General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo single payer was nixed by the powers that be, Dems stayed home in 2010...
Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (2)
Republicons were able to redistrict in a way that gave them the House despite more voters wanting Dems in charge - and we have seven more years of safe Republicon districts to go.
What lessons do you draw?
Who do you blame?
What should the game plan be, especially for liberals and progressives?
(Rachel covered this redistricting issue very well last night - tough situation.)
Edit: I LOVE HIPPIES!!! This thread was inspired by Rachel's redistricting segment - hadn't read the "hippie bashing" threads. As a lifelong liberal, last thing I'd do is bash a hippie! My own feeling about this is that the WH and Congressional Dems should have listened to the people about single payer and kept the 2008 momentum going. What to do now is a mystery.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Devil, as usual, is hiding in the details.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)Angry, frustrated, and highly political people make the effort.
Tired of this falsehood that lefties stayed home cause they didn't get their pony. Not born out by the facts.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The hoary "lefty Dems stayed home in 2010 and cost us the House" myth has been disinterred once again.
polichick
(37,152 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Of course some wouldn't vote in a non-prez year, but I know from speaking with many young voters back then that there was also a feeling of "same ol' shit - why bother?"
alsame
(7,784 posts)to the Senate and the WH. If the radical right ever gets control of all three branches, this country is going to spiral downward so fast we won't know what hit us.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)It wasn't an ideological thing. Without a Presidential race with Obama at the top of the ticket, there was less interest in going to the polls.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we had a silly primary last month (just a Conservative primary for town clerk and a judge) and in the district I was working as a poll inspector 11 people showed up.
Last year was a hot Congressional election that ended up in several recounts but still less than half showed up.
This year it's all local offices and I'm guessing we'll be lucky with a 10% turnout.
I keep saying that the key to winning is getting out that damn vote-- Harry Truman got into politics when his clothing store went bust and he needed a job. He said he won his first election because he had a bigger family than the other guy.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Problem is, in the U.S. many "leaders" want a low turnout.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but voter turnout has been over 90% since Australia made it mandatory.
Some observers say it's not so much the fine itself, but the fact that there is a fine makes voting seem more important to the Aussies than to us.
Here, we hit in the mid 60's in the best years-- did a quick check for Canada and Great Britain and neither of them ever get as low as ours. Their voter registration rates seem to be higher than ours, too.
You're right about those in office wanting to suppress the vote. I'm running for a local office and a low turnout would help me-- I'm working heavily on getting our Democrats out to vote. Turnout here is usually 10-15% in these elections so every voter I get to the poll helps. A lot.
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)karynnj
(59,510 posts)in the Senate - per Bernie Sanders. They needed something that could get 60 votes. As it was they got it passed by the skin of their teeth - no more time with 60 votes and no extra votes.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Democracy is often described as the art of the possible because all points of view are seen as valid during the discussion-- even batshit crazy ones.
Single payer wasn't batshit crazy, it's a decent idea, but it was too far off to the edge to get much support and the batshit crazy helped push it off the edge.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)is because I think it was the only one where companies pay the health insurance for their employees and their families. The US tax code created the incentive by allowing companies to deduct premiums as a cost of doing business. Companies were then able to offer this instead of wage increases. Because people were not taxed on this - as they are on wages and because companies could use their size to get good deals from the insurance companies, it cost companies less to provide it then the value to the individual.
Labor unions were also significant in fighting to insure that their people -- usually followed by the non union management people - got health insurance. For at least 2 generations, this was a good deal for a large percent of people. However, it also meant that there were a large percent of people who - who even if they had to fight with the insurance company - were reasonably content with what they had.
One thing every Democrat who ran for President promised was that if you liked the health insurance you had, you could keep it. This - by itself - meant that their plan could not be single payer in the form of something like the Medicare for all or the British national health insurance. ( A daughter who studied in the UK for a year, still remembers with longing how much easier that was than the plan she has because she is under 26.) The Republicans have scared people who have insurance - who from the lies - think they have something to lose.
polichick
(37,152 posts)karynnj
(59,510 posts)The reason that they were escorted out was that they - in succession - interrupted the hearing. They were repeatedly told that they could not disrupt the hearing.
While these were doctors and nurses or others committed to single payer, the fact is that there were rules and they broke them. There was no one on the committee that did not know what single payer was - they also knew that it was not among the things that could ever pass.
Baucus - like him or not - was doing his job bringing experts to speak on a set of possibilities that were focused on things that had the potential of getting 60 votes - he was personally for a public option, but when a few Democrats said they were not ever going to vote for a plan that included it - he moved away from it.
You and I are seeing two different things in that video. I am seeing people, who went in to do just what they did - disrupt the hearing. They were committed enough to their cause that they did this knowing they would be thrown out and knowing they could be arrested. I am also seeing a committee attempting to have an open hearing on an extremely important subject. Their goal was to get the information they needed. As such, the Senators were far less angry than they had the right to be.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)Here's a video that popped up in the "related" screen that is fascinating-
Amy Goodman de-constructs Baucus "support"
Jump to 6:02
Obama makes an appearance @8:45 saying he doesn't want to change the way insurance works
polichick
(37,152 posts)..."for profit" special interests - which explains the sense of betrayal voters had about single payer.
Thanks for another important post - and welcome to DU!
karynnj
(59,510 posts)It is just as likely that the companies that benefit from the positions that Baucus takes support him as that he defines his positions by the companies that support him.
Consider, for instance, that Ed Markey got a lot of support - financial and otherwise from environmental groups (that were also big career long supporters of John Kerry.) You could say the roots of their support are defined by organizations like the LCV or the Sierra Club. However, both are life long environmentalists.
Consider, for instance, that many labor groups support Sherrod Brown. He has taken positions that match those supported by the trade unions - even when he called for consideration of coal based economies when the climate change legislation was being worked on.
Here, I assume that both Baucus and Obama would not have had any support from the insurance community if their positions were to completely change the way insurance works in this country.
Not to mention - both Obama and Baucus wanted the best bill that could pass. By definition, that could not be single payer because there was no way it could get 60 votes. Even Presidential pressure could not have increased the vote from 10 to 60.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)Arrests on Capitol Hill over Single Payer Health Care Issue
Ignoring it won't change a thing
Baucuss Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)leftstreet
(36,119 posts)Welcome to DU!
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The Hope and Change campaign was one of the most successful in US political history.
You can't compare a midterm with the end-of-Bush euphoria we felt in 2008.
polichick
(37,152 posts)If the WH and Cong Dems listened to the people more than special interests.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)So do I win a prize?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Come on now, do it right if yer gonna do it! NOW GO CALL CONGRESS!
Rex
(65,616 posts)They love to blame everyone and their dog...and yet they do nothing to help and just make problems by dividing people up on DU. In other words, they make DU suck with their lies and liberal bashing garbage.
polichick
(37,152 posts)You'll not find me bashing liberals.
(btw, shit-stirring is essential in a democracy.)
Rex
(65,616 posts)The ones I thought you were talking about. All they do is try and divide up DUers into two camps. I would call it trolling, but so many people do it here that it is beyond sad now.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I had been thinking about Rachel's show and just posted when I logged on.
Rex
(65,616 posts)to go crazy and stir the shit really hard.
polichick
(37,152 posts)And I agree 100%, never should have folded on singer payer.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)What do you want us to do, go slap our neighbors. Just how many of us DUers do you think stayed home from the polls?
Give it a break already.
polichick
(37,152 posts)JI7
(89,287 posts)or politically active in any way didn't vote than they are not really what they claim to be .
they are closer to that "obama girl" from that video who didn't vote and they only view politics as entertainment .
polichick
(37,152 posts)Two of them are more people vote in prez years and Republicons had gotten even scarier.
But I also think the 2008 momentum could have been maintained if the people counted more than special interests.
JI7
(89,287 posts)look at all the famous people involved.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)They were all so happy to vote for President Obama but didn't know or care that voting for his party in the midterms is the same as voting for him. The baggers came out the same as they always do only more rabid and determined than ever.
It's almost impossible to take back the house next year but it is important to let all those people know that voting for the Democrats is the same as voting for Obama one last time. Do that and there's an outside chance that something could be done.
The party blew it big time in 2009.
polichick
(37,152 posts)betrayal after Dem leaders listened more to special interests than the voters who worked so hard in 2008 (see post #8).
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)The People expected radical, course altering change, felt we were promised exactly that and all we heard about was reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship when it was obvious that all the losers wanted was to spit in the President's face.