After the midterms why some feel the need to send the message to primary Democratic incumbents

[still_one]

is beyond me.

The Democrats did an amazing job in the midterms, beyond the pundits wild expectations. Now is the time for Democrats to come together.

Sending the message that we should primary incumbents who THEY don't agree with is perhaps not the right message to send right after our midterm victory in the House.

Do those who are inclined to push this path realize in the next two years who they will need to work with in Congress? A LOT OF INCUMBENTS?

The messsage not only is a divisionary message, it is a patronizing message, as though people don't realize that incumbents cannot be challenged in the primary.

They do realize there were incumbents that were challenged in the Democratic primaries in the 2018 midterms, right?

Gee, I didn't realize that people could challenge incumbents in the primaries, thanks for that valuable information

[Iggo]

1. "Wait. Who did we elect? Gah! Get 'em outa there!"

[Wintryjade]

2. It simply feels catty to me and not grounded in fact. The same old battle that we

have seen the last couple decades, and Democrats being the loser. Destroy and rebuild, which never works nor productive.

[Cha]

3. And, not to mention Cenk Uygur is behind

"justice democrats".. who Whoopi Goldberg rightly called out on the View.

It's arrogant and divisive.. We WON the House in a Big Blue Wave from all over the country FLIPPING RED SEATS. My old District 22 in New York may be getting a Dem in 2018.. Flipping a red seat to Blue. It's been a swing District for many years. AOC and Cenk better not be planning on primarying Anthony Brindisi in 2020 if he Wins.

Mahalo, still_one

[still_one]

5. Good for Whoopi!!!!!!!

Thanks Cha

[Cha]

6. Yeah, Whoopi wasn't

having any of their hype.

You're Welcome!

[Cha]

9. Here's 9 other Dems whose Districts are still counting

besides my former one in New York.

Link to tweet

Dems who are helping us to have Checks and Balances in the HOUSE.

They don't need to be told some new Rep is looking to primary Dems in 2020 with Cenk Uygur behind it.

[still_one]

13. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[leftstreet]

4. Trump and the GOP lost

Did Democrats win because they ran hard on widely popular policies like Medicare For All or higher minimum wage, etc?

Or did they win because Trump/GOP

The push for progressive candidates and policies is strategically important NOW. The rightwing news media have 2 years to vilify and demonize Democrats - and they're fucking good at it

[still_one]

7. Both, and we are doing a pretty good job of vilifying and demonizing Democrats ourselves

Pushing progressive policies is one thing, telling Democrats to challenge incumbent Democrats they don't agree with, which is two years down the road, against incumbent Democrats who they need to work with in the upcoming Congress is divisionary, counter-productive, and patronizing. People realize that incumbents can be challenged in the primary. They don't need to be lectured on that. We just had a midterm where incumbents were challenged in the midterms.

[GulfCoast66]

8. Medicare for all? Until someone tells Americans how to pay for it it is not a winning issue

Especially in Suburban districts when most people have health care.

Don’t get me wrong, I want universal health care but think expanding the now popular ACA is way more sensible. Protecting the ACA was one of the keys to our winning the house.

If the progressives make supporting Medicare for all a litmus test they are going to wreck our chances for a sweep in 2020.

[JCanete]

10. um, its been mentioned time and again how we'd pay for it. Doing it that way was estimated to save

Americans 2 trillion dollars in medical payments, while covering everybody...and those are the accidental koch study figures.

[GulfCoast66]

12. Um, which plan are you speaking about?

And total cost does not translate to what individuals pay. The fact is most voting Americans have their health care paid for by their employer.

If we do Medicare for all, most voters taxes will go up. Significantly. That can’t be argued. It will have to be paid for.

Unless employers stay on the hook for the part they pay now, like in France, then most of us will pay more. And employers will get a windfall.

If we transition to a nonprofit insurance model with multiple plans where employers still pay a share the we can get it done.

But putting everyone on Medicare and workers will have to pay what employers are now paying.

As we know, healthcare is complicated. Easy fixes will not work.

As long as we use the ACA to transition to an insurance for all system we can get it done.

[JCanete]

15. Right, and I assume corporate taxes will go up as well, which should mitigate the very thing you are

concerned about, and it should also free up workers to not be leveraged by the fear of losing their health-coverage to not leave their respective places of work for greener pastures.

That mobility should result in companies needing to offer other incentives to keep and entice the best employees.

The point is, this is the part that is being explained to people. This is how we would pay for it. Maybe it should be said more often. I'm pretty sure it isn't a wonkish 10000 page plan that the American people are waiting to find their mail boxes before they become comfortable with the idea.

[GulfCoast66]

16. Looks like we agree on many things

But I don’t think raising corporate taxes across the board solves the problem(don’t get me wrong, they need to be higher per principal). The tax needs to be per worker so Americans understand that their employers are still paying for their care. But not to the government. To a nonprofit insurance company of the employees choosing. This will be reassuring to workers that they still have agency in the system. It is kind of what France does. And use higher taxes on corporations and high income individuals(like me) to cover poor and unemployed Americans thru the same nonprofit insurance companies that they get to choose. Self employed can pay in at a rate based on their income.

This works in many countries and we could get there using the ACA as a starting point.

[leftstreet]

11. Americans don't ask that. Politicians and media do n/t

[GulfCoast66]

14. Respectfully, that's bullshit.

Most voters have their health care paid for, in large part by their employers. Threaten that and they will go ballistic unless the alternative is explained in detail.

Because most Americans know that if their employers could jettison healthcare benefits for even an unknown government plan they would in a heart beat. And will not take that gamble.

Expand the ACA while keeping the employers on the hook is key. Increase taxes of the well off(which is me) to cover Americans who can’t get employer coverage. And make it illegal for insurance companies to be for profit.

It works in France. They are often rated the best health care in the world.

[leftstreet]

17. Most employees contribute to their own premiums

You may personally have it, but it's rare to have 100% employer paid premiums

[GulfCoast66]

20. Yes, of course.

But there is no way we can take employers out of the equation and not totally bust the debt or create the largest tax increase ever.

My employer pays over 10k per year for my insurance.

Sure, if we take the profits out of insurance companies that comes down a good bit. But it is still there. That’s the deal. There is no such thing as free health care. It is expensive and someone has to pay.

By fully funding the ACA and working to expand it we can achieve the goal of universal healthcare. Especially since the ACA is now actually popular.

[bhikkhu]

18. Having voted in Democratic primaries for years, there's always challengers to incumbents

That's a good thing. It forces people to get out and campaign, engage voters, talk about where they stand, etc. Its absurd that people would get bent at the idea that a politician would encourage people to run for office.

[Eric J in MN]

19. The context is that AOC is involved

...with a group called “Justice Democrats.” The group wants people interested in being candidates (including against Democratic incumbents) to let them know ASAP.