For the same reason it was important to vote in down ballot races during the election, nobody expects it to pass, it's about acquiring political ammunition so demsocs and left-adjacent candidates can win in local, state, and maybe even national races in 2022
Woudlnt this just allow for more democrats who wouldnt vote otherwise to vote for it and trick more people?
That would be too much of a risk for the neolibs, and it would piss off their donors, the votes will reflect the actual positions
And the dems aren't taking the senate anything before 2028 so its now or never, better for the left and Americans hurt by the pandemic to get pissed off it failed then nothing at all happening because of "whats the point" mentality
That would be too much of a risk for the neolibs, and it would piss off their donors, the votes will reflect the actual positions
Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren all cosponsored the Senate version of the bill, then backtracked later. If everyone knows it will lose, the votes aren't going to mean anything.
But couldn't every Dem in the house just vote for it knowing it would die in the Senate and even if it made it through there that it would be veto'd by Joe? Their donors surely understand hiding your true colors to retain power
Not trying to go after you here, but these are thoughts I've had about this issue
If the dems pass it by faking then good for us it's still passed, if after that they fail to take back the senate that's political ammunition for us, if Joe vetoes the bill that also political ammunition for us, on all potential angles the vote benefits us, how much it benefits is up to debate but there still a range of benefits which is why it's worth doing
Ultimately it seems like framing this all within electoral politics is rather pointless. It's ammunition for what? How is it actually going to change anything? By the time there are primaries this is a at best a distant blip in the memory of the electorate, and if you're organizing to radicalize people there are plenty of other issues much more impactful to speak about.
Sure it could do something, but the chances of that are incredibly low, to the point it doesn't feel worth the effort involved in getting it to happen.
If we want to talk electoral politics then the controversy should rest on Pelosi's Speaker of the House role and not that she'll get voted for if she lets a m4a vote fail in the house "so we can know who is bad"
The need for healthcare is never a "distant blip in the memory of the electorate" especially after covid and actually getting neolibs to vote against the bill without equivocating is useful for both radicalization and local and state races
It doesn't matter whether WE know which neolib is a fake or not on healthcare, the point is to get them to become open about it so that we can get hit them from the left and frankly it also doesn't matter whether the chances are low, you do it anyway, there is nothing else of worth going on
Outside of electoral politics there are plenty of organisations that are worth your time more than this and within electoral politics focusing on how bad pelosi is and how she shouldn't be speaker is also more worthwhile because at least there's a chance she gets pushed aside
Outside of electoral politics there are plenty of organisations
Not where I live, so no, this is the only political engagement "worth" my time
and within electoral politics focusing on how bad pelosi is and how she shouldn’t be speaker is also more worthwhile because at least there’s a chance she gets pushed aside
There is zero chance Pelosi gets pushed aside in the current moment, but there is a CHANCE to force a vote on M4A, don't put the cart before the horse
A vote for a bill that can pass is for sure a higher commitment. The best case scenario of this bill is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes, and it won't pass if just a few Dems are against it as the majority is a slim one. Which is why I'm not considering it a higher commitment. Someone can vote yes now and then change their mind when they run for higher office
deleted by creator
For the same reason it was important to vote in down ballot races during the election, nobody expects it to pass, it's about acquiring political ammunition so demsocs and left-adjacent candidates can win in local, state, and maybe even national races in 2022
That would be too much of a risk for the neolibs, and it would piss off their donors, the votes will reflect the actual positions
And the dems aren't taking the senate anything before 2028 so its now or never, better for the left and Americans hurt by the pandemic to get pissed off it failed then nothing at all happening because of "whats the point" mentality
Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Elizabeth Warren all cosponsored the Senate version of the bill, then backtracked later. If everyone knows it will lose, the votes aren't going to mean anything.
Cosponsoring and votes are not the same thing
But couldn't every Dem in the house just vote for it knowing it would die in the Senate and even if it made it through there that it would be veto'd by Joe? Their donors surely understand hiding your true colors to retain power
Not trying to go after you here, but these are thoughts I've had about this issue
If the dems pass it by faking then good for us it's still passed, if after that they fail to take back the senate that's political ammunition for us, if Joe vetoes the bill that also political ammunition for us, on all potential angles the vote benefits us, how much it benefits is up to debate but there still a range of benefits which is why it's worth doing
Ultimately it seems like framing this all within electoral politics is rather pointless. It's ammunition for what? How is it actually going to change anything? By the time there are primaries this is a at best a distant blip in the memory of the electorate, and if you're organizing to radicalize people there are plenty of other issues much more impactful to speak about.
Sure it could do something, but the chances of that are incredibly low, to the point it doesn't feel worth the effort involved in getting it to happen.
If we want to talk electoral politics then the controversy should rest on Pelosi's Speaker of the House role and not that she'll get voted for if she lets a m4a vote fail in the house "so we can know who is bad"
deleted by creator
But how is this used for further radicalization?
deleted by creator
The need for healthcare is never a "distant blip in the memory of the electorate" especially after covid and actually getting neolibs to vote against the bill without equivocating is useful for both radicalization and local and state races
It doesn't matter whether WE know which neolib is a fake or not on healthcare, the point is to get them to become open about it so that we can get hit them from the left and frankly it also doesn't matter whether the chances are low, you do it anyway, there is nothing else of worth going on
Outside of electoral politics there are plenty of organisations that are worth your time more than this and within electoral politics focusing on how bad pelosi is and how she shouldn't be speaker is also more worthwhile because at least there's a chance she gets pushed aside
Not where I live, so no, this is the only political engagement "worth" my time
There is zero chance Pelosi gets pushed aside in the current moment, but there is a CHANCE to force a vote on M4A, don't put the cart before the horse
deleted by creator
What's the difference in terms of commitment
One's a vote that COULD change the lives of millions and the other is a name on a paper
A vote for a bill that can pass is for sure a higher commitment. The best case scenario of this bill is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes, and it won't pass if just a few Dems are against it as the majority is a slim one. Which is why I'm not considering it a higher commitment. Someone can vote yes now and then change their mind when they run for higher office
If anyone understands marketing and PR with faux caring it's large corporations