Democrats already retreating from public option before DNC even starts

[Eacaraxe]

On the even of a massive anti-M4A, anti-public option ad campaign managed by Democratic lobbyists and run by a former Hillary staffer, on behalf of a dark money group funded by the health care and insurance industries and acting on behalf of its interests, Democratic policymakers and campaign staffers are already voicing intent to back away from a public option and simply expand the ACA, including restoring the court-overruled individual mandate.

In direct contradiction of what the Biden campaign is promising, but entirely consistent with his policy positions from the primary campaign.

This comes at a point in which national polls show the race beginning to tighten:

CNN Poll: Biden and Trump matchup tightens as enthusiasm hits new high

Joe Biden's lead over Donald Trump among registered voters has significantly narrowed since June, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, even as the former vice president maintains an advantage over the President on several top issues and his choice of California Sen. Kamala Harris as a...

www.cnn.com

Trump narrows gap with Biden, new poll shows

A new national poll released on the eve of the two major political party conventions indicates Democratic challenger Joe Biden with a smaller lead over President Trump than most other live telephone operator surveys show.

www.foxnews.com

While Biden suffers from significant approval and enthusiasm gaps among Democratic voters, compared to Trump:

Public’s Mood Turns Grim; Trump Trails Biden on Most Personal Traits, Major Issues

With less than five months until the 2020 elections, Americans are deeply unhappy with the state of the nation.

www.pewresearch.org

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?

news.gallup.com

While storied and well-respected liberal Democrat John Kasich prepares to headline the DNC speaker's list this evening. Apparently, by attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the press, for having the temerity to advocate for policies with over 75% support among Democrats and clear majority support among "independents".

 

[tippy2k2]

I suppose the easiest way to reply to this is to just copy/paste what I said in the "Bernie/Biden Task Force" post

OT: Someone wake me up when Biden is actually supporting some of these (some look pretty good but this is just a Task Force, Biden could just tell them all to get lost and if you don't like it, vote for someone else per his typical response when questioned by people during The Primaries).

The insurance one intrigues me the most given what I assume is my crystal clear stance on our health care system by now but as Ewok stated, it sounds too good to be true from Joe Biden. I'd have to get a lot more concrete information about what exactly his plan with that program would be because it sounds a LOT like M4A except it's means tested (or at least I assume it's means tested because if it's not, there'd be no reason for everyone NOT to join with this program based on the description in the story). Usually if you're seeing something that seems too good to be true, it is.

But again, all those questions hinge on whether Joe "I'd veto M4A" Biden would even do these recommendations...

I think most of us believed that Biden would either flat out ignore or backpedal like The Flash on basically everything that Task Force talked about but I figured they'd at least wait until they were voted in before blowing this off. But again, they've made it clear they want to court Moderate Republicans instead of Progressives so again, you might as well double down on that rhetoric at this point.

 

[Eacaraxe]

But again, they've made it clear they want to court Moderate Republicans instead of Progressives so again, you might as well double down on that rhetoric at this point.

Well that's kind of the problem. They pulled that shit in '16, and we're not discussing Hillary's re-election for a reason. That being, the "moderate Republicans" that are promised to be delivered don't actually exist, and even if they did, the vote share Democrats stand to gain by courting them is less than the vote share Democrats stand to lose by alienating everyone in the country left of Richard Nixon. Let alone in the states Democrats actually need to win to beat Trump, nearly all of which are extended rust belt and coal belt states.

 

[Silvanus]

I think most of us believed that Biden would either flat out ignore or backpedal like The Flash on basically everything that Task Force talked about but I figured they'd at least wait until they were voted in before blowing this off.

Hope remains. There's nothing in there actually voiced by Biden or his campaign, or even any representatives, senators or delegates; only anonymous aides and "outside healthcare advisors". The only representatives/senators quoted in the piece spoke in support of the public option, not against it.

So, it's troubling bollocks from those aides & such, but we're not actually seeing any backpedalling (yet).

 

[tippy2k2]

Hope remains. There's nothing in there actually voiced by Biden or his campaign, or even any representatives, senators or delegates; only anonymous aides and "outside healthcare advisors". The only representatives/senators quote in the piece spoke in support of the public option, not against it.

So, it's troubling bollocks from those aides & such, but we're not actually seeing any backpedalling (yet).

That is fair and a reason why I hadn't posted this same article in the Biden/Bernie Task Force thread (I was waiting to see if anything more concrete would come out before I went back in there to do a "I told you so" post).

We'll see for sure soon enough I suppose.

 

[meiam]

So if I read this right, it's not so much backpedalling as saying that if the senate block this they might have to settle for something smaller... That's very different from backpedalling. Unless you think the current system is better than a modest expansion I don't see how this is bad news. The only way dem might gain control of the senate is by having candidate who can be elected in purple/red state, this means they might not support a fully public option as they'll consider themselves beholden to the people who elected them over the party they represent.

But once the arena shifts away from the campaign trail to Congress, where the proposal would have to pass via a narrow margin in the Senate and despite fierce opposition from well-funded industry groups, Biden’s plan would become a daunting challenge to enact.

So essentially there's 3 potential outcome:
1. Republican control senate = no change.
2. Democrat control senate with a small majority they gained trough contested state = modest increase.
3. Democrat control senate with a crushing majority = public option, talk about universal healthcare.

So you could try to go all for 3 and risk falling into 1 or you can try to go for 2 and then use this modest success to eventually push for 3. Considering that states that need to be flipped voted for the group that has spent the last decades+ fighting against even extremely modest increase in healthcare spending, going for 2 seems like a much better idea politically.

 

[Agema]

This comes at a point in which national polls show the race beginning to tighten:

Some individual polls have narrower margins, but the wider picture of all polls still shows Biden stable with a huge lead of ~8 points.

Even in state by state matchups, Trump is in terrible trouble in swing states: e.g. 5% down in Florida, 6% down in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Hell, he's even at statistical risk of not carrying states like Texas and Georgia (although I'm sure in the end he will, unless somehoe he manages a further meltdown).

 

[Revnak]

So if I read this right, it's not so much backpedalling as saying that if the senate block this they might have to settle for something smaller... That's very different from backpedalling. Unless you think the current system is better than a modest expansion I don't see how this is bad news. The only way dem might gain control of the senate is by having candidate who can be elected in purple/red state, this means they might not support a fully public option as they'll consider themselves beholden to the people who elected them over the party they represent.



So essentially there's 3 potential outcome:
1. Republican control senate = no change.
2. Democrat control senate with a small majority they gained trough contested state = modest increase.
3. Democrat control senate with a crushing majority = public option, talk about universal healthcare.

So you could try to go all for 3 and risk falling into 1 or you can try to go for 2 and then use this modest success to eventually push for 3. Considering that states that need to be flipped voted for the group that has spent the last decades+ fighting against even extremely modest increase in healthcare spending, going for 2 seems like a much better idea politically.

So you’re saying there is no solution to our problems that can exist through liberal electoralism? Honestly a very revolutionary statement to make. I don’t know if I fully agree with just giving up on electoralism altogether.

 

[lil devils x]

So if I read this right, it's not so much backpedalling as saying that if the senate block this they might have to settle for something smaller... That's very different from backpedalling. Unless you think the current system is better than a modest expansion I don't see how this is bad news. The only way dem might gain control of the senate is by having candidate who can be elected in purple/red state, this means they might not support a fully public option as they'll consider themselves beholden to the people who elected them over the party they represent.



So essentially there's 3 potential outcome:
1. Republican control senate = no change.
2. Democrat control senate with a small majority they gained trough contested state = modest increase.
3. Democrat control senate with a crushing majority = public option, talk about universal healthcare.

So you could try to go all for 3 and risk falling into 1 or you can try to go for 2 and then use this modest success to eventually push for 3. Considering that states that need to be flipped voted for the group that has spent the last decades+ fighting against even extremely modest increase in healthcare spending, going for 2 seems like a much better idea politically.

I would also add to this that if we continue to have Republican control over the Senate we also have continued increase of judge appointments who will rule against funding for healthcare access and are willing to take healthcare away from many of those who have it currently so will directly result in an increase of deaths and deteriorating medical conditions due to loss of treatment access due to current GOP policy. People have to understand without willingness to compromise, we will not have enough votes to pass anything at all and we will continue to go backwards instead of forwards. Small improvements are still so much better than going backwards. My definition of small improvements = more people will be able to survive the wait for bigger improvements than would do so without them. When the issue is a matter of life and death for so many, saving as many people as we can in the process is what actually matters here. We lose if more people die while waiting for something better than the alternative. We take what we can in the meantime because it is better than the alternative. Sure, it would be great to barter a better deal, but if the deal we want isn't happening, it is better to accept saving as many lives as we can in the process.

 

[Revnak]

I would also add to this that if we continue to have Republican control over the Senate we also have continued increase of judge appointments who will rule against funding for healthcare access and are willing to take healthcare away from many of those who have it currently so will directly result in an increase of deaths and deteriorating medical conditions due to loss of treatment access due to current GOP policy. People have to understand without willingness to compromise, we will not have enough votes to pass anything at all and we will continue to go backwards instead of forwards. Small improvements are still so much better than going backwards. My definition of small improvements = more people will be able to survive the wait for bigger improvements than would do so without them. When the issue is a matter of life and death for so many, saving as many people as we can in the process is what actually matters here. We lose if more people die while waiting for something better than the alternative. We take what we can in the meantime because it is better than the alternative. Sure, it would be great to barter a better deal, but if the deal we want isn't happening, it is better to accept saving as many lives as we can in the process.

So you’re saying there is no solution to our problems that can exist through liberal electoralism? Honestly a very revolutionary statement to make. I don’t know if I fully agree with just giving up on electoralism altogether.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Even in state by state matchups, Trump is in terrible trouble in swing states: e.g. 5% down in Florida, 6% down in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

In other words, those races are each and every one narrower this year than they were at this point in 2016. Hell, throughout October Trump only showed a lead in TX inside the MoE, and liberals were talking then of the possibility of flipping Texas. Same for Georgia, except Hillary got a convention bump, led the first week of August in GA, and the two were tied until the second week of Sept.

Can Hillary Clinton Win Texas?

Some Democrats believe what was once unthinkable could become a reality in November.

www.theatlantic.com

If your argument for the comparative strength of Biden's campaign is how much the race looks like it's going to be 2016 all over again, I'd highly recommend you remember who won in 2016.

 

[Revnak]

In other words, those races are each and every one narrower this year than they were at this point in 2016. Hell, throughout November Trump only showed a lead in TX inside the MoE, and liberals were talking then of the possibility of flipping Texas. Same for Georgia, except Hillary got a convention bump, led the first week of August in GA, and the two were tied until the second week of Sept.

Can Hillary Clinton Win Texas?

Some Democrats believe what was once unthinkable could become a reality in November.

www.theatlantic.com

If your argument for the comparative strength of Biden's campaign is how much the race looks like it's going to be 2016 all over again, I'd highly recommend you remember who won in 2016.

Remembering 2016 is strictly verboten.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

>Restore the individual mandate

Oh yes! That popular piece of legislation! That's sure to gather votes!

 

[Trunkage]

Does this surprise anyone?

Harris was a clear statement that the Dems are swerving Right. It wouldn’t surprise me that the Lincoln Project is mainly funded by Dems to make sure that Sanders and the Squad are ostracised. They know you can’t vote Trump, so they can do whatever they feel like.

It’s also exactly what a bunch of us have been saying since the first debate a year ago. Dems don’t care about the Left vote. You aren’t wanted or needed

 

[Revnak]

>Restore the individual mandate

Oh yes! That popular piece of legislation! That's sure to gather votes!

I personally hope they make it retroactive so I owe hundreds of dollars for those months I couldn’t afford health insurance.

 

[lil devils x]

So you’re saying there is no solution to our problems that can exist through liberal electoralism? Honestly a very revolutionary statement to make. I don’t know if I fully agree with just giving up on electoralism altogether.

You have to be realistic about who the voters will actually elect in the districts that we have available. If the voters in those districts needed to be able to pass the bills we want to pass refuse to elect a liberal candidate or we cannot even manage to get a liberal candidate on the ballot there, we have to try and get done what we can in the meantime or we will never be able to get anything done ever. We have to at least be moving forward at all times rather than taking HUGE steps backwards like we currently have been during Trump's time in office. We will never be able to move forward at all otherwise.

I just do not feel people are being realistic about being able to make huge improvements when there is no way in hell we can get the votes for it happen and it only makes it more difficult for it to happen within our lifetimes if we let it keep sliding backwards every time we do not get everything we want.

 

[lil devils x]

Does this surprise anyone?

Harris was a clear statement that the Dems are swerving Right. It wouldn’t surprise me that the Lincoln Project is mainly funded by Dems to make sure that Sanders and the Squad are ostracised. They know you can’t vote Trump, so they can do whatever they feel like.

It’s also exactly what a bunch of us have been saying since the first debate a year ago. Dems don’t care about the Left vote. You aren’t wanted or needed

Usually when the right wins, both parties go right, the more the left wins the more left it would shift. TBH people who think that " letting the right win will force the dems to move left" are delusional. All that does is shift everything right for longer and make it more difficult for anything to go left at all in the future. Dems do care about the left vote, however, Hillary's plan had a public option and she still didn't win the districts necessary to win. Winning more left votes in already left districts does nothing to ensure an actual win here. You still have to be able to flip pro Trump strongholds otherwise you still end up with the dems having more popular votes and the GOP taking the electoral college for a win.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I personally hope they make it retroactive so I owe hundreds of dollars for those months I couldn’t afford health insurance.

Well clearly healthcare is expensive and we can't have poor people shirking their duty, so they should increase the fine too.

 

[Revnak]

You have to be realistic about who the voters will actually elect in the districts that we have available. If the voters in those districts needed to be able to pass the bills we want to pass refuse to elect a liberal candidate or we cannot even manage to get a liberal candidate on the ballot there, we have to try and get done what we can in the meantime or we will never be able to get anything done ever. We have to at least be moving forward at all times rather than taking HUGE steps backwards like we currently have been during Trump's time in office. We will never be able to move forward at all otherwise.

I just do not feel people are being realistic about being able to make huge improvements when there is no way in hell we can get the votes for it happen and it only makes it more difficult for it to happen within our lifetimes if we let it keep sliding backwards every time we do not get everything we want.

Biden will still be sliding backwards. Harris will still be sliding backwards. The insane next Republican successor to either will be sliding backwards. The inertia is not behind us, it is behind rampant privatization, colonialism, border patrol, the police state, that is where the inertia is. If that inertia continues to be met with absolutely nothing, there will not even be a return to “normalcy” only a rapid descent into catastrophe.
So, once again, you’re saying there is no solution to our problems that can exist through liberal electoralism? Honestly a very revolutionary statement to make. I don’t know if I fully agree with just giving up on electoralism altogether.

 

[Silvanus]

Does this surprise anyone?

Harris was a clear statement that the Dems are swerving Right [...]

On healthcare? Harris was a signatory of Sanders' M4A bill in 2017.

So, once again, you’re saying you’re saying there is no solution to our problems that can exist through liberal electoralism? [...]

Very droll.