Klobuchar compressing the time frame, emphasizing quickly achievable.

[judeling]

An AlterNet article on high speed broadband access, reminded me of the basic Klobuchar strategy throughout the campaign.

Fortunately, a number of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have taken up the cause of broadband reform—just as they have the issue of monopoly generally—and their positions on the issue reflect almost perfectly their individual political profiles: Bernie Sanders wants to throw the most money at the problem: $150 billion for what he calls “high speed internet for all”; Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg propose spending around half as much but in characteristically smarter and wonkier ways—for instance, by funding the FCC to create detailed broadband pricing “maps” so that antitrust regulators have the evidence they need to crack down on anti-competitive behavior; Amy Klobuchar has gone a step beyond all of them by actually introducing legislation in the Senate, the Improving Broadband Mapping Act; and Joe Biden, predictably, has not had much to say on the matter, though he has proposed spending $20 billion to build out rural broadband infrastructure.

The press release accompanying the bill was pure Amy, highlighting bipartisan support and listing highlights of past actions. This is how she always runs.

Remember back in the first debate when M4A first started to be a dividing line, and how her objection was framed? She didn't challenge the policy, she challenged an aspect of it in terms of time. Moving 150m off in four years. She then pivoted to near term.

It is a subtle difference, but an important one. It is a strategy of self-interest. That goes to Bipartisanship also. It is not a vision of a radical change in the partisan divide, rather it is pointing out on issues there is a self-interested base path to some. While not really an appeal to what we see as the base, it is an appeal to a large part of the voters who long for some end to the madness. She gives them enough entry points on actions to hook them, but by going short term not much that will scare them away. You may think that would be more effective in a general election, However it works in an election where defeating Trump is so important. By emphasizing near term progress towards long term goals, she is allowing the more progressive wing of the party a way to support her and also holding out the hope of a more unified party without the internal fights that could block progress even before we confront the Republicans.

[abqtommy]

1. Why don't we just offer tRUMP a payout of 20 billion and an airline ticket to Russia? That'd be

a good investment...

[Submariner]

2. Because imho he feeds and thrives on the pain and suffering he can inflict on others

through his obsession with revenge for anyone that opposes him on ANYTHING. Money can't buy the amount of hate he can spread from his bully pulpit, like his MAGA-hate rallies.

[abqtommy]

3. There are medical procedures for dealing with individuals like tRUMP and they can be ordered

to be administered by a judge... what are we waiting for, WWIII?

[Baked Potato]

4. Well said, thanks

[David__77]

5. I appreciate this idea.

I find what I take as the implicit closing of the door in Medicare for All now and in the future to be offputting. Leaving that “door” open may, I think, be important to the forging of unity.