Permanently Deleted

  • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    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

    • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      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.

      • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        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.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          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.