Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[Sour Masher]

The point is that the centrists are pretending to be progressives to try to get progressive votes, while really planning to not implement progressive policices. Of course it is hard to make real change, but talking about how hard it is to make change is a sign that you really aren't very committed. Did MLK continually try to tell everyone to accept things the way they were because it would be hard to change anything ? It's all about commitment to a goal or cause. And it's clear, to me at least, that Mayor Pete isn't committed to anything except getting elected.

Right, and my point is, is a candidate like Mayor Pete really convincing any real progressives to switch support toward him? I'd argue no. I'd argue that to the extent he gets support from self-identified progressives, it is from folks who like to think of themselves as progressive, but are really more moderate than they'd like to admit. And, I'd argue, that still represents the majority of Democrats, since he isn't the first to do this, and others have been successful in courting the progressives in theory but scared in practice voters.

[B-Fly]

I thought it would be interesting to start issue-focused conversations about the candidates. I'll start it off with the environment. While I understand that focusing on the environment as the central issue of one's campaign is a losing strategy, it is arguably the most important issue we face. After all, short term benefits of universal healthcare hardly matter if we ignore the environmental issues we face, which will end up impacting billions of lives with famine, displacement, disease, etc.

So, I want to start with that issue and this question: How would you rank the remaining viable candidates in terms of what you think they will get done on environmental issues like climate change, pollution and poisoning of animals and people, and public safety related to clean drinking water, air, and reducing our exposure to harmful substances?

I'm not asking about their stated positions here, but our perceptions of what the candidates will actually prioritize and get done, and why you think the way you do. Unlike some here, I have not totally made up my mind about who I want to support (I thought I had, but I'm waivering and open to switching). I hope this discussion will help me, as this is an important issue to me.

Interestingly enough, I'd probably pick Bloomberg as the candidate most likely to prioritize and achieve significant policy initiatives on the environment/climate change. In part that's because he's among the least likely to prioritize significant economic equity and social justice issues, but I do think that the environment and gun control are the two big issues where he'd look to be really activist and progressive.

[The Feral Slasher]

Right, and my point is, is a candidate like Mayor Pete really convincing any real progressives to switch support toward him? I'd argue no. I'd argue that to the extent he gets support from self-identified progressives, it is from folks who like to think of themselves as progressive, but are really more moderate than they'd like to admit. And, I'd argue, that still represents the majority of Democrats, since he isn't the first to do this, and others have been successful in courting the progressives in theory but scared in practice voters.

I think you make a really good point. I just find it frustrating that Democrats pretend to be for changes which are actually good, when they really aren't

[The Feral Slasher]

I think you make a really good point. I just find it frustrating that Democrats pretend to be for changes which are actually good, when they really aren't

I think it just highlights so much of what makes me hate the Democratic party. They have politicians pretending to be for something, but really not. And voters willingly believing the fairy tale fed to them by their leaders so that they can feel superior to Republicans. But Trump !

[The Feral Slasher]

I've seen a number of links to interesting teenvogue articles. I haven't even read this one, but it's surprising to me that teenvogue even considers politics.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bernie-sanders-report-millennial-living-standards

[Kevin Seitzer]

I've seen a number of links to interesting teenvogue articles. I haven't even read this one, but it's surprising to me that teenvogue even considers politics.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bern...ving-standards

You really should read the article. It's in vogue right now.

[The Feral Slasher]

You really should read the article. It's in vogue right now.

I have a really BIG draft going on now. I will get to it once that is over

[Ken]

I have a really BIG draft going on now. I will get to it once that is over

Well aren't you the big shot...

[The Feral Slasher]

Well aren't you the big shot...

Is that even a debate ?

[Ken]

Is that even a debate ?

If so it's a big debate.

[The Feral Slasher]

Interesting and probably fairly accurate read. But it does leave unanswered the question--are these concerns real in the minds of voters? Wouldn't the fact that this strategy works--saying you want big changes, but pointing out that big changes are hard and require commitment and buy-in that we may not be ready for--show the concerns are real? Why else would this strategy work if voters didn't want to buy into this message? It seems to me that if progressive-talking, moderate acting politicians have dominated for the last three decades, it must be because Democratic voters are intellectually aligned with progressive ideals in theory, but don't have the stomach for executing them in practice. They want to say they want these things, but they also don't actually want to pay/commit to these things?

Time will tell if this strategy works for Mayor Pete. Purely from a strategy position, it was probably his best play to pivot to the middle given Biden's weakness. He was never going to convince Bernie progressives that he was the real deal.

When I read stuff like this it really makes me question Biden and others criticism of medicare for all. I mean Joe Biden really wants everyone to have health care, but gosh, it's just not possible. Not unless his buddies get to make a profit off of it.

https://prospect.org/power/steve-ricchetti-top-biden-campaign-aide-health-care-lobbyist/

“When it comes to health care, the insurance and drug industries have been able to control the political process,” Sanders said in the speech.

A top member of Biden's brain trust fits that description. Steve Ricchetti, referred to as Biden's campaign chairman in a published report last month, was a longtime lobbyist for health care and other corporate clients. He worked for then-vice president Biden as a counselor and then his chief of staff, and now for his presidential campaign.

Ricchetti founded and ran his own lobbying firm with his brother. He personally represented drugmakers Novartis, Eli Lilly and Sanofi (the latter two are among the three major insulin manufacturers), as well as health IT company NaviMedix (now NaviNet) and the American Hospital Association. The hospital lobby, as well as pharmaceutical companies, have been primary opponents of Medicare for All. The Ricchetti firm continues to operate, with Ricchetti’s brother actively lobbying for clients, including in the health-care space.

For Biden, who released his own health-care plan this week, having a former industry lobbyist on the payroll would set his campaign’s elevation of attacks on Medicare for All in a new context. Perhaps for this reason, the campaign would not respond to repeated requests to clarify Ricchetti’s specific role. However, the Prospect was separately able to confirm that Ricchetti is part of the Biden campaign.

[The Feral Slasher]

I thought it would be interesting to start issue-focused conversations about the candidates. I'll start it off with the environment. While I understand that focusing on the environment as the central issue of one's campaign is a losing strategy, it is arguably the most important issue we face. After all, short term benefits of universal healthcare hardly matter if we ignore the environmental issues we face, which will end up impacting billions of lives with famine, displacement, disease, etc.

So, I want to start with that issue and this question: How would you rank the remaining viable candidates in terms of what you think they will get done on environmental issues like climate change, pollution and poisoning of animals and people, and public safety related to clean drinking water, air, and reducing our exposure to harmful substances?

I'm not asking about their stated positions here, but our perceptions of what the candidates will actually prioritize and get done, and why you think the way you do. Unlike some here, I have not totally made up my mind about who I want to support (I thought I had, but I'm waivering and open to switching). I hope this discussion will help me, as this is an important issue to me.

I actually don't have a good feel for this so I'd be interested to hear if others have some good info to share.

[Ken]

I actually don't have a good feel for this so I'd be interested to hear if others have some good info to share.

I agree, this type material worth reading

[The Feral Slasher]

I watched about half the debate, really no surprises or epiphanies. For the life of me I'd like someone to explain Buttigieg to me. Frat Boy word salad on steroids. Just not my thing.

[DMT]

I watched about half the debate, really no surprises or epiphanies. For the life of me I'd like someone to explain Buttigieg to me. Frat Boy word salad on steroids. Just not my thing.

I've been told he "checks a lot of the right boxes". I wish was joking.