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.
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.