanding they use that to follow through on a campaign promise (get a floor vote on M4A). The response from the progressives to that demand is "No."
Every single swing state Democrat who opposed M4A lost. Opposing health care during a pandemic is incredibly unpopular. Every Democratic M4A "no" vote is an open progressive seat in 2022.
There is no reason to make excuses for them. Leftists turning into pundits is exactly how you create the Obama phenomenon.
They should absolutely not vote for Pelosi unless they get something significant in return. A floor vote isn't that
That's fair. I wish there was a more public forum to discuss what the demands should be.
I really wish they had their own political party. Discussing demands would be a big topic right now.
Yeah I'm assuming that discussions are ongoing now because Pelosi would probably want to avoid public challenges atthe start of the term. That's not a bad thing, provided they either get what they want now or mount a public challenger next month
To do what? What is there to gain, and what is the risk?
They definitely don't have the power to actually pass any policy, that's for sure.
Who? A talking head, or is there real support from a bunch of actual people?
Of course they are not going to pass any policy. Anyone who thinks they are is delusional. So, they need to find other ways to score political wins.
As I said before:
The Democratic base is extremely pro-M4A. Exposing all the Democrats who oppose it is good. Many conservative Democrats get by just saying "I support affordable health care for all" when their constituents want M4A.
All of the social democratic media is supporting it, and it is receiving a positive response.
90% of the Democratic Party (70% of the country) support M4A. It is not that surprising they would support a vote on it. Most people do not have pundit-brain.
The default assumption should be that this is performative, then.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, it doesn't take much to arrange the votes so that it just fails in the House, and then you have all but a handful of Democrats on record supporting M4A. Now it's easier for the ghouls of the party to run on their "support" of it. And it would take even less to have every single House Democrat vote to pass it and then watch it die in the Senate.
There's some value to this idea, but how much is an open question. A comparable vote would be the recent one on decriminalizing marijuana -- the House passed it, but it's going nowhere. That moves the needle a bit, sure, but ultimately it's not much.
Who? I've heard Jimmy Dore supporting it, who isn't exactly a household name, but that's it. And M4A being popular among the Democratic base =/= the Democratic base demanding a vote that will not produce M4A.
So all we can do is just talk idly about policies that we may or may not support in our own respective camps, but when it comes to actually voting them into law... it's just performative to even attempt to sway party leadership into doing so?
sounds like hypocrisy or nefarious hand-waving either way
They claim they can never do anything because it's all performative, but then say shit like "we can't 100 years for M4A, we need it now." Their current tactics are no different than any other Democratic Progressive Caucus.
I haven't paid attention to the Democratic Party in awhile, this shit is insane lol
it's self-deluded & schizophrenic to both desire revolution & reform at the same time lol
That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about a vote (the House speaker election) to force a vote (the House vote on M4A) that is still unlikely -- at best -- to pass anything into law.
If you force a vote you know will fail, yes, odds are that's performative. It might have some value, but that's debatable.
so you're saying participation in liberal democratic electoral politics amounts to performative & dilatory complacency?
hey, that's what I've been trying to tell you!
Voting something into law isn't performative. A vote that will fail but has some real consequences -- e.g., the people who vote "no" are likely to get bounced -- probably isn't performative either.
But if you know a vote will fail, and you know there will likely be no consequences for its opponents? Yeah, probably performative.
the vote is going to fail... either way it's going to fail like it always does
your job as a voter is to tout the party line & regurgitate MSNBC or Fox News talking points, not to influence policy in any real way
the vote in Congress is going to fail, therefore in effect, so have the votes on the precinct level
This is just nonsense
I agree, voting & hoping is nonsense & has never helped anyone achieve anything other than the right to vote & hope
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
let's take a vote!
:pigpoop:
maybe the vote tally will tell us how to act & which way to go
They do that now with the "co-sponsors" list.
So far, I've seen TYT, The Hill, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski - the entire Justice Democrat world seems to be pushing it. That seems like the largest networks supporting progressives, which means the largest viewership supporting progressives.
The Democratic base wants M4A. Why would putting it for a vote be so controversial? I don't understand that
Showing people which Democratic members do not support M4A is useful for the Democratic base.
So... this would be no different? I'm not seeing a whole lot of benefit here, certainly not if the Senate stays Republican. I don't know when the speaker will be elected; maybe they're waiting to get the Senate results in.
Well, look at the discussion in this thread. It's not simply "do you want M4A, yes or no?" M4A likely isn't even on the table, so we're talking about secondary, non-material, tactical benefits, the value of which is debatable. It's reasonable to think a list of who voted for the bill would be more valuable than the co-sponsors list, but it's also reasonable to think that's not gaining much at all. It's reasonable to think the risk of centrist Democrats calling the bluff and forcing a choice between Pelosi/no M4A vote or a Republican speaker is worth it, but it's reasonable to think that could blow up in our faces, too.
No we are not. We are talking about demonstrating to people that progressives will fight for health care. Right now, they are all talk on the issue on everyone's mind right now.
No it is not.
If progressive were to run with the attack line: "[dipshit politician] voted against health care in a pandemic." right now, they would be lying. That line of attack would be important for insurgents, since 90% of Democrats support M4A.
You need to play politics in the Democratic Party. Blue Dogs drag the House right every election by threatening to withhold their vote.
If you are going to play liberal democracy, at least put some thought into it. I feel like Democrat Entryists never do that.
But this is all talk, too -- it's not going to produce M4A. At most it will produce a few targets for primary campaigns, and it's not even guaranteed to do that.
Right now they can just say "[dipshit politician] is on record against M4A." I don't see the difference. And every single congressional Democrat could vote in favor of M4A and it is still virtually guaranteed to fail, so it might even put us in a worse spot than where we are now.
Pelosi is much closer to Blue Dog Democrats than she is to the AOC/Bernie wing of the party. And threatening to withhold your vote is a good strategy only if you get something valuable from it. I don't see the value here.
Taking extremely unpopular votes is a quick way to lose political support. You understand that, right? Democrats got railed in 2010 for their recession response.
Public opinion shows health care to be the pressing issue, especially given the pandemic. Progressives would have a lot to win by being the only faction in the House which supports it.
There is a big benefit politically, and no cost. But there is no will to power.
You're not reading what I'm writing. Every single congressional Democrat could vote for M4A and it still wouldn't pass. Forcing a vote would not force the ones who oppose M4A to go on record as such. They could just vote tactically (which is common) and then hold their votes for it up against progressive primary challengers. There's a very realistic way this could do less than nothing. There's no guarantee whatsoever that it would do anything positive.
The medical industry will not allow their politicians to vote unanimously for M4A. The Democrats do not want M4A to be their wedge issue with Republicans.
They can do that already by promising to vote for M4A when it comes up for a vote. The vote actually has to happen for a line to be drawn.
If an easy political lay-up is not possible, the Democratic entryists need to admit this is a dead end.
Why not, if it won't pass? Why wouldn't the medical industry (insurance companies, primarily) be OK with their pet politicians voting in a way that will (a) keep them in power, and (b) not cost the industry a dime? Why wouldn't Democrats be OK with taking up a popular policy, especially if they won't have to take a serious vote on it for years, and if when they do they can drag their feet on it for years longer, and then pass a half-baked version that's still a handout to insurance companies?
They know how the game is played. They know how to grandstand without accomplishing anything.
Again -- if they can already do something, there's nothing to be gained here.
A layup gets you points on the board. There are no points to put on the board here, because nothing will get passed.
The same reason many Democrats refuse to run on M4A. They don't want that to be the national conversation.
Again, voting "no" on extremely popular legislation is disastrous for politicians.
If you're promising M4A, why would the M4A voter oppose you? If you vote against M4A, the reason is obvious.
If that's the metric, this project to do entryism in the Democratic Party is a more resounding failure. I was under the impression the entryists were working to build their numbers in the House.
They don't refuse to run on it. They run on it, nearly all of them, but they water it down in the form of "Medicare for all who want it" (Rat Boy) or proposing some multi-year rollout that of course will never happen (Warren). I even had some Biden jackass on r*ddit tell me about how Medicare for All isn't the only way to do universal healthcare. It's all politician dodging the issue bullshit, but they aren't sticking to a flat "no."
Every single congressional Democrat could vote for it and it still wouldn't pass. What is so difficult about this concept? Exactly zero Democrats would be forced to vote no, and we still wouldn't get M4A.
Yes, because with 8 progressives in the House you can't do anything meaningful -- all you can do is performative stuff like this.
And calling entryism a failure at this point is like dieting for a day and asking why you haven't lost weight. The strategy isn't wrong, it just isn't a magical fix that instantly works.
Can you find a source on that quote? She went after Biden's transition team in August saying that adopting GOP talking points is wrong. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1296480664561291264?s=20
I misspoke there. It was that they need to "continue to push Democrats after the election." I did not mean to imply anything about the election cycle. I'll update my comment.
The progressives will likely have the votes to prevent Pelosi from getting the speakership. It is insane that they are not making a public show of that leverage. The centrist Democrats do it every cycle.
It is very concerning that they not making any use of that leverage. The progressive project would gain a lot of popularity by both undermining Pelosi - who is incredibly unpopular - and fighting for the most popular legislation in the country, which was also a campaign promise.
People have been doing political work on the ground for years. AOC et al are only in office because of mass organizing to support them. Now, they have an opportunity to express political power, and there is no will. It really does give me Obama vibes.
That's fair, but we should remember that the AOC wing of the party did get a pledge from Pelosi that she would step down in 2022. I get that it could be too little too late, but that's already more than the Obama wing of the party ever tried to do. And AOC's replies to Justin Jackson/Kyle Kulinski's twitter - that she's working on things such as getting a M4A opponent off the major committee or forcing votes on things the Democrats have promised or rolling back PAYGO. That doesn't give me an "Obama vibe" as much as a "it's the best we can do with only 5 or so comrades in Congress right now" vibe.
Promising that progress is being made behind closed doors is the biggest thing I remember from the Obama admin.
There is an obvious lever of political power that they are refusing to touch. Why would Pelosi concede anything?
A vote that has no chance of producing M4A isn't very different from a promise that progress is being made behind closed doors.
Nancy Pelosi is fucking 80. It's likely she'd be stepping down anyway.
Shot at the Queen, you best not miss.
If AOC's caucus can't rally the votes, they've got a Speaker who will have traded away their committee assignments and legislative favors to someone else - almost guaranteed to be hostile to their left-wing interests.
This is only a good idea if AOC had a superior pick to Pelosi with a plurality of support in the party. And - win or lose - this coalition could leverage the median House Dem to compel better policy out of the House. I don't think they have that. I think folks like James Clyburn and Richard Neal and Adam Schiff have the lion's share of leverage.
Just like every other media circus freak, he wants to attach his name to AOC's because she's high profile and he's not. Dan fucking Crenshaw does this all the time. Fling shit at AOC and see what sticks.
Always fighting the last war. AOC isn't Obama. I know this because I don't see her heels propped up on the Resolute Desk.
Why? How does a plurality in the Party help anything? Pelosi needs their votes to be Speaker. They can require that Pelosi make a public concession to their wing of the party. After this moment passes, Pelosi has no reason to listen to them again until 2022.
The fact that Democratic Entryists see "following up on campaign promises" as "flinging shit" is why nothing will ever happen from this strategy.
I do not care about signaling. This sounds like Libs defending Obama because he does not golf every weekend.
Here is the similarity between AOC and Obama: they both refuse to use their leverage - mass public support and opportunities of political power - to demand concessions in the public square. They are only interested in what's "achievable" in back-door deals.
This moment is the best leverage they will have in a very long time. It is incredibly lucky that the small progressive wing can swing the Speaker vote. At their current trajectory, progressives are decades away from controlling the House. We do not have that kind of time. They need to use this opportunity to its fullest.
Instead, they want us to believe they are working really really hard in back-door deals. Democratic careerists would much rather just say they are fighting for you behind closed doors.
It is such a fall from grace to see AOC go from occupying Pelosi's office with climate protestors in 2018. If there was ever a time to bring out your supporters for leverage, it is now. But back in 2018, they were harmless. It made for a good photo-op.
I imagine you supported that move by AOC. To go from that, to "shoot at the Queen, you best not miss" is embarrassing. She missed in 2018, and lost nothing.
Absolute Obama lib shit.
Because Pelosi isn't the final boss in a video game and beating her doesn't mean you win.
Going to do a Communism, but without communicating intent or efficacy to the proletariat. This vanguard can't fail.
Obama routinely used his leverage... to benefit institutions of capital and the police state. Let me know when AOC is campaigning for Joe Lieberman, re-upping Robert Gates to the Pentagon, and nixing a basketball walkout in protest of police brutality.
Cortez is currently backing a Ro Khanna's state-based M4A legislation, a law that has a much better chance of passing than blanket national M4A. Picking a fight with Pelosi right now would undermine that effort, given that both she and incoming HHS secretary Xavier Becerra support it.
M4A is not passing any time soon. Most of the Democratic Party is owned by Big Pharma and Biden has said he will veto. Anyone talking about "the chances of M4A passing" is lying to your face. That is what AOC and Ro Khanna are doing.
The goal right now is to expose the Democratic establishment. They are not interested in that.
We are about to see AOC vote for every single ghoul in Biden's administration. We can dig through her voting record and see countless evil bills she's voted on. She is not as powerful as Obama. She does not have the political clout to kill a basketball strike.
Then why push for a vote?
Joe Biden is already President. He'll be walking around with his pants at his knees for the next four years. They're exposed. Nobody is going to remember a quixotic M4A vote inside a month of it being cast.
The House doesn't vote on Presidential appointments, dummy.
To get opponents on record? You know, normal political tactics?
Why spend your time working on a bill that will not pass? All the efforts in the progressive bloc should be about delegitimizing the Democratic establishment. That is, if they were at all serious.
That all depends on how willing the progressive wing is willing to rail on Dems who voted against health care in a pandemic. There is no will to power in the progressive bloc, so we know that won't happen. They just want to be including in Democratic back-door dealings.
Her progressive friends in the Senate will. She will play her role in the House.
Again, you are caught up in the same political game that Obama fans were in 2009.
Plenty of House Reps are already on record.
That's what I'm asking you. You're ready to fight Pelosi for her speakership on this issue.
That's some naval gazing inside baseball shit. Nobody on the ground gives a shit. Congress already has a sub-10% approval rating. All you're doing is playing into the pissing contest.
Where is the political economy in this? Who cares? You're not doing a thing about material condition.
No they are not. No one is on record voting for M4A. Stop lying.
I want progressives to fight for a vote on M4A. No M4A bill is getting passed until, at least, 2024. The only way it will pass is if progressives win the presidency and can browbeat Congress to pass it.
The only way this will happen if the progressive make a clear distinction between themselves and the rest of the Democratic Party on popular issues - such as M4A. There is no difference between AOC and, say, Kamala Harris on this issue. They are both co-sponsors of the bill.
Right now, the only people who believe AOC is different than the Democratic machine are the people who want to believe her signaling is genuine. It is the same way Trump and Obama maintain their support despite doing nothing.
Bernie's entire political power came from pushing Congress on issues that would never pass.
He would not have been successful in 2016 if not for the fact that he voted against the war in Iraq and the bank bailouts. The entire propaganda effort for his campaign centered on these votes as proof of his legitimacy.
If you disagree with this tactic of building power, you should not be supporting any Democratic Party entryist.
Where is the political economy in withholding health care during a pandemic? How dense can you be?
Have you been paying attention to the outrage over withholding stimulus? Every person in my life who is not tuned into politics is pissed about the stimulus negotiations right now. People see M4A as pandemic relief.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/cosponsors?q={%22search%22:[%22medicare+for+all%22]}&r=1&s=1&searchResultViewType=expanded
The current proposed legislation has 118 co-sponsors. That's your list. If they're not on the list, you can pretty much guarantee they don't support this bill.
I haven't seen any indication that this is "the only way" M4A advances. Just to the contrary, I see a host of amendments that could advance M4A by other means. The Ro Khanna amendment is a big one.
Who the fuck are you to make such a declaration? You're talking out your ass.
Bernie was The Rollcall Amendment King. He passed oodles of lines of legislation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in policy. Far from being ineffectual, he was hugely influential in shaping American policy.
The capitalist system benefits from selectively administering health care as a means of compelling labor. There is a great deal of political economy in the status quo and quite a few Congressmen on both sides of the aisle defend it. This isn't some kind of secret that only a floor vote on M4A will expose. It's nakedly apparent.
The Senate equivalent had Warren and Kamala as co-sponsors. Co-sponsoring and not co-sponsoring are not the same as a "yes" or "no" vote, especially in the eyes of voters.
The fact that her approval rating is comparable to Nancy Pelosi's. She supposedly supports the most popular legislation in the country, but no one has a reason to believe her. She looks like a normal Democrat.
Bernie did not run on "I passed roll-call amendments." He ran on "I opposed the Iraq War and the bank bailout. You can trust that I will vote in your interests on M4A, GND, etc." I worked on both campaigns extensively. No one would ever bring up roll-call votes when spreading propaganda.
The political economy of the imperialism was obvious to anyone paying attention in 2003. And yet, the vote for the Iraq War has become the most important issue in elections since. What's "nakedly apparent" to you is not to everyone else.
Bring the bill to the floor of the McConnell Senate and they can vote for it, the bill can still fail, and you can still insist they weren't really seriously in favor of the legislation.
If there was the will to pass it in the House, Pelosi would have brought it up by now. She did the Marijuana decriminalization, even though it will fail in the Senate.
There is no reason to play cover for the Democrats holding up M4A.
Progressives are clearly in the wrong for failing to leverage the Speakership vote publicly. There is no reason to defend them over it, even if you generally like them.
You can use the leverage on something that gives you some permanent form of leverage. An M4A vote is not that since we all know what the results of that vote would be. Voting for Pelosi in exchange for this vote would be letting her off easy, it is letting her appease the left without anything at all changing
I don't disagree. My biggest issue is that no conversation about leveraging their votes is happening in the progressive caucus.
They can express political power for the first time, and there is no will.
That's because it's all taking place next month. The Dems have only a 4 person majority so I'm sure various groups within the Dems are thinking about how to make the most of this situation. It's Pelosi's last term as Speaker and she probably would want to avoid conflict at the beginning of Biden's term
I really doubt they plan on leveraging their votes publicly given the response so far.