M4A is the gateway to public single-payer, a big cornerstone of Kirsten Gillibrand and other 2020 dems campaigns seem to be M4A through buy in. She went into specifics of the plan on the most recent episode of Pod Save America but can't recall the numbers off the top of my head. And I'm sure she isn;t the only one with that proposal so yeah hopefully in 2020 we start seeing some real progress on that front.
yeah Gillibrand's only getting that endorsement if we're talking the general election, in the primary I don't think AOC'd go any further than Sanders/Warren (and if anyone's claiming otherwise they're cartoonishly naive)
I'm on the hype train, but she's a freshman congresswoman with no accomplishments to her name other than getting elected. There was polling from the other week that showed that only the Fox News and always online types were the only ones who knew her. She just doesn't have the name recognition or clout to swing a race just yet.
This is my problem with the current discourse. We're dragging people by drudging up things that are years old. And during a time when I believe the conversation is always accelerating quickly, it feels bad to not be giving candidates a chance to re-evaluate their positions and restate them for the current discourse. What will matter to me first is what the candidates promise during their run. Only then, if there isn't a clear choice, will I start looking at the past with more scrutiny to make a decision.
Hell there is definitely old laundry from Bernie that never gets addressed, but ultimately people are willing to ignore sour spots of candidates they like. The "honesty" argument in particular is hard to manage unless they have a consistent record of lies.
I'm sure the guy who bashed Hillary relentelessly about NAFTA and a health insurance mandate would never propose a massive multilateral trade deal or a health insurance mandate as part of his policy suite while in office.
One interpretation is that she's changed. The other is that she was bullshitting in the '00s on the issue and was playing to her relatively red upstate district at a time when illegal immigration was actually a legitimately big problem. (that got solved via a literal border wall, the crash of the housing market, and falling fertility rates that led to better quality of life in Central/South America.)
Definitely. But literally all the candidates do. My only problem right now is with people like Biden and Gabbard who are saying/doing out of touch shit today.
Oh for sure. Biden and Gabbard are the some of the proper examples of people that have an image problem, and rightfully so.
She actually cosponsored his $15 proposal, but I think I know what you're getting at and I think that's more a style difference.
Not Pigeon, but my take would be that she's very, very good at messaging and communicating things in a way that's extraordinarily rare.
I agree, and I actually think the two of them need each other for this reason. Bernie brings up Socdem talking points that aren't 100% realistic to pass, while Warren is more of a Demsoc who can probably manage to make some change that gets 60% of the way there, but wouldn't be able to do so if Bernie never got the conversation going in the first place.
Being able to build coalitions is probably more important because you need a bunch of people to agree with your points and vote with you in order to enact good policy.
Twitter is extremely unrepresentative of the entire population. As are the posters here, I think (I include myself here!).
I get that, but I'm saying if her endorsement doesn't matter then whose does, other than Obama?
https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/190125_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_DK-1.pdf
Everyone whose endorsement could swing the race is running, outside of Obama. That's how wide open this is.
He didn't have a majority. Al Franken seat was still being contested. Joe Lieberman was still trash. Senator Kennedy was almost dead, I believe.
Interesting....
Politics isn't just about policy. The candidate actually matters as well, because eventually a candidate will have to govern as well. The presidency is actually a huge bureaucracy (look at how much chaos there's been due to the government shutdown; and not just that, the president has a wide latitude in determining day-to-day policy [e.g. IRS rules, immigration rules, etc.] and how those policies are enforced).
I know. The date is in the url and in the pdf.
Very much this. I know there are lots of folks who want to write off people being excited about AOC and dismiss them as being trendy, trying to score brownie points or box them in as "libs" or "centrists" but the reality is that AOC is great because she seems to be aiming to advance progressive policy while having an engaging personality, a gift for communication, the freshness of being younger and none of the baggage around race and social issues that Sanders will probably never properly address.
Those are the kind of thoughts that are best kept private. There was a post earlier today with an inappropriate comment that was made by a Bernie supportet about the women who support Beto. It sounded like maybe there were similar sentiments being expressed.
every democratic policy is politically impossible unless we get rid of the filibuster, which dem senators will never go for
I can only speak for myself but I would be all for it. If she can inspire people to demand more power and more agency for workers over the systems they feed that can only be a good thing.
Right, but it'll still require us to rewrite the laws surrounding investors in order to work.
I'd have to know more details to give a full endorsement but I like the idea of workers having more security, investment and benefit from their labour. Something gradual at first to get people conditioned to the idea and show that it can work. Some government assistance to get the experiment running across a few industries would be fine. Gather some data. It may also raise awareness and encourage investment into community green energy co-operatives and benefit a climate control plan, as well.
Part of the reason for the rising healthcare costs has been the Affordable Healthcare act. Hence why you have/had many voters not happy with Obamacare.
Kinda what happens when you buckle and pass a Heritage Foundation plan instead of UHC or at least a public option, all while having a full mandate and all three branches. Fuck blue dog Democrats, and corporatists.
Right of course. I was just responding to the question of her advocating that position.
