Dem Post Mortem

[Loren Pechtel]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House.

That happens either way, it's only a question of speed. You know, I wasn't a "Progressive" in 2006. And my views have not changed. The party just lurched so far right that I'm now supposedly a "radical" for thinking all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.

The problem here is with what constitutes equal protection.

Many of us do not regard DEI as equal protection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

You vote for the candidate as close to your position as possible.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

We listened, we do not believe your ideal candidate is remotely electable. You have this notion of pulling the party left--but that costs you in the center.

You were told what the Nazis looked like, that they would be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible, and you did not call it out for what it was so that they could not wheedle away.

We have been calling it out. You're the one who is voting Nazi by failing to vote for the better candidate.

The reality is, the 2024 election was not going to ever be won no matter who Democrats voted for because there were fingers in the pie there.

For fuck sakes you act as if the Heritage Foundation hasn't been posting a project like this for every complicit candidate from Regan onwards, and as if Trump is the only person who can be Nero or Hitler.

We know it. You seem to have fallen into their trap, though. The earning the votes bit is from their playbook.

This isn't news, this is literally the plan, and it has been achieved in fits and starts, and we have been pointing out various ways to dismantle it over the years, all would require long needed change, and well formed messaging, and media participation, and yes, spinal fortitude.

You have been leaning into it for decades because we lack what Germany has: an open cultural admission to the existence and pattern of Nazis.

Nothing could shout down the disinformation from Russia and China.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What do you think should have been done? And it's not like your Ilk does not wrap yourselves in flags too. It's just different flags, is all.

Well, duh! You would expect any cause from the left to be represented there. Doesn't mean most of the people agree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course Biden had authority to forgive student debt.

Disagree. The president isn't supposed to make changes on that scale without Congress.

The result has been many moves to the left of the electorate which could never have gotten through Congress even if they weren't being obstructionist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course Biden had authority to forgive student debt.

How so?
Also, forgiving student debt is not good policy. College graduates on average make more money than non-graduates, so why should they should get a general loan forgiveness?
This is different than loan forgiveness for people who failed to secure well-paying jobs and thus were unable to pay off their loans after say 20 years despite making required payments. But this should be an exception for people who really do need this loan forgiveness. It should not be an expectation that you can take on a $200k loan and it will just disappear by presidential fiat.

And how many of those who failed to secure a well paying job got a degree that was in demand?

What I would like to see: Student loan payments are set at a percentage of (earned income - average non-degreed earned income). Exactly what that percentage is comes down to what the actuaries say and the earning potential of the degree.

Note that this automatically covers the disabled etc, you only make payments if you benefit. The flip side is whoever is lending is going to want to be confident that you'll benefit from the degree in order to lend.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you keep missing is that pushing towards the left helps the fascists.

Only in a state that is already trending towards fascism.

"Rights for x minority? That's gone too far, I'm voting for Hitler!" is not a thought the average citizen has in a healthy liberal democracy.

The problem is so many people don't realize that not voting is giving half a vote to Hitler.

 

[barbos]

What you keep missing is that pushing towards the left helps the fascists.

Only in a state that is already trending towards fascism.

"Rights for x minority? That's gone too far, I'm voting for Hitler!" is not a thought the average citizen has in a healthy liberal democracy.

The problem is so many people don't realize that not voting is giving half a vote to Hitler.

and you don't realize that voting is giving full vote to Hitler.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're in a hole and demanding to dig deeper. We lost the country because the Democrats are left of the electorate.

The electorate is right of both the party and me at the moment, but I am not inclined to abandon and replace my principles every two years, simply because they have grown unpopular in the current media cycle.

You have fallen into the Heritage Foundation's trap.

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible. Think of it like mass transit--you pick whatever bus/train goes as close to your destination as possible, you don't reject it because it doesn't come to your door.

Have you ever considered running for office? You would make an excellent Democrat.

I'd be a horrible politician--far too much of a social aspect. And I know enough of what a campaign entails from what my parents told me as I was growing up (he made a sacrificial run in a -60 district) to want to do that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeaaaa, I don't agree! I think that your side, favoring candidates that are so far to the left that they are unelectable

If that's the real problem, the ballot box will take care of it in any case. But I am not exactly impressed with the calibre of "centrist Democrats" lately. You say we must back them or die, because they have mass popularity and Progressives do not. But they don't have mass popularity. If the Democrat status quo is as wildly popular with the mythologized middle American voter as centrists claim, why does a country whose citizens are only 46% Republican-leaning have a majority Republican government, currently poised to overthrow the government altogether with paltry resistance?

The numbers don't lie: Plenty of the "mostly Democrat but with reservations" types voted for Trump. Not for the good cop. So why does the DNC leadership keep putting wannabe good cops on the ticket, against the will of the party itself? Harris had to be appointed by dubiously legitimate means, because when she tried to run for the office the honest way, the primaries decimated her utterly, before her home state even had the chance to vote. Some popularity contest!

You're in a hole and demanding to dig deeper. We lost the country because the Democrats are left of the electorate.

Please provide some basis to believe that?

I posted several lefty positions that the majority of people support. You accused me of being in a bubble so I provided the numbers to prove that support.

Now here you are again trying to claim the country isn't as left as they are by the numbers and yet again you are not providing evidence to support your position.

You said those positions had overwhelming support--but your own data only showed overwhelming support for some and only by some demographics.

And just look at the issues. Most everything was about things where a lot of people feel the left has gone too far.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still not showing how alienating even more voters is supposed to help.

You want a candidate that supports what you want, but that's unelectable and would lose abysmally.

Alienating them with what? The expectation they compromise and seek coalition first within their own party?!?

How is that too much to ask?!?

A candidate should be more centrist than their party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The UK and Australia are having problems supporting their single payer system, at least that's what I've read over the past few years.

You shouldn't believe what you read.

The problems are largely engineered by people who want the systems to fail, for financial and/or ideological reasons.

Decent healthcare is unaffordable in exactly the same way that US budget deficits are unavoidable - only if you accept the unspoken premise that taxation is fundamentally evil and unconscionable.

No.

The problem is that voters vote based on their perception of value. And the reality of healthcare is that most spending is on a fairly small number patients. So long as emergencies are dealt with reasonably well and minor stuff is dealt with reasonably well most voters will feel enough is being done. And they will see the system being funded at a level well beyond what they use. Every UHC system falls into this trap.

You fail to understand that government can't simply tax if the voters don't believe they are getting enough value for what they pay.

You have utterly failed to understand my point.

For any level of healthcare, there is a total cost, $X, that is the lowest cost at which this level can be provided to everyone.

In any healthcare system that is funded via corporations that insure people, rather than via taxation, the cost is $X + $P, where P is the profits taken by the insurers.

The question you raise; of what to include, or to exclude, is a totally separate question. It is true that in a direct democracy, there would be a tendency for the level of healthcare to be higher - for more rare and expensive treatments to be done. But direct democracy doesn't exist anywhere today.

It's not a totally separate question.

It's also true that for-profit insurers will strive to avoid covering literally anything they can get away with denying. That you see this as desirable leaves me questioning your morals.

It's not that I find it desirable.

But ultimately both systems have a level of care set by government. The government can be the single payer, save the middleman costs, and provide UHC; Or can just tell the insurers what they are legally permitted to cover (or to not cover). Either way, it ultimately comes down to the voters - because if it were doen to the insurers, almost every claim would be denied, and policies would literally cover nothing (while giving the impression that they covered everything, right up until you needed to make a claim).

Both systems have a level of care set by the government. But one system also pays to meet that standard. Which is easier, spending more or lowering standards? I don't like the private system--it's just I see even more problems with the UHC systems in the US.

Outside the insanity of the USA, governments can and do "simply tax". Taxes are just not a big fucking deal for most people; They are painless and simple, and they are unavoidable and largely unimportant.

That's not reality. The voters care.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cutting taxes forces cuts in spending. Cuts in spending cause problems in service delivery. Problems in service delivery are presented as "UHC has all these problems, we need to fund it less, to tackle the waste". So both taxes and spending are cut further.

The thing is it happens everywhere. UHC systems erode. Sure, you can come up with some fantasy system but it doesn't work in the real world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've read that in Canada, the UK and Australia wait times for elective surgery are very long. Is that true?

That depends on how you define the weasel word "elective". If surgery is needed, IMO it's not elective, and if it's not needed, IMO it shouldn't be funded by government at all. But lots of needed surgeries are claimed to be "elective", so wtf does the word even mean?

Regardless, nobody will be allowed to die because their surgery is postponed. Critically or dangerously ill patients are operated on without delay.

Cutting "wait times", by simply denying a big chunk of uninsured people access to the waiting lists, is not an improvement.

Elective surgery usually refers to surgery that isn't life threatening, which may include anything from knee replacements to vasectomies etc. There are common surgeries that are important to the patient for a variety of reasons. They may relieve suffering, but you won't die if you don't have it done. The wait time the US is usually very short for such surgeries. That is one positive of our messed up system. Of course, if you are poor and have no insurance, you're usually not able to get elective surgery, although there are exceptions. Life saving surgeries are given to those who can't pay. At least that has always been what I've seen when working as a nurse. I have a friend who had a life saving surgery despite having no money and no insurance at the time. She eventually qualified for a program that helped her pay for almost the entire cost of the surgery and hospitalization.

The problem is "elective" covers more than that. In the medical world "elective" is the opposite of "stat". If it has an appointment it's elective, no matter how important it is in the long run. And what happens when you kick the can on that test that would have found the cancer?

The end of life care thing is often pushed by doctors. I've never seen it related to religious beliefs although I'm sure that is sometimes the case. One of my very dear patients was dying and asked to have hospice care without any further treatment other than for comfort. His provider had a fit. She wanted to have him hospitalized until we convinced her to let him just be comfortable. My husband's late aunt asked to be put on a respirator when in her 90s, but once she realized how awful the experience was, she opted to have it removed and died shortly after. Those few days were very costly for Medicare. I've had patients with no quality of life who opted for respirators and very aggressive care. It usually had more to do with the family's inability to accept reality, then anything else, or the doctor's inability to accept reality. Imo, it would be better to help people understand that prolonging suffering when there is no hope of recovery is not a good option.

Yeah, we need major reform in how we see things. And you're right about accepting reality. I've seen it with those close to the patient, I've seen it with the person themselves. For a lot of people it takes time to accept that treatment is sometimes not the right option. I even saw it with my mother--she would have lived longer in more comfort if she had thrown in the towel upon diagnosis.

Thanks for the information regarding how you see your healthcare system. I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. My entire point is that medical care has become very expensive over the past few decades for a variety of reasons and it doesn't seem as if many if any counties are coming up with good funding solutions as how to pay for it. This hurts older adults the most as we usually require the most care. I personally refuse a lot of things that I see as unnecessary, partly because I know enough to understand what I need and partly because I don't want to be a burden on our Medicare system. I plan to refuse most types of aggressive care at this point in my life. I'm not sure if I'd opt for chemo or radiation if diagnosed with cancer. It would have to be diagnosed in an early enough stage that the treatment would likely be successful. That reminds me that I do need to update my Advanced Directives. Ok. We're off topic. I apologize for that, but it seems lately that we all have a problem staying on the topic of the OP. I guess this belongs in the discussion regarding UHC, which I fully support.

If there is a reasonable likelihood of a cure I'd try chemo. If it were a slow cancer I would consider options. But against aggressive, metastasized cancers I'd be looking palliative from the start. Look at what the doctors themselves do.

 

[bilby]

Of course Biden had authority to forgive student debt.

How so?
Also, forgiving student debt is not good policy. College graduates on average make more money than non-graduates, so why should they should get a general loan forgiveness?
This is different than loan forgiveness for people who failed to secure well-paying jobs and thus were unable to pay off their loans after say 20 years despite making required payments. But this should be an exception for people who really do need this loan forgiveness. It should not be an expectation that you can take on a $200k loan and it will just disappear by presidential fiat.

And how many of those who failed to secure a well paying job got a degree that was in demand?

What I would like to see: Student loan payments are set at a percentage of (earned income - average non-degreed earned income). Exactly what that percentage is comes down to what the actuaries say and the earning potential of the degree.

Note that this automatically covers the disabled etc, you only make payments if you benefit. The flip side is whoever is lending is going to want to be confident that you'll benefit from the degree in order to lend.

Your hidden premise here is that the only benefit of a degree is the monetary earnings it makes for its holder.

This is, of course, nonsense. A degree can benefit society, without being financially rewarding to the holder; And can benefit its holder in many non-financial ways.

And furthermore, plenty of people without degrees achieve financial success, so both sides of your formula are of dubious value.

The idea that everything can and should be measured in dollars is absurd, and your argument here is a particularly egregious example of that absurdity.

If nothing else, I benefit from having smart and well educated neighbours, even if they don't share a single dollar with me - and even if they don't have a spare dollar to share.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you keep missing is that pushing towards the left helps the fascists.

Only in a state that is already trending towards fascism.

"Rights for x minority? That's gone too far, I'm voting for Hitler!" is not a thought the average citizen has in a healthy liberal democracy.

The problem is so many people don't realize that not voting is giving half a vote to Hitler.

and you don't realize that voting is giving full vote to Hitler.

I didn't vote Hitler.

 

[Politesse]

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible.

Yes. I do.

Fucking grow up and stop blindly repeating social media aphorisms in place of reading what people have actually written before replying.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Cutting taxes forces cuts in spending. Cuts in spending cause problems in service delivery. Problems in service delivery are presented as "UHC has all these problems, we need to fund it less, to tackle the waste". So both taxes and spending are cut further.

The thing is it happens everywhere. UHC systems erode. Sure, you can come up with some fantasy system but it doesn't work in the real world.

But what is the real world? In a real world, in 2016 a candidate who had never held a political position such as governor or mayor, and with no history of public service (and in addition a history of being a failed business person) could not possibly be a candidate for POTUS, yet alone win, but nevertheless it happened. Maybe it is because the USA is no longer part of the real world, especially since November 2024, and is a fantasy land.
In regard to UHC systems, if the political will is there to avoid failure it can be done. For instance, if Australia spent a tiny fraction of what it has and will be spending on the ridiculous AUKUS scam it coud easily fix any flaws in its medical care system.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible.

Yes. I do.

Fucking grow up and stop blindly repeating social media aphorisms in place of reading what people have actually written before replying.

I know. Like, my first post in these threads is generally "I actually know how to vote in a generally election TYVM";

It's just that even though I do that, I still haven't alienated all the feelings that make me want to do otherwise, so I can understand why I didn't want to.

The fact is, our ideal candidates do run, they just aren't generally the ones "run" by the party, and that isn't the fault of the voters, that's the fault of a party where it is clear selection is less about what people want and more about what "the party" wants.

When the party will not compromise with the spoiler platforms, the party digs its own grave.

The reason they have spent the last decade trashing Newsom is because Newsom is the next Clinton or Pelosi and everyone fucking knows it. The voters do not want Newsom, though. The party does.

In fact, knowing the party is grooming Newsom to be a corporate figurehead candidate for high office is exactly why the Republicans have been making noise about him (and the reason I am inclined to think that people making SO much noise about him SO far in advance are PAID SHILLS, especially given their persistence and clear lack of other marketable skills).

They want to do to Newsom what was successful against Hillary: target their corporate figurehead before they even get a chance to be one, because there is a weak point there dripping with decades of whisperings of entitlement.

Not attacking Trump as he rose, despite the clear direction he was going was also one of those mistakes (there were no less than 4 pieces of media depicting Trump as running for president spread across decades, from Back to the Future, to The Simpsons).

 

[Harry Bosch]

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible.

Yes. I do.

Fucking grow up and stop blindly repeating social media aphorisms in place of reading what people have actually written before replying.

I know. Like, my first post in these threads is generally "I actually know how to vote in a generally election TYVM";

It's just that even though I do that, I still haven't alienated all the feelings that make me want to do otherwise, so I can understand why I didn't want to.

The fact is, our ideal candidates do run, they just aren't generally the ones "run" by the party, and that isn't the fault of the voters, that's the fault of a party where it is clear selection is less about what people want and more about what "the party" wants.

When the party will not compromise with the spoiler platforms, the party digs its own grave.

The reason they have spent the last decade trashing Newsom is because Newsom is the next Clinton or Pelosi and everyone fucking knows it. The voters do not want Newsom, though. The party does.

In fact, knowing the party is grooming Newsom to be a corporate figurehead candidate for high office is exactly why the Republicans have been making noise about him (and the reason I am inclined to think that people making SO much noise about him SO far in advance are PAID SHILLS, especially given their persistence and clear lack of other marketable skills).

They want to do to Newsom what was successful against Hillary: target their corporate figurehead before they even get a chance to be one, because there is a weak point there dripping with decades of whisperings of entitlement.

Not attacking Trump as he rose, despite the clear direction he was going was also one of those mistakes (there were no less than 4 pieces of media depicting Trump as running for president spread across decades, from Back to the Future, to The Simpsons).

As an aside, I'm not a fan of Newsome. He does seem a little too slick. But he's a fighter. He's fighting against Trump regarding Tariffs and ICE. He's fighting back more than any dem right now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact is, our ideal candidates do run, they just aren't generally the ones "run" by the party, and that isn't the fault of the voters, that's the fault of a party where it is clear selection is less about what people want and more about what "the party" wants.

Do they? I think President Johnson is responsible for one of the biggest leaps in Civil Rights of all time... but I'd hardly consider him a "progressive" politician. But he could get stuff done.

Getting stuff done is Part II of politics. People can have all the nicest ideas out there, but if they can't get it into a plan and then get it passed in Congress... their value as a leader is diminished.