In a more general way: the political arena during the last couple of months, was centered around the fight between the radical right and the centre. If we force a vote on medicare for all, we make it a fight between the left and the rest. That would be a fight on our terms, which is exactly where you’d want to be in the political arena: you want to set the terms of the debate.
How are we sure it's going to end up as a big fight? If the vote actually happens couldn't it just look like the co-sponsor list? The best case I see if it gets more votes than the co-sponsor list but does not pass the House as the Dems have a slim majority. You still don't know if those votes are sincere or those are just votes to avoid a primary challenger when they know M4A isn't actually passing
How are we sure it’s going to end up as a big fight?
Imagine the following situation: when Pelosi caves and allows a vote on M4A, AOC (and the other DSA-elected officials and progressives) immediatly announce they'll endorse a primary challenger against every dem who votes against it. Then, they ask everyone to upload testimonials about why they need M4A, and contact their representatives about their need.
That's just a scenario I came up with, you can imagine other ones. The point is, if they want to let it escalate in to a fight, it can excalate in to a fight. But the starting point is the will to do it.
Still, that's not a guarantee of succes, but you'll never have that. But given the fact that (a) they have leverage because of the way the election of speaker of the house works and (b) the fact that millions of people lost their health insurance during a pandemic, I don't think there will be a more favorable balance of power for the left on the issue of medicare in the coming decade or so.
AOC (and the other DSA-elected officials and progressives) immediatly announce they’ll endorse a primary challenger against every dem who votes against it
This is already kind of the situation we live in. A lot of Democrats faced primary challengers this year, and with the presidential race out of the way I expect a lot more in 2022.
Best case I see for the M4A vote is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes. The Dems have a slim House majority, meaning a handful of conservative Democrats can kill the bill. The issue is you don't know who actually supports M4A. Kamala Harris cosponsored M4A, if she was in the House she would vote for it and still change her position when it is time to run for President.
This is already kind of the situation we live in. A lot of Democrats faced primary challengers this year, and with the presidential race out of the way I expect a lot more in 2022.
In a certain way, but I'm saying we should intensify that situation, and put more pressure on the people who oppose us by forcing the vote.
Best case I see for the M4A vote is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes.
If progressive leaders in congress would act like I described, much more is possible.
I understand that you don't feel a lot of hope, but the task of socialists is to create that hope, so that other people can look to our movement as their source of hope.
If 5 are not on board it does not pass the House, which is why I’m not optimistic.
But that's the point: even if we lose the vote, we win, because then we forced our enemies to vote against healthcare during a deadly pandemic when millions just lost their employer-based insurance.
Sure, I can see that. But those are the ones who are openly saying socialism ks the reason Dems didn't do well in the House elections so they'll gladly against it. There are so many Dems against M4A I'm not sure what is neong revealed. Those are the ones who are anyways going to be primaried
It also means that you can vote yes go avoid a primary. But this bill isn't going to pass so it's risk free yes.
The stimulus check affair revealed a lot more. You can tell peoole had the chance to stand ul to McConnel but folded real quick.
In the Chapo feed Amber had a small thing about a campaign to get unions to support M4A. Now that seems like the best way to get Dems to support M4A, make it a requirement for a union endorsement. That'll create pressure for sure
Sure, I can see that. But those are the ones who are openly saying socialism ks the reason Dems didn’t do well in the House elections so they’ll gladly against it. There are so many Dems against M4A I’m not sure what is neong revealed. Those are the ones who are anyways going to be primaried
The difference is that by putting pressure now (a) you increase the political cost of being against medicare for all and (b) you rile up your base in a similar same way as the radical wing of the republicans did by constantly trying to repeal obamacare: you show your base your fighting ferosiously, and you pull them in that fight with you.
If AOC and the rest of the squad don't engage in this sort of aggressive behaviour towards the rest of the democrats, electability (and other irrelevant characteristics) will still be an important factor in how the next presidential primary and the midterm primaries will be decided. If, on the other hand, the left is constantly seen as fighting on behalve of the people for certain popular social improvements (like M4A), it will be more about the issues, and the left will be fighting the electoral terrain in more favorable conditions.
A third thing I want to say is that by creating the conditions in which people are engaged in some sort of pressure campaign for M4A isn't just good because we like activism, it's also good because people learn trough their material corcumstances and thus trought the class struggle. Actians like these, create a better level of class consciousness.
But this bill isn’t going to pass so it’s risk free yes.
You're alluding to the senate being republican. I get that, but I think it's mistaken to believe that it wouldn't be a win for us if this bill would pass the house. It would create legitimacy for the movement, it would make it look like M4A is very winnable in the short term and it would destroy the "Bernie and the socialists want pie-in-the-sky unicorns" type of argument.
In the Chapo feed Amber had a small thing about a campaign to get unions to support M4A. Now that seems like the best way to get Dems to support M4A, make it a requirement for a union endorsement. That’ll create pressure for sure
Sure, I'm all for that. Create as many pressure as you possibly can. I don't think this is opposed to #forcethevote at all.
You’re alluding to the senate being republican. I get that, but I think it’s mistaken to believe that it wouldn’t be a win for us if this bill would pass the house. It would create legitimacy for the movement, it would make it look like M4A is very winnable in the short term and it would destroy the “Bernie and the socialists want pie-in-the-sky unicorns” type of argument.
If it could pass the House alone that would be a historic victory. With the slim majority the Democrats have, 5 no votes can sink a bill. In the best case scenario I can see M4A gaining support in the House but at least 5 are going to be against it. And each House member knows that their vote isn't going to be the tipping point that brings it to a win since it'll have some against it.
If, on the other hand, the left is constantly seen as fighting on behalve of the people for certain popular social improvements (like M4A), it will be more about the issues, and the left will be fighting the electoral terrain in more favorable condition
I agree with this. Optically it looks good. My concern wasn't that it would look bad but like nothing would really be gained
I think it's something but not a major gain, so I'm disagreeing with those who are absolutely certain this is the main strategy we shlould all focus on and our best bet. I haven't been considering the optics that much compared to like what we gain from the vote.
How are we sure it's going to end up as a big fight? If the vote actually happens couldn't it just look like the co-sponsor list? The best case I see if it gets more votes than the co-sponsor list but does not pass the House as the Dems have a slim majority. You still don't know if those votes are sincere or those are just votes to avoid a primary challenger when they know M4A isn't actually passing
Imagine the following situation: when Pelosi caves and allows a vote on M4A, AOC (and the other DSA-elected officials and progressives) immediatly announce they'll endorse a primary challenger against every dem who votes against it. Then, they ask everyone to upload testimonials about why they need M4A, and contact their representatives about their need.
That's just a scenario I came up with, you can imagine other ones. The point is, if they want to let it escalate in to a fight, it can excalate in to a fight. But the starting point is the will to do it.
Still, that's not a guarantee of succes, but you'll never have that. But given the fact that (a) they have leverage because of the way the election of speaker of the house works and (b) the fact that millions of people lost their health insurance during a pandemic, I don't think there will be a more favorable balance of power for the left on the issue of medicare in the coming decade or so.
This is already kind of the situation we live in. A lot of Democrats faced primary challengers this year, and with the presidential race out of the way I expect a lot more in 2022.
Best case I see for the M4A vote is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes. The Dems have a slim House majority, meaning a handful of conservative Democrats can kill the bill. The issue is you don't know who actually supports M4A. Kamala Harris cosponsored M4A, if she was in the House she would vote for it and still change her position when it is time to run for President.
In a certain way, but I'm saying we should intensify that situation, and put more pressure on the people who oppose us by forcing the vote.
If progressive leaders in congress would act like I described, much more is possible.
I understand that you don't feel a lot of hope, but the task of socialists is to create that hope, so that other people can look to our movement as their source of hope.
The Dems have 222 seats in the House, you need 218 for a majority. If 5 are not on board it does not pass the House, which is why I'm not optimistic.
5 Dems voted against marajuana decriminalization a while back
But that's the point: even if we lose the vote, we win, because then we forced our enemies to vote against healthcare during a deadly pandemic when millions just lost their employer-based insurance.
Sure, I can see that. But those are the ones who are openly saying socialism ks the reason Dems didn't do well in the House elections so they'll gladly against it. There are so many Dems against M4A I'm not sure what is neong revealed. Those are the ones who are anyways going to be primaried
It also means that you can vote yes go avoid a primary. But this bill isn't going to pass so it's risk free yes.
The stimulus check affair revealed a lot more. You can tell peoole had the chance to stand ul to McConnel but folded real quick.
In the Chapo feed Amber had a small thing about a campaign to get unions to support M4A. Now that seems like the best way to get Dems to support M4A, make it a requirement for a union endorsement. That'll create pressure for sure
The difference is that by putting pressure now (a) you increase the political cost of being against medicare for all and (b) you rile up your base in a similar same way as the radical wing of the republicans did by constantly trying to repeal obamacare: you show your base your fighting ferosiously, and you pull them in that fight with you.
If AOC and the rest of the squad don't engage in this sort of aggressive behaviour towards the rest of the democrats, electability (and other irrelevant characteristics) will still be an important factor in how the next presidential primary and the midterm primaries will be decided. If, on the other hand, the left is constantly seen as fighting on behalve of the people for certain popular social improvements (like M4A), it will be more about the issues, and the left will be fighting the electoral terrain in more favorable conditions.
A third thing I want to say is that by creating the conditions in which people are engaged in some sort of pressure campaign for M4A isn't just good because we like activism, it's also good because people learn trough their material corcumstances and thus trought the class struggle. Actians like these, create a better level of class consciousness.
You're alluding to the senate being republican. I get that, but I think it's mistaken to believe that it wouldn't be a win for us if this bill would pass the house. It would create legitimacy for the movement, it would make it look like M4A is very winnable in the short term and it would destroy the "Bernie and the socialists want pie-in-the-sky unicorns" type of argument.
Sure, I'm all for that. Create as many pressure as you possibly can. I don't think this is opposed to #forcethevote at all.
If it could pass the House alone that would be a historic victory. With the slim majority the Democrats have, 5 no votes can sink a bill. In the best case scenario I can see M4A gaining support in the House but at least 5 are going to be against it. And each House member knows that their vote isn't going to be the tipping point that brings it to a win since it'll have some against it.
I agree with this. Optically it looks good. My concern wasn't that it would look bad but like nothing would really be gained
So, it seems like we're in agreement that #forcethevote is a decent objective?
I think it's something but not a major gain, so I'm disagreeing with those who are absolutely certain this is the main strategy we shlould all focus on and our best bet. I haven't been considering the optics that much compared to like what we gain from the vote.