@Pluto's Republic

Democrats. One of the pervasive criticism of Clinton was governing by polls, not principles. The seems to backfire. Clinton was the only President in US history elected by a plurality twice. And a nickname for Hillary's 2016 primary campaign was Camp Weathervane. Seems as though it's a very neoliberal thing. So, I'd say Schumer is a reformed liberal who is now a very typical neoliberal, even when criticizing the Clintons and their neoliberal policies.

…a different narrative:

@k9disc
That's their fallback. You still have the Inscos in on the gravy.
Republicans and Centrists would buy in (rather "sell in" or pimp themselves out).
You will never see the government pick up 100% of cost except for the poor.

Freedumb Caucus, of course, will not consider any government role. But business Republicans will.

I had been thinking that the Republicans might just go for Medicare for All. I could see it being a big bipartisan move, actually, and it would be a tremendous bone thrown to the masses to keep our eyes off of our war and the rape of the planet.

Seems like it's a possibility now.

@k9disc

The Koch brothers and their Libertarian-leaning colleagues don't want ANY national health plan. Heck, they don't even want Medicare for the disabled, or anyone, or Social Security for anyone. The House Freedom Caucus, which follows their mandates, stopped the first House pass at repeal and replace, which they dubbed "Obamacare Lite," in its tracks for that reason.

We keep thinking Republicans and Democrats seek to please voters, not lobbyists. I don't think that is any longer the case. That need has been considerably obviated by rigged elections and firms and institutionsthat will pay former Senators and members of the House big bucks after they lose elections or decide not to run.

I had been thinking that the Republicans might just go for Medicare for All. I could see it being a big bipartisan move, actually, and it would be a tremendous bone thrown to the masses to keep our eyes off of our war and the rape of the planet.

Seems like it's a possibility now.

Russian uranium deal and the money that the Clinton foundation made from it.

Cash flowed to the Clinton foundation after the uranium deal

The Clinton foundation is a money laundering scheme and everyone in our government knows it. They also know that she used her position as Secretary of State to further enrich her foundation, even though both congress and Obama told her not to.
The number of times she intervened for anyone or companies that had business before her state department is hard to find, but after each time she did, her foundation received millions in donations.

Do a search for "Clinton foundation scandal in Haiti and see how many links there are.
And speaking of interfering with the election, she had Haiti redo theirs to get the results she wanted.

They both should be in prison, but no one will touch them because too many people are just as tied up in it.

@eyo

Thanks for this essay. Just when I think California is the worst here comes New York, going lower. Here is another Dore video link: Evidence Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story To Cover Their Failures
Jimmy talks about "the origins" of the Russia b.s. propaganda starting around 3:18 or so. The source is a document from the Hillary Clinton campaign on an internal poll at the end of 2015:

Secretary Clinton's top vulnerability as tested in this poll, is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over 20% of American's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over a hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
...
and by the way Bill Clinton also got a half million dollars from a Kremlin connected bank at the same time as this deal was going through and that was among his highest paid speeches of his life.
...
her internal polling showed that was her biggest vulnerability because half of all likely voters (53%) were LESS LIKELY to support Clinton after hearing that statement, and 17% were MUCH LESS LIKELY to support.
...
Here it is 12/21/2015 ... that blue part on the bottom, what is says is (quoting John Podesta) "the best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin".

Jimmy does go on to say "we'll never have the effing evidence because FBI and DHS were not allowed to look at the DNC or Podesta servers", but the segment was funny that's all. Hope others enjoy it too. Thanks goodness for wikileaks.

peace

and nothing happened to them. People were still voting for the lesser evil.
Then Barry Obama came along and even though he failed to give us a decent health care bill, put the same people in his cabinet that crashed the global economy and not only continued the Iraq war, he joked about how good he was at killing civilians with his drones, he was re-elected.

@MrWebster

Trust but verify. After what establishment democrats did in CA and all the machinations and lies by corporate democrats in town hall meetings, best to take a very cautious approach. I would modify Reagan's idea as:

"Ok, now prove it."

While Bernie's policy agenda may have an ideological ascendancy in the party, the party organization from DNC to DCCC is still controlled by corporate democrats. While the DNC is bleeding from lack of contributions, looks like individual corporate PACs look to be doing well. Corporate democrats still get the vast majority of minutes within the mass media.

What may be different this time is that if and when the democrats stab the base in the back like they did in CA, they may suffer politically at some level.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
save his ass for reelection. "See, I tried to get Single Payer done, but we just didn't have the votes. Now, vote me in for another six years, and with your support together we can get it done!"

First, most Americans have stopped listening to all these assholes. Second, among those who are still listening, a percentage of them now simply hate both political parties and all politicians. Third, among those who don't hate all politicians, some of them hate Democrats for being Democrats. Fourth, a percentage of those who are left know the quotation about gaining two rich suburbanites for every one working stiff.

I wonder, though, if Chuck is really trying to distance himself from Hillary because she wasted so much of the rich's money and they're getting sick of it. He might be talking to them.

@CS in AZ buy into Medicaid? I mean, I do get their lies about that, but the logic defeats me - if you are already poor enough that you need to use Medicaid just how are you supposed to come up with the funds to "buy in."

“We’re going to look at broader things [for health care],” he said. “Single-payer is one of them.. Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table. A buy-in to Medicare is on the table. Buy-in to Medicaid is on the table. On the broader issues, we will start examining them once we stabilize the [health care] system.”

Until now, Schumer has mostly declined to weigh in on whether he thinks a universal program is the right approach.

I've read the schumer quote twice now, and can't find the part where he finally weighs in saying that single payer is the right approach. It sounds like more mealy-mouth bullshit to me. He dodges single payer by immediately throwing in a bunch of other ideas, and then punting on it all until "after we stabilize the system." Um, what? Sorry Chuck and Dems, but I am not buying this at all.

Their new slogan is right up there with "change we can believe in." Sounds good but means nothing. No sale, democrats. This won't cut it.

@CS in AZ
is just like doing something. Hypothesize and presto you've already done it.

“We’re going to look at broader things [for health care],” he said. “Single-payer is one of them.. Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table. A buy-in to Medicare is on the table. Buy-in to Medicaid is on the table. On the broader issues, we will start examining them once we stabilize the [health care] system.”

Until now, Schumer has mostly declined to weigh in on whether he thinks a universal program is the right approach.

I've read the schumer quote twice now, and can't find the part where he finally weighs in saying that single payer is the right approach. It sounds like more mealy-mouth bullshit to me. He dodges single payer by immediately throwing in a bunch of other ideas, and then punting on it all until "after we stabilize the system." Um, what? Sorry Chuck and Dems, but I am not buying this at all.

Their new slogan is right up there with "change we can believe in." Sounds good but means nothing. No sale, democrats. This won't cut it.

@Meteor Man He's right about that one thing, but it's nested in a bunch of seriously wrong assumptions. Still worth a read, though.

If he thinks "the rigid left" has any influence over Democratic party leadership, or any power in the Democratic party at all, really, he's out of touch with what political reality has been since roughly 1988.

Great take on the loyalty oath requirement of our Uniparty Duopoly:

Over the past 20 years, both parties in the United States have undergone radical transformations. The definition of party loyalty is being taken to new heights. Members of a party who deviate from its agenda or that of its leader are considered traitors

Some of the analysis is a little strained, but the main thrust is on target:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/parties-message-youre-either-100-percent-on...

@Amanda Matthews
1 Will the Rs screw up so bad that people will vote D again? (if so the earth and everything on it is doomed) or will the people drive a stake into the demopire's heart?
2 If the Ds are killed, will the Rs go to Constitutional Convention and establish the 4th Reich?
or…
3 Will the voters fail just enough to make it look like the Ds have staged a comeback - just enough to allow the corporate Corruptocrats to continue to sabotage every attempt to return to a functional humanity?

Not much wiggle room there.

kicking the Clinton Creature in the teeth now that she lost. In other words, he did to Her Heinous the same as he's done to anyone with a 'left' leaning liberal/progressive bone in their bodies. Chuckle needs to make himself look good and to try to endear himself to the proles now that he's found out that the Dims aren't really going to be snapping up all those moderate Republican votes.

This is just typical Schumer tactics. Now he's trying to save his own job. His and Nancy's. The Russia crap isn't working. Disenfranchised Sanders supporters who were told to go away actually did go away and aren't coming back (so support and donations are DOWN). And people are calling for new leadership to replace the long-time current 'leaders' who have collected their perks and pay checks while presiding over the demise of Bill Clinton/Al From's Turd Way Neo-liberal, Center Right 'New' Democratic Party.

Ironically these shits took over on the political influence and the right leaning conservative beliefs of one Clinton and their movement died an ugly and dishonourable death on the back of the other 'two-for-the-price-of-one' Clinton. I think that's the icing on the 'cake'.

I think 2018 is going to be one of the more 'interesting' mid-term elections. Where will the candidate's loyalties lie? With the 'party' or the 'people'?

Since the Dims are already extolling the many virtues of Kamala Harris and Clinton is forming PACs and committees, I am going to 'guess' the choice will be 'party' and screw the 'people' (again). But how will Chuckles snuggle back up to the Clinton Creature if he starts claiming that the loss was HER fault??

Yep. This could get interesting.

@snoopydawg
It was "Hillarycare" that gave us the Gingrich congress, and it was Obamacare that gave us the Republican domination. And I was not the only one saying it.

I was checking my messages on ToP and saw a diary about how pathetic it is that the richest nation on earth needs to have people go to health care clinics at a rodeo place.
This reminded me of the diaries about this during the health care debates and the many articles that Wendell Potter wrote about this. And how he pulled the curtain back on how the health care industry makes their profits.

So I looked up the writer to see if he was around during that time and yes, this person joined the site in 2008 and might have seen those diaries. As I was looking at his profile I saw that his most recommended diary was titled This place has Lost Its Mind

Opening the diary I saw that it was about Obama cutting $25 billion from the budget in areas that would hurt the most vulnerable people who couldn't afford to lose just one more thin wafer when they had already lost so much during the 2008 economic crash.

Gee, what would be so wrong by getting upset that the best president since FDR was pushing for austerity after he doubled down on the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and started wasting thousands a day by dropping bombs on other vulnerable people?

Big pie fight with over a thousand comments that ended up being another pie fight with the people who saw who Obama really worked for and the Obamabots that would defend him even if he shot someone of 5th Avenue.

This person wrote about the health care debate raging in congress and had one of the best arguments on what the democrats stood for, which is what I have been saying this past month about the democrats using reconciliation to pass the health insurance bill after they let the republican attach 170 amendments in order to get them to vote for it, even though for two years they said that there is no way in hell they would because they were going to make Obama a one term president and that those amendments weakened the bill. (Which is what the democrats used to hide behind by not passing a real health CARE bill like what Obama ran on)
I copied his whole comment since I know that some here refuse to give DK a click and I think this whole comment deserves to be read. Feel free to skip over it if you want.
But imo, this shows how long people have been on opposite views when it comes to seeing Obama for who he is and who he represented. Hint: It wasn't us, but I'm sure I am preaching to the choir here.

Without further ado:

I agree, we have to cut wasteful spending...It's what the people want, and it is good for the country. We need to start giving the people what they want, on all the issues...

Brown won because senate Dems and a decorous WH forgot who they serve. They rushed into bad deals. Refusing to negotiate for lower drug prices was a bad deal for the voters (a good deal for drug companies though). Refusing to offer a public option was a bad deal for voters (a good deal for insurance companies though). Not expanding medicare was a bad deal for voters, as was the Nebraska deal they made to give that one state an exception. Voters hate when corporate interests and special interests are put in front of the changes that are really needed.
(I am unable to input the chart that shows what he mentioned here
The only thing that polls negatively is the individual mandate. And yet, ironically, and idiotically, it is the one thing that democrats included in the legislation, while popular overwhelmingly popular things such as the public option, negotiating lower drug prices and the medicare buy in.

Democrats need to give the people what they want, regardless of whether the special interests they would have to stand up to fund their campaigns or not. Yes, this means fighting for term limits, even if this would hurt both entrenched democrats and republicans alike, standing up against the legal lobby to adopt some degree of tort reform and yes this means cutting wasteful spending (which is precisely the type of spending that this spending freeze will try to root out and get rid of). And Democrats need to hurry up with these issues because these measures are all popular, are good for the country, and if democrats sit on their hands on these issues, the republicans will make these same issues the centerpiece of their 2010 campaigns and kick our asses with them.

But this also means actually going furtherto the left on certain issues, both in jobs, in healthcare and in finacincial regulations. This means offering up enticing tax incentives for job creation. This means standing up to Bernake and Geitner to regulate banks that take too many risks with the people's money. And this means standing up to insurance and drug companies.

The public wants real healthcare reform, that gives them more choices. Across the nation, expanding medicare is immensely popular, the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices is immensely popular. EVERY SINGLE POLL conducted asking about these two issues showed them to the popular among the population at large.

Hell even an opt in public option is immensely popular when people are explained what a public option actually is. All these policies bring down costs. They all give americans more options. They all help real people rather than special interests And they all would be the sort of real transformative sort of change that people voted for. It would be real reform.

There is an enthusiasm gap. Because Obama insists on taking his cues from opponents, his base no longer is enthusiastic about him. They no longer talk him to their families and friends (the majority of the country who don't follow politics and take their cues on what's going on from their families and friends). While the other side grows more and more enthusiastic because every time their party says No, Obama caves some more and gives up something else.

Yes, both liberals and conservatives are very short minorities in this country. The vast majority of people don't pay attention to politics. But they do believe what their friends (liberals and conservatives) tell them. When all the conservatives bash Obama while all the liberals seem not very happy with him either, it's obvious where the public opinion will turn to.

But there is an easy bridge for this enthusiasm gap.

The senate's only viable option is to pass a sidecar of legislation fixes using reconcilation to get 51 votes to arrive at something the house will actually pass, the dems can actually use the reconcilation process to implement real changes...

Going through reconciliation means that what comes out of that will be a truer expression of what Democrats stand for, as they will only need 50 Senate votes instead of the 60 that constrained them before. If there is no public option, no drug negotiation, and/or no Medicare buy-in, it will be because the Democrats, as a party, oppose those measures. And, having opposed those measures, they will have failed to garner the support among the public that they will need during the next election. At the very least there's no reason not to add back in the options that were on the table in the Senate but blocked by a small handful of Senators: Medicare Buy-in and the opt-out public option. They probably could (and should) beef both of those up, but there's unquestionably an opportunity here. A medicare buy-in would be ideal. People understand it, and it could go into effect faster than a public option iirc. I'd love to see republicans campaign on repealing health care that increases medicare to a 50 or even 55 year old limit. I suspect Pelosi is leveraging the anger in the House to push the bill further than the previous negotiations (with a 60-vote threshold in the Senate) would have. She's be a fool not to, and she's no fool.

Linked from here

In short, they could get rid of the backroom deal for Nebraska, allow the govt to negotiate drug prices, implement an opt-in public option, expand medicaid, and lower medicare age limit.

All that completely helps turn around the current negative narrative on the bill (that it's fully of shady back room deals and does little to actually help people, give people more options, or control healthcare costs). Those are all the problems with the current bill that cost Democrats Mass. And it's precisely the kind of bill that Democratic Senators and House member can brand their 2010 campaigns on, and WIN. And it would also make Brown's win an afterthought.

The only question is, do the democrats have the brains and guts to actually give the public what it wants... A POPULIST HEALTHCARE BILL that actually helps them and gives them more options?

When the hell are democrats going to wake up and realize that the public wants healthcare reform, but it wants real reform, that gives them more choices, and actually tackles costs by creating a public option and letting us negotiate drug prices.

If moderates are hesistent prior to November, the senate can even pass a few things the republicans wanted later on, for example something to address medical malpractice reform.

I'm a little surprised that some people are still pushing a "reconciliation only" strategy on health care, particularly when passing the Senate bill with a "sidecar" of fixes through reconciliation would quite clearly be the dominant strategy. But just suppose that the only two options are "reconciliation only" and to pass the Senate's bill as is.

Let's take another look at that Kaiser poll I cited earlier today and look at the popular elements of the health care bill -- those which poll at a net favorability of +10 or better. Which could be implemented through a "reconciliation only" strategy? It's hard to say for sure, but here is a reasonable guess given the constraints imposed by the process:

You could probably -- not certainly -- get a public option through reconciliation, and the public option is popular, polling at a net +22. However, there are are least five provisions which are more popular than the public option that you almost certainly couldn't get through reconciliation only, including the insurance exchange, guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on their parents' plans though age 25, guarantees on the actuarial value of private insurance policies, and limitations on age rating. Nor could reconciliation ban gender rating or or eliminate lifetime coverage limits, which also poll well.

"Reconciliation only" might be better than the status quo. But it's almost certainly worse than the Senate's bill, as is. And it's categorically worse than the Senate's bill with a reconciliation sidecar. But why take half a loaf when you can get a quarter?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

FDR and his party ran for reelection on populism and won, despite all the republican attacks they faced.

Yes, FDR was accused of being too liberal, and he was attacked relentlessly for it by the conservatives. Did he back off like the democrats are considering. That's the difference between Obama and him. So he wasn't really as good as FDR then or even close? Got it.

No, he pushed populism HARDER. And then he RAN his campaign based on his POPULIST policies, his whole party did. And the republicans watched in awe, with their mouths open and he and his whole party decimated them in the next election.

This is the path to victory especially during economically uncertain times. Don't take strategy advice from your opponents, instead, push populist legislation, campaign for reelection based on your populist achievements, and you will WIN!

Yes it would piss off fox news. GOOD. But you know what, letting the govt negotiate drug prices, expanding medicare, and creating an alternative option that the people who are sick of the stuff insurance companies pull can opt into would be precisely the kind of populist policies that Democrats can run on during a weak economy, and win with.

Now that pretty much the senate's only viable option is to pass a sidecar of legislation fixes using reconciliation to get 51 votes to arrive at something the house will actually pass, the dems can actually use the reconciliation process to implement real changes...

The public wants real healthcare reform, that gives them more choices. Across the nation, expanding medicare is immensely popular, the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices is immensely popular. EVERY SINGLE POLL conducted asking about these two issues showed them to the popular among the population at large.

Hell even an opt in public option is immensely popular when people are explained what a public option actually is and that it indeed is optional. All these policies bring down costs. And they all would be the sort of real transformative sort of change that people voted for. It would be real reform.

Even today, the public supports both the ability to negotiate lower drug prices, and the medicare expansion.

Every poll done in which people are given a description of what the public option actually entails, the public backs that too. The only polls where the public opposes it are the ones where the pollster doesn't give a definition of what they mean by the term the public option.

In short, stop taking cues from our opposition on what we should do. Every single poll shows that the public backs these things (when the term public option is defined that is).

Recommended 6 times
psyched
blues lover
Reel Woman
condorcet
oxfdblue
FogCityJohn

Bolding is mine.

@Timmethy2.0

It sounds to me like they took a poll and found a lot of people said they voted Trump because they believed the lies that he's good at "deal-making" (his supposed area of expertise) and he's always saying he will get/make "the best deals" for America and its workers.

So the Dims thought, "oh, so people like to hear they're getting a good deal! Of course! So let's say we'll give them a better deal!" Genius, i tells ya.

I'm pretty sure the spirit behind "A Better Deal" is a lot more conniving and self-serving and hollow than was the spirit of the "New Deal". "A Better Deal" is probably a lot more to do with "worker's rights" to work for Uber than any rights to single payer health care, or transparent, paper ballot, publicly funded elections, or ending corruption by the MIC, the PIC, Wall Street, the Pharmaceutical industry, fossil fuels etc., or ending super-delegates and making the Democrats a Party of the People. They need to own up to their corruption and quit the assumption that Americans are stupid.

@blue drop

public office of any kind toes the neoliberal party line. The actions of the primary and post-primary, including election of Perez, speak volumes. The Clinton may have been Patient #1--and I'm sure they were even that*-- but it's an epidemic now. It's going to take more than getting rid of the Clintons to have anything but two corporate parties taking turns.

*Word went out at least as early as 1980 that Democrats in Congress had to start getting some of those big fat corporate donations that the Republicans were getting. Everybody was so busy blaming the exponential increase in DC lobbyists on only Reagan that not many noticed. Some of the actions of the Democratic Congress under Carter even seem suspicious to me, like replacing the Bankrucptcy Act of 1934 with a Bankruptcy Code that did not require judicial appointment of an independent trustee to run the (publicly-traded) company while it was in reorganization proceedings and to investigate the directors and officers to see if they'd sacked it. Who did that benefit most, other than crooked corporate officers and directors?

the Democratic party needs to break itself free of the Clinton grip on the party. it has been beholden to the Clinton's for 25 years just because of Bill's two term win.

it isn't 1992 or 1996. time to move on.