Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

do you really want to elect a bunch of conservative democrats who'll say "all lives DO matter, but specially blue"?

If it means we get the votes needed to do policing reform or stopping the GOP from fucking this country back into the mid-1890's? Yes.

On a not snarky note, obviously there will be stances that will be unacceptable for any Dem to hold but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be running candidates that are a better fit for their districts. Maybe let them not be as hard line on gun control as Dems in major cities (sort of like Bernie Sanders is) or let them waffle a bit when it comes to issues that are a big deal in their districts.

Having 10 pure left-wing Senators while the GOP holds the rest of the chamber will do nothing for us.

 

[StopMakingSense]

96% fund raising and the rest of the time working out the primary schedule (I'm only half joking).

And another 30 percent spent screaming at state parties.

 

[Odrion]

like we can fight the normalization of horrible policies enacted by the right and it's effects on our culture. but I don't know about what would happen if we end up in a situation like 2008 where we couldn't pivot the country in any way but incrementally because of the infighting between progressives and conservatives within the same party, and so we had to swallow what obama inherited from bush. we use to hate the patriot act and our military killing innocent civilians so much. That shit was horrible and irredeemable. Now? eh, status quo.

what's scares me more than what policies the republicans are going to enact is what will happen once there's no longer an ugly face on them.

 

[Suikoguy]

Just checking, i'm not a sexist centrist pushing to get rid of Identity Politics right?

what's scares me more than what policies the republicans are going to enact is what will happen once there's no longer an ugly face on it.

Yeah, we need strong messaging to counter that, and i'm not sure that will be enough.

In a way similar tactics bit dems in the ass with Healthcare Premiums going up quite a bit this year due the way Obamacare was structured.
Since IIRC, didn't it freeze rate hikes for a few years or something similar?

 

[Totakeke]

like we can fight the normalization of horrible policies enacted by the right and it's effects on our culture. but I don't know about what would happen if we end up in a situation like 2008 where we couldn't pivot the country in any way but incrementally because of the infighting between progressives and conservatives within the same party, and so we had to swallow what obama inherited from bush.

what's scares me more than what policies the republicans are going to enact is what will happen once there's no longer an ugly face on it.

Your last three posts have been nonsense. Either you get more specific about what you're trying to talk about or you're just rambling incoherently.

If the Kansas experiment is any proof, people will vote against politicians who actively made their lives noticeably worse. If they re-enact what happened to Kansas on a national level, there won't be any normalization going on.

 

[TestOfTide]

what did Obama get done with the blue dogs before 2010?

A lot actually, and we would have been able to get a lot more done with those blue dogs if it weren't for the republicans filibustering everything.

The issue was not the fact that we had blue dogs. Look at all the shit Pelosi was able to get passed in the House.

do you really want to elect a bunch of conservative democrats who'll say "all lives DO matter, but especially blue"?

Yes because that's the only way to take those seats away from hardcore republicans who instead say "You know what I want to do? Shut down the government."

 

[Makai]

What...Jeff Sessions as AG. That doesn't make any sense

 

[balladofwindfishes]

what did Obama get done with the blue dogs before 2010?

Had the blue dogs stuck around we literally could have had anyone we wanted in the SC, since they would be able to confirm whoever since nobody votes based on someone's SC justice vote.

Also just holding the majority gives us immense power. It's a full filter over everything that even hits the table. Plus control over committees and stuff. And that's just by having warm bodies in D seats, not even bothering how they vote.

 

[TestOfTide]

Had the blue dogs stuck around we literally could have had anyone we wanted in the SC, since they would be able to confirm whoever since nobody votes based on someone's SC justice vote.

Also just holding the majority gives us immense power. It's a full filter over everything that even hits the table. Plus control over committees and stuff. And that's just by having warm bodies in D seats, not even bothering how they vote.

And plus, having blue dogs didn't actually prevent us from passing shit in 2009 and 2010. What prevented us from passing shit was the GOP Senators filibustering everything and Joe Lieberman (who wasn't even a democrat anymore) being a fucking asshole.

Look at all that shit that Pelosi got passed in the house in those years but never got signed into law because they couldn't get through a GOP filibuster.

 

[Link]

What...Jeff Sessions as AG. That doesn't make any sense

Donald Trump is the President. Nothing makes sense anymore. We've also got a climate change denier in charge of the EPA and a creationist that detests public schools the likely head of the Dept. of Education.

 

[gutter_trash]

Had the blue dogs stuck around we literally could have had anyone we wanted in the SC, since they would be able to confirm whoever since nobody votes based on someone's SC justice vote.

Also just holding the majority gives us immense power. It's a full filter over everything that even hits the table. Plus control over committees and stuff. And that's just by having warm bodies in D seats, not even bothering how they vote.

same Blue Dogs who joined Republicans to shoot down Hillarycare in 1993?

 

[Makai]

Donald Trump is the President. Nothing makes sense anymore. We've also got a climate change denier in charge of the EPA and a creationist that detests public schools the likely head of the Dept. of Education.

They're Republicans - obviously that was happening. What I can't buy is they gave Jeff that over Homeland Security. Christie robbed.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

same Blue Dogs who joined Republicans to shoot down Hillarycare in 1993?

Would you prefer they were republicans?

That's the choice. Tolerate the blue dogs, or deal with Republicans. And I know which of the two I want to deal with.

 

[gutter_trash]

Would you prefer they were republicans?

That's the choice. Tolerate the blue dogs, or deal with Republicans. And I know which of the two I want to deal with.

I have no respect for them; especially ashholes like Pat Moynihan

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I have no respect for them; especially ashholes like Pat Moynihan

It's a choice between blue dogs or Republicans. There are more red districts and more red states, so we have to make a choice between one or the other because "true blue" Democrats are not likely to ever hold seats in these places.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Blue dogs, for all their problems, aren't going to enable Ryan's agenda and can usually help us pass at least some stuff. Even if the stimulus or ACA weren't as good as they could have been, the alternative at this point is Ryan privatizing Medicare and enacting terrible austerity measures. I don't see why people object to running blue dogs in red districts like they're the problem.

Spoiler

My dad loves blue dogs because "They're not morons like Republicans but they're actually like, real people unlike normal Democrats". That's the audience we need to target with them.

 

[Lucky Forward]

The Old Soldiers Home in DC has cared for our nation's veterans for 165 years. I was honored to be a small part of that mission.

I want to see Trump doing this, or anything like it.

I want to see Melania planting turnips in the White House garden.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

They're Republicans - obviously that was happening. What I can't buy is they gave Jeff that over Homeland Security. Christie robbed.

Christie was kept around to be a Whipping boy

 

[TestOfTide]

same Blue Dogs who joined Republicans to shoot down Hillarycare in 1993?

Different Era of Blue Dogs. That was back when a lot of Southern Strategy districts had still not flipped red yet outside of the POTUS race.

The blue dogs we got in 2006 and 2008 were actual democrats that would each have 2 or 3 issues where they had to vote conservative to appease their voters.

But because from 2007 through 2010 we had so many blue dogs in seats, Pelosi had lots of room to be like "look, Blue Dog #4, you don't have to vote for this bill because I already have Blue Dog #7 supporting it. But I'm gonna need you to vote for this other bill coming up because I won't have Blue Dog #7 able to support that."

Blue dogs, for all their problems, aren't going to enable Ryan's agenda and can usually help us pass at least some stuff. Even if the stimulus or ACA weren't as good as they could have been, the alternative at this point is Ryan privatizing Medicare and enacting terrible austerity measures. I don't see why people object to running blue dogs in red districts like they're the problem.

Spoiler

My dad loves blue dogs because "They're not morons like Republicans but they're actually like, real people unlike normal Democrats". That's the audience we need to target with them.

I know you probably think it sounds condescending for your dad to say it that way, but I think what he is trying to say is that he likes blue dogs because they actually tend to be about what people of their state would want instead of simply supporting things just because that's the Democratic script.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

What...Jeff Sessions as AG. That doesn't make any sense

Makes more sense than the positions Trump offered to his billionaire friends. At least Sessions was a federal prosecutor for 18 years and a former state AG.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's a fundraising role, it's an organising role, it's an admin role. You have some degree of policy influence I assume. But Kaine and Debbie Wassername didn't run the show in that regard. The caucus and other leadership, governors association, Obama. Will have more influence. And the next Presidential candidates aren't going to care what Perez or Ellison think are policy priorities.

Priebus authored a report on how the GOP had to start reaching out to the coalition of the ascendant. Yeh.

 

[kess]

I guessing educational and heath saving accounts are going to be a real pain for people who weren't too keen on the ACA because it involved an amount of extra work regarding choice and tax preparation.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Different Era of Blue Dogs. That was back when a lot of Southern Strategy districts had still not flipped red yet outside of the POTUS race.

The blue dogs we got in 2006 and 2008 were actual democrats that would each have 2 or 3 issues where they had to vote conservative to appease their voters.

But because from 2007 through 2010 we had so many blue dogs in seats, Pelosi had lots of room to be like "look, Blue Dog #4, you don't have to vote for this bill because I already have Blue Dog #7 supporting it. But I'm gonna need you to vote for this other bill coming up because I won't have Blue Dog #7 able to support that."



I know you probably think it sounds condescending for your dad to say it that way, but I think what he is trying to say is that he likes blue dogs because they actually tend to be about what people of their state would want instead of simply supporting things just because that's the Democratic script.

Nah, I know what my dad means. He's kind of racist (not racist enough to vote for Trump, tho, he wrote himself in again this year) but because Idaho Republicans are the actual worst he knows the kind of shit they pull towards gutting unions/education/health care and he cares about that shit since he was a teacher, but he doesn't like liberal SCOTUS justices or cosmopolitan urban lifestyles or them taking his guns. I imagine he'd vote Democratic here if Ryan tries to privatize the Social Security he's about to start getting in a couple years but he probably will then complain about Pelosi trying to takes his guns.

 

[Odrion]

Well that Symone Sanders thread is devolving into "we need to throw minorities under the bus to appease to trump voters. because where else are minorities going to go?" That sure sucks.

 

[TestOfTide]

Well that Symone Sanders thread is devolving into "we need to throw minorities under the bus to appease to trump voters. because where else are minorities going to go?" That sure sucks.

No it's not actually. What's happening is you have three views all talking around one another:

1) You have those worried about Democrats abandoning minorities both because it's inhumane and because it's a losing strategy.

2) You have people like myself looking at the future and saying "hey guys we better get a 50 state strategy in order quick or we are fucked big time"

3) You have people who just hate the establishment and want all democrats to be straight up leftist because they have the dumb idea that going hard left will fix everything (it won't and will only make things worse).

Nah, I know what my dad means. He's kind of racist (not racist enough to vote for Trump, tho, he wrote himself in again this year) but because Idaho Republicans are the actual worst he knows the kind of shit they pull towards gutting unions/education/health care and he cares about that shit since he was a teacher, but he doesn't like liberal SCOTUS justices or cosmopolitan urban lifestyles or them taking his guns. I imagine he'd vote Democratic here if Ryan tries to privatize the Social Security he's about to start getting in a couple years but he probably will then complain about Pelosi trying to takes his guns.

Well that kinda proves my point though. He wants a blue dog to represent him that would focus on protecting his job and benefits but who would recognize that the state of Idaho is not interested in gun control.

Am I correct to assume that he probably doesn't give a shit about immigration issues and that he could probably be convinced to support clean energy through a more economically focused message instead of an environmentally focused message?

 

[Frank the Great]

Democrats need blue dogs to survive. No party has ever had control of Congress without including representatives of conservative rural areas. Ever.

It's as simple as that. If Democrats ever want legislative power again, they need to run better candidates in rural areas. Those candidates will be more conservative because the people they represent are more conservative.

Whether liberals like this situation or not is irrelevant. It's reality and it's time we faced it.

Note: I am NOT suggesting that the national party moderate or become conservative. I'm just saying we need the Manchins, Schweitzers, etc. It's about individual candidates at the state and local levels.

 

[Abinash117]

It it would be a losing strategy since a bigger part of the party is made up by minorities and women. At this point non-Hispanic White Americans( it also includes people from north Africa and the ME it might be actually lower) make about 61 percent of the populace and it goes down rough .4 percent every year. By 2020 it should be below 60 percent.

Targeting a different demographic is not a bad strategy, but it is not the best strategy long term if they aren't the main core and are getting smaller. The candidate the appeals to minorities more will win in the primaries just like this year.

I also doubt the minority Democrats in Congress is going to let they throw most of the party under the bus.

If anyone says that minorities have no place to go tell them they won't vote just like they didn't for Bernie or how some stayed out of the election.

 

[The Technomancer]

Democrats need blue dogs to survive. No party has ever had control of Congress without including representatives of conservative rural areas. Ever.

It's as simple as that. If Democrats ever want legislative power again, they need to run better candidates in rural areas. Those candidates will be more conservative because the people they represent are more conservative.

Whether liberals like this situation or not is irrelevant. It's reality and it's time we faced it.

Note: I am NOT suggesting that the national party moderate or become conservative. I'm just saying we need the Manchins, Schweitzers, etc. It's about individual candidates at the state and local levels.

Exactly. Its maddening to me that people don't get this. This is a numbers game. It always has been

 

[The Technomancer]

It it would be a losing strategy since a bigger part of the party is made up by minorities and women. At this point non-Hispanic White Americans( it also includes people from north Africa and the ME it might be actually lower) make about 61 percent of the populace and it goes down rough .4 percent every year. By 2020 it should be below 60 percent.

Targeting a different demographic is not a bad strategy, but it is not the best strategy long term if they aren't the main core and are getting smaller. The candidate the appeals to minorities more will win in the primaries just like this year.

I also doubt the minority Democrats in Congress is going to let they throw most of the party under the bus.

If anyone says that minorities have no place to go tell them they won't vote just like they didn't for Bernie or how some stayed out of the election.

I don't think the presidential candidate has to particularly cater at the expense of minority voters, but that has nothing to do with weather or not the democrats can run more specific candidates at a state level to just deny seats to the GOP. An imperfect ally is better than a hostile enemy

 

[Suikoguy]

We need Blue Dogs again, it's a necessity of the political system setup centuries ago that gave that much power to the states versus the people.

It's also why Obamacare was so important, yes we compromised to hell and back with Blue Dog Dems and like 2 Republicans, but if that was the battle with favorable conditions, how on earth would a Single Payer or National Healthcare System go?

I got accused of re-litigating the primary, but that's cause it's the same fucking argument.
Running a SP/NHC platform in red states will not work, it's already shown not to work in WI (Finegold) and somewhat Rural New York (Teachout). Single Payer was demolished at the polls in CO (20% of the vote).

Until the Sanders wing of the party gets that, we are going to continue going around the same issues arguing about in the primary over and over again.

 

[TestOfTide]

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

 

[The Technomancer]

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

I agree with literally all of this

 

[faisal233]

If we had 3 more blue dogs then we could have prevented scalia 2.0 and flipped the SC, we could have prevented the gutting of the ACA, we could have prevented the most extreme of the GOP agenda from ever being a reality and kept trump in check.

Im voting for my long shot blue dog senate candidate in Louisiana on the 10th. You guys can keep your party purity.

 

[Frank the Great]

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

That's good.

That's damn good.

 

[TestOfTide]

I agree with literally all of this

Thanks.

BTW, I never got to tell you guys why I thought Schumer was spending so much money on himself.

So I was actually volunteering pretty much full time for the Democrats in NH. I'm not going to specify what area.

Anyway, one of the other NH campaign branches was doing not so hot (apparently a lot of defectors to Jill Stein) so Schumer sent his chief of staff (or whatever the term would be. Point is she has a long history of working for Schumer) to that branch to help out.

I assuming that without having her and seeing internal trends of rural areas, Schumer got nervous and decided to ease his own mind by spending a shitload on ads for himself.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think the presidential candidate has to particularly cater at the expense of minority voters, but that has nothing to do with weather or not the democrats can run more specific candidates at a state level to just deny seats to the GOP. An imperfect ally is better than a hostile enemy

I wasn't referring to Blue Dog Democrats, but the small subject of some wanting to throw minorities under the bus.

 

[The Technomancer]

I wasn't referring to Blue Dog Democrats, but the small subject of some wanting to throw minorities under the bus.

Yeah fair, all the discussions at the moment are a bit messy, sorry

 

[TestOfTide]

I wasn't referring to Blue Dog Democrats, but the small subject of some wanting to throw minorities under the bus.

I think the problem is that like with that Symone Sanders thread, you have 3 sides (2 of which have legitimate points) who are taking over one another.

1) You have people like yourself who are worried about Democrats abandoning minorities because it is both inhumane and a losing strategy.

2) You have people like me who are worried that if we don't start up a 50 state strategy quick, we might be permanently fucked when the GOP start being able to do constitutional amendments.

3) You have uninformed fools that think the problem is that the democrats weren't left enough and think that somehow democrats will win big by just running hardcore leftists everywhere.

 

[royalan]

We need Blue Dogs again, it's a necessity of the political system setup centuries ago that gave that much power to the states versus the people.

It's also why Obamacare was so important, yes we compromised to hell and back with Blue Dog Dems and like 2 Republicans, but if that was the battle with favorable conditions, how on earth would a Single Payer or National Healthcare System go?

I got accused of re-litigating the primary, but that's cause it's the same fucking argument.
Running a SP/NHC platform in red states will not work, it's already shown not to work in WI (Finegold) and somewhat Rural New York (Teachout). Single Payer was demolished at the polls in CO (20% of the vote).

Until the Sanders wing of the party gets that, we are going to continue going around the same issues arguing about in the primary over and over again.

Sadly, they're not going to get it. I've spent too much time arguing with True Progressives over the last year to think otherwise. They don't believe in compromise or see it, and that's largely thanks to Bernie. The solution isn't that they get it; it's that bigger Democratic voices drown Bernie out, which will likely happening in the beginning of next year when Obama is out of office and the party as a whole has regrouped.

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

I agree with everything except the bold. You don't waste your biggest voices behind the scenes. Obama needs to travel the country and help set up winning parties in states that need it (I think that was his plan anyway). And Reid needs to continue challenging everything Trump does and being active in Nevada.

 

[JP_]

do you really want to elect a bunch of conservative democrats who'll say "all lives DO matter, but especially blue"?

Even if we wanted that I think it's basically impossible right now because of things like lack of earmarks driving partisan divide.

 

[Suikoguy]

Sadly, they're not going to get it. I've spent too much time arguing with True Progressives over the last year to think otherwise. They don't believe in compromise or see it, and that's largely thanks to Bernie. The solution isn't that they get it; it's that bigger Democratic voices drown Bernie out, which will likely happening in the beginning of next year when Obama is out of office and the party as a whole has regrouped.

But, if they take their ball and go home next election, we are back in the same place (except perhaps the Senate and House starting shifting).

It would help if we actually knew WHO did not turnout to vote.

 

[JP_]

Instead of pushing another healthcare revamp like single payer, we're probably better off trying to expand Medicare bit by bit. Allow drug negotiations, lower minimum age, etc. I think you can win over even a lot of red voters with that, but it's still moving toward a national healthcare system for all.

 

[Suikoguy]

Instead of pushing another healthcare revamp like single payer, we're probably better off trying to expand Medicare bit by bit. Allow drug negotiations, lower minimum age, etc. I think you can win over even a lot of red voters with that.

Medicare IS the path to a new Healthcare system.
You can't demonize it without pissing off the Elderly.

 

[B-Dubs]

Thanks.

BTW, I never got to tell you guys why I thought Schumer was spending so much money on himself.

So I was actually volunteering pretty much full time for the Democrats in NH. I'm not going to specify what area.

Anyway, one of the other NH campaign branches was doing not so hot (apparently a lot of defectors to Jill Stein) so Schumer sent his chief of staff (or whatever the term would be. Point is she has a long history of working for Schumer) to that branch to help out.

I assuming that without having her and seeing internal trends of rural areas, Schumer got nervous and decided to ease his own mind by spending a shitload on ads for himself.

This was my assumption after we started seeing the returns come in on election day. Dude probably saw some numbers from another state that gave him pause. I mean, he'll usually have one or two web ads but this was way more than I'm used to seeing here (not that it was that much, it was just more than we were used to seeing).

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

This all makes perfect sense by the way.

 

[JP_]

Medicare IS the path to a new Healthcare system.
You can't demonize it without pissing off the Elderly.

Well, you can if you promise it'll only fuck over young people. See Paul Ryan

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, you can if you promise it'll only fuck over young people. See Paul Ryan

Nah I don't think so. As others have pointed out the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies in the entire nation when they really throw their weight around and there's no way they let that slide

 

[Wilsongt]

Medicare IS the path to a new Healthcare system.
You can't demonize it without pissing off the Elderly.

I would be absolutely floored if Ryan fucked with Medicare and actually received any backlash from older voters at all. They are too Evangelical and too reliably Republican to vote against them.

But they are more than fine with them fucking up Medicaid, disability, and healthcare for everyone else not already aged into the Medicare system.

because watch: They will fucked with Medicare, but the caveat will be all of those currently on Medicare will stay with their current system, and only those enrolled after a certain year will be absolutely fucked.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Instead of pushing another healthcare revamp like single payer, we're probably better off trying to expand Medicare bit by bit. Allow drug negotiations, lower minimum age, etc. I think you can win over even a lot of red voters with that.

This is actually a great idea, I'm pretty sure Medicare is still the single most popular government program and it'll be a great campaign tool if Ryan attempts to privatize it. Running blue dogs on "protecting and improving Medicare" is probably the best way to get votes from rural areas that continue to depend on it.

 

[JP_]

Nah I don't think so. As others have pointed out the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbies in the entire nation when they really throw their weight around and there's no way they let that slide

Obama tried to get medicare drug negotiations into ACA but had to drop it to get the bill passed with dem majorities. Where was AARP?

edit: wow, AARP can be a dick to seniors http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ing-obamacares-cuts-to-medicare/#762515db7006

 

[Suikoguy]

I would be absolutely floored if Ryan fucked with Medicare and actually received any backlash from older voters at all. They are too Evangelical and too reliably Republican to vote against them.

But they are more than fine with them fucking up Medicaid, disability, and healthcare for everyone else not already aged into the Medicare system.

because watch: They will fucked with Medicare, but the caveat will be all of those currently on Medicare will stay with their current system, and only those enrolled after a certain year will be absolutely fucked.

That's a minutiae though that's tough to explain, the same problem Hillary ran into with some of her policies like Fracking.