So single payer was nixed by the powers that be, Dems stayed home in 2010...

[polichick]

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]

1. *Which* "Dems stayed home"?

The Devil, as usual, is hiding in the details.

[pnwmom]

4. Less political people aren't as motivated to vote in off-year elections.

Angry, frustrated, and highly political people make the effort.

[TDale313]

6. ^^^this^^^

Tired of this falsehood that lefties stayed home cause they didn't get their pony. Not born out by the facts.

[winter is coming]

9. Ah, but a good old-fashioned hippie punching goes well with everything! n/t

[polichick]

11. Where's the "hippie punching?"

[winter is coming]

18. You've apparently missed some of the threads today, not that you missed much.

The hoary "lefty Dems stayed home in 2010 and cost us the House" myth has been disinterred once again.

[polichick]

23. Gotcha - haven't been around today.

[polichick]

10. Mostly younger voters...

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]

2. IMO, we should work like hell to hold on

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]

3. Most of them stayed home because they usually do in off-year elections.

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]

7. That's a big problem...

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]

15. Maybe we should fine people for not voting - like Australia...

Problem is, in the U.S. many "leaders" want a low turnout.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. "Another attack on freedom" or some such crap if it was ever tried...

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]

41. It's a huge problem. n/t

[karynnj]

5. It wasn't some mysterious PTB that "nixed" single payer - it did not have more than 10 votes

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]

12. Excellent point that's often fogotten...

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]

39. I suspect the reason that the US is the only major country without it

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]

35. See post #8

[karynnj]

42. I saw that when it happened - and does not change the fact that it did not have the votes

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]

43. The Roots of Baucus actions can be found in his campaign contributions

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]

45. And not just Baucus - many Dems answer to those...

..."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]

46. You assume cause and effect

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]

8. The Truth about Single Payer cannot be erased

Arrests on Capitol Hill over Single Payer Health Care Issue

Ignoring it won't change a thing

Baucus’s 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]

14. thank you for that video and that link.

[polichick]

20. Surprising how many at DU don't know this. Thanks!

[leftstreet]

24. +1

Welcome to DU!

[solarhydrocan]

31. Thanks! n/t

[LittleBlue]

13. Turnout always drops off in midterm elections

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]

38. I think the momentum could've been maintained...

If the WH and Cong Dems listened to the people more than special interests.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

16. Oh I blame Obama

So do I win a prize?

[Rex]

19. IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!

Come on now, do it right if yer gonna do it! NOW GO CALL CONGRESS!

[Rex]

17. Shit stirring is an artform for some here.

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]

21. Think again - I've been a liberal activist for several decades...

You'll not find me bashing liberals.

(btw, shit-stirring is essential in a democracy.)

[Rex]

22. Not you, check out some of these other threads

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]

25. Guess I should have read before posting...

I had been thinking about Rachel's show and just posted when I logged on.

[Rex]

26. Yeah her show has caused the usual hippie punching crowd

to go crazy and stir the shit really hard.

[polichick]

30. I edited the op to include my take.

[Rex]

37. Good idea.

And I agree 100%, never should have folded on singer payer.

[Th1onein]

27. ENOUGH! I've had enough of these threads.

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]

29. Please read my edit.

[JI7]

28. so why did Democrats vote in 2012 ? if people who claim to be liberal or progressive

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]

33. imo there are a number of factors...

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]

36. yes because Presidential Elections are often more entertaining

look at all the famous people involved.

[PeteSelman]

34. All those extra young and minority voters that came out in 2008 stayed home.

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]

40. I also think there was a feeling of...

betrayal after Dem leaders listened more to special interests than the voters who worked so hard in 2008 (see post #8).

[PeteSelman]

44. That's true.

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.