WAPO: Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can't work?

[wyldwolf]

I DON’T understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday night, in the most notable zinger of July’s Democratic presidential primary debate. “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the other major candidate on the field’s left wing, piled on. This got us thinking about some big ideas in U.S history. Like, say, amending the Constitution to outlaw liquor. Or sending half a million troops into Vietnam. Or passing a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy in a time of massive deficits.

Ambition is essential, in other words, but not sufficient. The country faces big challenges, such as economic inequality and climate change, that call for creative solutions. They also call for wisdom, honesty and even a bit of modesty about government’s limitations. Having embraced President Barack Obama’s “no drama” approach to governing, often defined by the philosophy “don’t do stupid s---,” it would be odd if Democrats suddenly embraced ideological grandiosity as a prerequisite for service in the Oval Office.

That means, first, that proposals should meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility — a bar that, for example, the Medicare-for-all plan that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren favor does not clear. Ms. Warren’s Tuesday night zinger was aimed at former congressman John Delaney (Md.), who had pointed out correctly that the numbers behind the proposal simply do not compute: The senators cannot deliver a system that provides far more benefits than other single-payer systems they claim as their model while preserving the level of care and access that insured Americans currently enjoy. They should make the case for a government monopoly on health care if they want, but they should be honest about the trade-offs.

Candidates who promise big ideas should also be pressed on how they will realize them. Mr. Sanders says he will lead a revolution. Ms. Warren will take on the “giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat.” Then, the theory goes, they can bring about radical change. But the United States is a vast, pluralistic country, and Congress will continue to reflect its ideological range. Big donors and billionaires may exercise too much influence, but Democratic primary voters should be wary of candidates who use that fact to explain away all opposition to their ideas. Even if you undid Citizens United and enacted campaign finance reform, sustainable policy in America would emerge only by means of principled compromise.

The next president should have a vision of progress for the nation that is expansive and inspiring. It also should be grounded in mathematical and political reality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-have-big-ideas-we-need-big-good-ideas/2019/08/01/2b5bed02-b499-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html?utm_term=.74a9acfa5486

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I despise the stench of defeatism in the morning

Smells like...mendacity.

[wyldwolf]

2. a good example of what the piece states.

Sen. Sanders says he will lead a revolution. Sen. Warren will take on the “giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat.”

You say to believe otherwise is defeatism.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Well! I guess we should all just give up; resistance is futile, yunno

FDR had his share of detractors - in government and in the media - yet he was able to accomplish a thing or two. The situation couldn't have looked more bleak in 1932, but we have naysayers today who claim pushback against the corporate rakeover of this country is useless.

[wyldwolf]

4. yeah, when it comes to trying to score points at Obama's expense, you should give up

[blm]

41. That wasn't an attack on Obama when she said it. Obama's even saying

now that getting to single payer is the goal. And has everyone forgotten Clinton’s universal healthcare in 1993?

Warren didn’t frame her message as an attack on Obama. Those who did were wrong, IMO, but it is clear that as of now Obama would go much bolder than he was able in 2010.

[True Dough]

52. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Obama is on board with single-payer. Will the "moderates" tell Obama he's too aspirational?

[LakeArenal]

57. Ding ding ding... That was always Obama's goal.

What he worked hard was to start the only way Repukes couldn’t stop it. Which as we know, is the ACA.

[emulatorloo]

64. Indeed. The public option was designed to get us to single payer.

House passed it. Lieberman and Republicans killed it.

[True Dough]

65. The ReThugs have thrown up every obstacle at their disposal

throughout Obama's terms and today with the House. They know NOTHING about acting in the best interests of the country, only about fulfilling their own big money agenda.

[emulatorloo]

66. +1

[Gothmog]

77. It is a mistake to attack President Obama's record

Link to tweet

[blm]

79. And Warren did not, yet some here are saying she did

[Gothmog]

80. Yes she did-warren's plan repeals and replaces the Affordable Care Act

[blm]

81. She did not frame it as an attack on Obama. And Obama, himself, sees single payer as

the goal. He knows what he did was a good start. Getting to single-payer is the goal he foresees, so why pretend that sharing that goal, and forming plans to get there is now an attack on Obama? Some Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time.....we don’t claim walking is an attack on chewing gum.

Your mileage may vary....if you choose.

[Gothmog]

82. It was an attack on the Affordable Care Act

warren wants to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a plan that can never be adopted in the real world. You may be comfortable with repeal and replace but I am not

[blm]

84. Obama is on board with moving towards single-payer. Is he attacking himself?

ACA was not attacked....it was acknowledged as a good first step.....why would anyone now pretend it is perfect the way it is when even Obama would now see it move towards single payer? Surely you aren’t making that assertion just for immediate election politics, Goth, so why do YOU believe Obama is attacking ACA himself now with his vision of single-payer?

[NYMinute]

5. Resistance for the sake of resistance is not very smart

That would be like expecting to kill a Tyrannosaurus rex with a nail clipper.

Some may believe it can be done and are naively inspired by it but most sane and wise people know it can't be done.

[NurseJackie]

31. ... and for the sake of "bragging rights" or demonstrations of "purity" is not very smart either.

I'm always amazed whenever I see a politician who takes an "all or nothing" approach to negotiating. In their mind, there's NO compromise and NO middle ground. --- So instead of making people's lives better with HALF a loaf, the politician boasts about "sanding by his guns" (or hers) ... and is somehow PROUD and GIDDY to tell his (or her) constituents that ZERO PROGRESS was made.

If zero progress is being made, how is that "progressive"?

[Demsrule86]

50. I prefer 'mendacity' and facts over the impossible dream as detailed by some candidates who will

never beat Trump...although any have my vote.

[Gothmog]

76. How will any of these plans be adopted in the real world?

[Loki Liesmith]

102. What defeatism?

I don’t want Medicare for all. Doing a public option over MFA is a win as far as I’m concerned.

[FBaggins]

6. Well said... BUT...

There is a difference between the primaries and the general election.

[wyldwolf]

7. the lines have become increasingly blurred in the age of 24 hour news and the internet

Past statements and position shifts can be recalled almost instantly, causing a general election candidate to expend energy trying to defend and/or explain them. That wasn't always the case. Just two short decades ago, one would have to go a library and load up microfiche to pull old news articles.

[MFM008]

8. Can we concentrate

On defeating the real problem

Maggot and his maggoteers?

[peggysue2]

60. Yes, please x 1000

Because if we don't the future for everyone is very, very bleak.

[watoos]

9. Not a good slogan for Biden,

"No Can Do."

Thank god JFK had ideological grandiosity or we would never have gone to the moon.

[ehrnst]

11. Actually, the Cold War with the USSR is what drove the Space Race

Not idealogical grandiosity. It was certainly sold to the American people with soaring speeches by a young handsome charismatic POTUS.

You may forget that the American people were also told that it was necessary for national security - and that was a big part of them getting on board.

The Space Race refers to the 20th-century competition between two Cold War rivals, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (US), to achieve firsts in spaceflight capability. It had its origins in the ballistic missile-based nuclear arms race between the two nations that occurred following World War II. The technological advantage required to rapidly achieve spaceflight milestones was seen as necessary for national security, and mixed with the symbolism and ideology of the time. The Space Race led to pioneering efforts to launch artificial satellites, uncrewed space probes of the Moon, Venus, and Mars, and human spaceflight in low Earth orbit and to the Moon.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

[watoos]

28. It still fits my definition of ideological gradiosity.

If people can call Medicare for all ideological grandiosity, I can call going to the moon the same.

[ehrnst]

32. No, not really. Idealogical grandiosity was the tool to get the public behind the military push

into space.

It was not the basis of it, nor the reason it was developed. MFA isn't something that's being developed or presented as a response to a national security threat from a hostile power. Fear of the USSR was a part of that "Idealogical grandiosity."

There is no one such as Obama or Kennedy that could enrapture a population, and in any case, the era of any president catching the imagination of the vast majority of the public is over.

We are now so divided, that people follow tribal ideology rather than facts or data, and there isn't going to be a consensus on much other than outrage at a terrorist attack like 9/11.

[jcgoldie]

36. Not a very good slogan!

"Joe Biden for President... because some stuff is just too hard."

[Skya Rhen]

44. True - I like this better: "Joe Biden for President....because getting rid of Trump is paramount."

[jcgoldie]

47. I feel ya

I'm not sure its true yet. I realize the polling solidly supports that argument. But I also think choosing a candidate this far out based purely on perceived elect-ability may be no more than self-fulfilling prophecy... ie a lot of ppl say Biden has the best chance to beat Trump because a lot of ppl are saying Biden has the best chance to beat Trump... I also worry about the enthusiasm gap someone mentioned here if your message is tailored too much to be bland and middle of the road rather than to inspire, then how do you get unlikely voters to the polls? Maybe Trump aversion does that for you, we shall see! If he ends up being the guy I sure hope he does!

[peggysue2]

61. x1000, Skya

Dumping Trump and thoroughly repudiating Trumpism is the prime objective without which we all fall down.

[Demsrule86]

51. There is a difference between having aspirations and trying to find the best way to implement...what

Sanders and Warren promote is not aspiration...but a flawed method to provide universal coverage which can be achieved in other better ways. If one says, I want health care for all...now what is possible...and comes up with the best plan...but Kennedy didn't scrap all the other ideas and hone in on one particular plan.

[Cha]

74. You're Wrong! Biden has A Very Can DO

Attitude! A WINNING ATTITUDE!!!

[Gothmog]

78. Joe Biden Is the Big Winner of the Democrats' Leftward Shift

Harris, sanders and Warren can go after the extreme left of the party but Biden will be the nominee if he wins the middle of the party which comprises the bulk of the party

Link to tweet

In the 2016 race, voters who identified as “very liberal” were the only ideological group in which Sanders ran evenly with Hillary Clinton. But they represented only about one-fourth of all primary voters, according to a cumulative analysis of 2016 exit polls by CNN. Voters who identified as “somewhat liberal” (just over one-third) or “moderate and conservative” (about two-fifths) cast a larger share of the vote. Likewise, voters over age 45 cast fully 60 percent of all primary votes in 2016, compared with about one-sixth for voters under 30.

On paper, Biden could face competition for moderate and older voters from the other centrists in the field. But none of them have yet consolidated much support. And while some of the moderate candidates performed well over the two nights—particularly Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and Montana Governor Steve Bullock—none of them had a breakout moment likely to dramatically improve their position. Meanwhile, several of the relative moderates, including Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, delivered low-wattage performances that may further hurt their standing in the polls.....

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll underscores the challenge Democrats may face selling many of those ideas. In that survey, 54 percent of Americans opposed eliminating private insurance; 62 percent opposed covering the undocumented in any national health-care system; and 66 percent opposed decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings.

Even among Democrats who identified as moderate or conservative, nearly half opposed covering the undocumented, and a clear majority opposed decriminalizing border crossings, according to detailed results provided to The Atlantic by Marist. A solid majority of those more moderate Democrats also rejected ending the death penalty, which every major Democratic contender has now embraced. In the survey, a national health-care system that eliminates private insurance did register support from a clear majority of both liberal Democrats and moderates. But, for Democrats primarily concerned about electability, the overall public’s opposition to that idea may still make them hesitant about supporting a candidate who advocates for it.

[SLClarke]

10. Level of care? Really?

The level of care that Americans currently "enjoy" is appalling. I say that as a health care provider with members being mostly women, and mostly 30 years of age and above. Insurance companies decide what is paid for and what isn't - not your doctor. If you lose and / or change your job, your health insurance often changes. Every year, your deductibles go up and the procedures you might need are put at risk because an insurance company has changed the parameters of care. Your doctor is increasingly told to take less time with you because they need to see more patients per hour, thereby putting their skills and your health at risk. Insurance companies, based on a cost-benefit program, decide what medications you have to take before you get the medication that is suitable for you, and more. Enough already. If everyone with their $500.00 or more per month fee, plus their deductible were able to pay a fraction of that, we would all save money, and our health would improve.

[Farmer-Rick]

18. Well Put SLClarke

And Welcome to DU,

Exactly the rich get a great level of care even when they are delinquent on paying their bills. But the rest of us have to scream and holler to get something that passes for medical attention. And God forbid your health care insurance decides you can't have a procedure. Just try and getting a straight answer from the doctor or hospital on the price. They act like it's a mystery and then overcharge you.

[in2herbs]

27. I, too, agree with you SLClarke and Farmer-Rick. It's the dreams we've had that have created our

reality. I want a leader who has big dreams cuz I believe we can make those dreams happen and I want those dreams to include a healthy environment and a healthy human race.

[wasupaloopa]

105. None of your dreams will happen unless we take over

the government.

Get that accomplished then bring out the dreams. Not before.

[pangaia]

34. +++++++++++

although I do agree that teaching and convincing the average dumb/out of touch/uninterested american about it ain't easy....

[ehrnst]

38. Delivery of care could be disrupted if a massive change in the system is implemented too quickly.

Anyone who says it won't be is not realistic about what that change involves.

[link:.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending|Initial independent analysis] shows that Sanders' MFA plan will cost taxpayers more and disrupt care more than is stated in the plan, which has an 8 year timeline for a complete changeover.

Anyone who promises that changing over to a single payer system can be quick, easy, affordable and have no negative impact on delivery of care doesn't understand how single payer or other UHC developed in other countries that have it.

HRC said that one of the mistakes they made in selling the idea of healthcare reform in 1993 was that they kept saying, "cover the unisured, cover the uninsured' without addressing directly how things would or wouldn't change for people who had insurance.

As we speak there is GOP viral messaging going around on social media aimed at older Medicare patients - "I worked years to earn my medicare benefits, and Democrats want to just give them to people who didn't even work a day in their life. Is that fair?"

The bulk of the population - Boomers - are flooding into Medicare. That messaging that single payer will dilute their benefits will work on them, unless there are details that are currently missing in MFA.

It may be a moot point anyway if the CBO score comes back on "MFA" as a dealbreaker. LBJ had to lie about what Medicare would cost in order to get it to pass. That's not a possibility now with the CBO.

[blm]

43. Exactly

[Sherman A1]

12. I will yield to the advice of Harry Truman

You can always amend a big plan, but you can never expand a little one. I don't believe in little plans. I believe in plans big enough to meet a situation which we can't possibly foresee now. Harry S Truman
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/harry_s_truman_164081

[wyldwolf]

17. And Truman couldn't get the big plan passed

Back in 1945 — a mere seven months into a presidency he inherited from Franklin D. Roosevelt — Truman proposed a “universal” national health insurance program. In his remarks to Congress, he declared, “Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.”

The Truman plan was quickly converted into a Social Security expansion bill sponsored by Sens. Robert Wagner (D-NY) and James Murray (D-MT) and Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-MI). A version of this bill had been proposed in 1943, when FDR was still president, but died in committee both because of the pressures of the war and the lack of presidential pressure on Congress.

Even THAT died painful death.

So is your underlying point Obamacare was a "little plan?"

I'll quote Truman one more time: "I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon the left-wing."

[Sherman A1]

24. True he couldn't get his plans passed but he tried and

Started with a big plan.

I do believe that the ACA was very watered down and should have been far better than it was. I see it as just a start along the way and half a loaf is better than nothing, but we shouldn’t stop there or accept the status quo.

I want to start with what I and many want, which is Medicare for all and work to get there. Any starting position short of that is to me a complete failure of ideas. It may take awhile to achieve and there will be compromises and time for transition but starting with a hope to get half measures is in my book a failure.

[wyldwolf]

25. If you'll recall, Obamacare was much more ambitious originally

And even with Dems in control of both houses, it had to be "watered down."

As the piece states, the United States is a vast, pluralistic country, and Congress will continue to reflect its ideological range. Just as with FDR and Truman and Obama, all who enjoyed a congress controlled by their party, the votes simply were not and are not there for a Sanders/Warren-style plan. They were only barely there for what became the final version of the Obama plan.

I want my pony, too.

[Sherman A1]

29. It is not about a pony

It is about voting for the future and I will support the candidate that offers the best vision for that, which is why I will continue to support Andrew Yang.

[wyldwolf]

30. It's definitely a pony

The desire for something that isn't realistic. Platitudes aside. But some do tend to follow those who promise it.

[Sherman A1]

40. I disagree with your assessment

Have a nice day.

[wyldwolf]

53. Explain to us then...

How do we win the white house, the senate with 60+, keep the house, then get enough on board for MFA. Explain the politics - magic wands aside.

[Sherman A1]

58. Frankly

I don't have to explain what I believe to be the case.

My opinion differs from yours most certainly and I will continue to believe we can do better than half measures.

I believe that the mood of the country has turned towards Medicare for All as reflected just in the number of candidates who have come out for this measure. I further believe that Democrats and supporters have done a very poor job in selling the advantages of MFA to both individuals and more importantly businesses (a point Yang brought up in the debate this week) as the focus has seemingly always been how do we pay for it as opposed to what are the benefits to society and the economy in both the long and short term.

We may not get it this time or we may get a step along the way but without attempting to push for it we will end up with the failing system we presently have.

[wyldwolf]

59. Magic fairy dust it is then!

[Sherman A1]

67. Or old stodgy ideas

it is then???????

[wyldwolf]

68. interestingly, 'old, stodgy ideas' is better applied to MFA plans

[Sherman A1]

69. .......

[wyldwolf]

70. .......

Can never be passed, can never get the votes, can never agree on the specifics....

[George II]

33. That's precisely why no one single plan will be perfect for everyone -

We're a huge pluralistic country.

We keep hearing about how Denmark and Sweden, etc. have it, why not us? Those countries are a fraction of the size of the US and are homogeneous. They don't have a half dozen factions fighting for their own interests, we do.

[CrispyQ]

62. It's hard to get big plans passed when you don't control the narrative.

I don't know about back in Truman's time, but the dems haven't controlled the narrative for over 40 years. They have made no effort to counter right wing hate radio. Note to Tom Steyer: Stop spending your money on futile things like running for president & buy a couple of radio stations in the heartland & operate them at a loss if you have to. Hire some top notch writing talent & use humor to fight hate.

Where are our clever one-liners, like No Child Left Behind, or Clean Skies, Healthy Forests? Even though the names of those pieces of legislation were deceiving, those phrases stuck in people's minds. Trickle Down Economics. Cadillac Queens. When they call us tax-and-spend democrats, where was the counter, tax-CUT-and spend republicans?

If you don't win at politics you can't set policy. Why the dems never hired George Lakoff is beyond me. The GOP had that little shit Frank Luntz, who at some point moved to Australia or New Zealand because he claimed the republican party had gotten too extreme. Whiny little loser. He helped make it extreme.

In the summer of 2009, before the ACA was passed, Remote Area Medical had that huge free medical/dental event in Los Angeles. People from all over the country were there & even the media was covering it, interviewing patients & nurses & doctors. The stories were heartbreaking. People who had gone a very long time without medical/dental attention had traveled from miles & miles to get it. All that media coverage & there were no dems on the ground. We should have had representatives of dem leadership there with every camera, explaining to the public, "This is what single payer/universal would be like only in your own hometown, with your own doctor & no long lines." But no. Crickets from the dems, while every news cycle showed the GOP carrying on about death squads & killing grandma.

Lakoff was right. The dems approach politics logically & the repubs approach it emotionally.

[wyldwolf]

63. compelling argument. So I'll say...

Dems lack the votes AND the narrative.

[crazytown]

13. "sustainable policy in America would emerge only by means of principled compromise

Which is why this opinion is DOA. Merrick Fucking Garland.

[theaocp]

16. Devastating point.

Trying to work with nazis is impossible. Crush them.

[Farmer-Rick]

22. Absolutely true crazytown

There is no principled compromise anymore.

It's all about what the filthy rich capitalist kings want and they are aligned with the traitorous GOP. The GOP has pretty well established they are criminals. How do you compromise with criminals?

[rainin]

14. I'm sick of plausibility being measured by current measures.

Leaders gotta lead. That sometimes means getting out in front of a good idea. The country is already there. With a strong leader, members of congress can be persuaded - or voted out.

The only thing I disliked about the greatest President in my lifetime, President Obama, was his eagerness to compromise. I wanted a democratic President, someone on our side at the top, not a referee.

Being a leader might be lonely in the beginning, but people will come around.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

20. Excellent point.

[theaocp]

15. So, Sanders and Warren ideas are "stupid shit"?

Please clarify, should that not be what the text implies.

[crazytown]

21. Warren must be very stupid indeed

History tells us when things are THTR too hard / too risky

Abolition THTR
Trust Busting THTR
Women's Suffrage THTR
Civil Rights THTR
Voting Rights THTR
Marriage Equality THTR

Putting corruption back in it's box, which is at the heart of Senator Warren's campaign, has never been too hard / too risky. It is the price and obligation of Democracy.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

19. I'm for Warren

But I think her healthcare plan isn’t the best one.

Related news: no healthcare plan of any sort is getting through the Senate unless we make DC a state AND abolish the filibuster.

[crazytown]

23. Warren wrote Joe Biden's health care plan.

It is a cut and paste of Warren's Consumer Health Insurance Protection Act of 2018, with a public option bolted on.

[BeyondGeography]

26. You should worry more about the Joe Biden Enthusiasm Gap

We all should if he’s the nominee:

...there’s an enthusiasm gap for Biden among some primary voters, the poll found. A majority of those surveyed, 56%, said Warren would fight “a great deal” for people like them, and 54% said the same of Sanders. Only 38% described Biden that way.

When asked who has been the most “passionate” so far, Warren and Sanders each had 28%, while Biden had just 14%. Warren, who has touted her policy proposals, was seen as the most specific candidate, with 42%, while Harris was seen as the strongest with 32%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-21/biden-leads-in-new-cbs-democratic-poll-but-faces-enthusiasm-gap

From last night, here’s what enthusiasm looks like:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BlueMTexpat]

35. I am now firmly in Elizabeth Warren's

corner and do not take kindly to those who snipe at her, whether they be supporters of other candidates or whether they be columnists, pundits or so-called political "experts."

Elizabeth has a history of evolving with what the facts show. She is not afraid to start big and she is not afraid of compromise when the facts warrant such.

As for this quote from the OP, "The next president should have a vision of progress for the nation that is expansive and inspiring. It also should be grounded in mathematical and political reality," if there is ANY political candidate in the group who is "grounded in mathematics," it is Warren.

As for "political reality," she has an excellent report card from GovTrak that shows her effectiveness as a Senator. That certainly takes an understanding of political reality. Here is her record from 2018. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542/report-card/2018

For comparison purposes, it is worth while checking GovTrak for the other legislators who are currently Dem candidates. Here is an interesting article that summarizes Govtrak results for all candidates who are now or once were legislators save for Biden and Inslee, as of the time the article was written (the most recent update was on May 3).

Biden and Inslee were not included because the tools currently used for analysis were not in place when they served. See https://govtrackinsider.com/what-can-govtrack-data-tell-us-about-the-nine-most-recent-and-current-members-of-congress-running-14bc37b1f4b8

There are some surprises in the article. Here are a couple:

...
Most Liberal
There are three candidates GovTrack rates most liberal. In order of their 2018 report card ideology scores they are: senators. Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris. These three have all cosponsored bills to provide Medicare access for all Americans and make college tuition-free for working and middle class students attending public universities. They are the least likely candidates to introduce or support bipartisan legislation, and often break with the Democratic party to oppose certain bipartisan appropriations bills.
Sanders may have had the lowest leadership score among the candidates, lower even than Harris, who has only served for two years, but among the progressives Sanders is a distinct leader. He was the primary sponsor of not only the Medicare for All and College for All Acts, but also of the Raise the Wage Act, which would increase the federal minimum wage to $15/hr and was cosponsored by every other candidate.
The Middle
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker can be considered the middle of the pack, but don’t be deceived; that still means they are quite liberal. Both candidates cosponsored Sanders’ Medicare for All and Raise the Wage Act. They both also cosponsored another bill to make college tuition-free, along with Gillibrand and Harris.
These candidates are less liberal in our calculations because of their frequency working across the aisle. Warren in particular may come as a surprise. While the Democratic leader has been characterized as partisan, over half of the bills she has introduced in her time in Congress have had a Republican cosponsor, such as the End Banking for Human Traffickers Act, which we summarized. We also summarized one of Booker’s bipartisan bills, the Eliminating Federal Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act.
...

I sincerely hope that ALL Democrats take these excellent words from Pete Buttigieg in the second debate to heart. We must.

"It's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. It's true that if we embrace a far left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. Let's stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it."

Elizabeth is not afraid to do just that. She is exactly the kind of fighter that we must have and that is why I am supporting her.

[theaocp]

55. Uckin-fay. n/t

[DallasNE]

37. I Hear What They Are Saying

I object to the "can't work" characterization in the headline. But they are correct that realistic numbers should be attached to proposals. Not explained is why this only applies to Democrats. Trump was allowed to get away with saying his massive tax cuts for the super wealthy would pay for themselves when there is a long history that shows just the opposite.

[ehrnst]

45. +1000. There have to be details, not just "I'm not going to speculate on that right now"

or "It will all just work the way I say it will, trust me," or "We spend so much money on Defense, we just move it over to spend it on this," when questions are asked about "how."

And those who ask about "how" should not automatically be dismissed as "shills for big pharma/hospital/Wall Street etc.

[themaguffin]

39. I know people liked her line, but I immediately felt it was counter productive.

[JI7]

42. why ?

[themaguffin]

87. because

it's false.

I like her, but the arrogance being put other there by her and Bernie of a sort all out or nothing is good approach doesn't work with everyone. More importantly, the ACA was extremely hard to pass. All big legislation is. This is complicated and the wrong approach.

Yes, think big. Have a big vision, but "how" is critical, as is the message conveyed.

She brought it down to "either you are all in on huge change, or you don't believe in any progress, so why bother."

Honestly, it pissed me off.

Defeating trump is the only thing that matters.

[Gothmog]

46. Great editorial

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. Fuck WaPo and their fear based, Status Quo defeatism nt

[OnDoutside]

49. Realistically, for MFA, you'd need to win the WH, the House and the Senate by well in excess of 60,

to have some chance of enacting it. And even then, telling private corporations that they're out of business, do you think they won't fight back ?

[CrispyQ]

54. Grounded in mathematical & political reality usually means, "How are we going to pay for it?"

For starters, implement a progressive tax structure. Tax investment income higher than income from labor. Someone who exchanges the hours of their life for a paycheck should not have to pay as high a tax rate as someone whose money is working for them.

[theaocp]

56. Yea, but that takes effort.

It's easier to just constantly tell people what isn't possible. As a lazy person myself, I should look into that. Doesn't take a lot of imagination.

[highplainsdem]

71. K&R

[Princetonian]

72. "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" ― Robert Browning

Liberal Democrats are idealists by nature who dream of a world that embraces the common good... which is a beautiful thing. The Democratic Party is a big tent. When all is said and done, we will pull together and win this thing.

[wyldwolf]

73. that was always my dating philosophy

[EndGOPPropaganda]

89. This is well put

[Gothmog]

75. The moderates' health-care message can prevail

Link to tweet

Advocates of Medicare-for-all need to explain the following:

Exactly how will they pay for the trillions of dollars in added cost? They need to explain how much money is needed and who gets taxed. If the wealthy avoid a new “wealth tax,” where does the money come from? If a middle- or working-class person likes his plan, what’s the justification for forcing him to pay higher taxes to support a single-payer system that will make health-care coverage cheaper for much wealthier people?

Are they really going to give completely free insurance coverage to anyone who can cross the border? Won’t this incentivize illegal immigration?

How will they ever get this through Congress if every Republican and a good number of Democrats object to a single-payer plan? Do these advocates imagine whatever they put in a white paper is going to sail through Congress?

What’s the benefit of outlawing private insurance entirely if people have the option to choose a public option that controls costs?

How do they address people who want to stay in generous union benefit plans?

What happens to providers such as rural hospitals that cannot make ends meet on Medicare reimbursement rates? (As the Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl explained last year, “Cutting all hospital and medical providers to Medicare rates — without the ability to recover those losses by charging higher insurance rates to others — would bankrupt many health providers. While some efficiencies can always be found, an immediate 40 percent reduction is not even remotely plausible. That is why the Urban Institute’s analysis of the Sanders 2016 single-payer plan insisted on more realistic payment rates — and concluded that the plan would raise national health spending by $6 trillion over the decade.”)

[gulliver]

83. I respect fighters who win.

Any time I hear someone who says "I have fought for something my whole life," the only thing I think is "Did they fight for it and win or did they lose?" All of us Dems are fighters. We need to elevate the ones who fight and win. That's a prerequisite.

I want to hear not, "I'll fight for you," but "I'll fight for you and win." I want to hear not "I fought for you," but "I fought for you and won."

As a corollary, if I see someone who has fought for anything close to what I want to see and won, they get my preference over someone who has fought for exactly what I want and lost over and over. The people who lose a fight for a good cause repeatedly aren't doing the cause any favors. They are sometimes making the cause look bad.

[wyldwolf]

86. I tend to bookmark posts on DU that I think are prolific. Your reply reminded me of one

The multi-generational failure of the American left to establish lasting foundations of governance in this country is almost universally excused as a product of Enemy Action: "They won't let us do the things we should do!" And for some reason it's usually just left at that, with no further examination. The laziness and childishness of this attitude should be immediately obvious, as well as the fact that it's an excuse for failure rather than a productive thought process toward achieving better results.

It also can't escape notice that it's essentially false: Contrary to myth accepted by both the left and the right, principled left-wing politicians are not rare in America. What's rare are principled left-wing legislative accomplishments, because the American left doesn't reward leaders who do things - it punishes them, because action intensifies attention, which (under the previously mentioned negative self-definition) causes unreasoning and unprioritized obsession on flaws.

A left-wing legislator who just sits quietly between symbolic speeches, but never once passes or in any way tangibly affects a bill that actually does anything, will not be punished by the left for their laziness. But a legislator who fights actual battles, and causes legislation to be passed that moves the country in some tangibly leftward direction, will not be rewarded for it - they will be tarred with the difference between that legislation and a perfectly ideal conception of what it should be, as if that ideal were a real thing and the bill they passed were a movement to the right for not living up to it.

This is an illustration of the quixotic, monkish, fantasy-based solipsism in American left-wing politics. It's a mentality that is self-satisfied with inaction - because inaction doesn't disturb the tranquil contemplation of ideal absolutes - while the rigors of actual governance are resigned to right-wing politicians and moderates. Think about this scenario:

Let's say that only 40% of the people have healthcare. The left says 100% of the people should have healthcare. Every once in a while, left-wing politicians introduce legislation (that never leaves committee) providing healthcare to 100% of the people. The fact that these bills never pass does not register with them or their base - the mere symbolic act of advocating them is considered an achievement in itself, sufficient and perfect, because the reality that no one is actually getting healthcare because of them is considered immaterial. None of these politicians are penalized by their base for doing nothing to actually create healthcare for real people - in fact, they're rewarded for "standing firm" in the face of reality.

Now suppose a pragmatic liberal politician gets a bill passed that increases the percentage of people with healthcare from 50% to 80%, and this is the first time in, say, thirty years that anyone has significantly increased the proportion of people with healthcare. Any remotely sane progressive would be over the Moon at this accomplishment, doubling the provision of healthcare to the American people, right? But in the negative psychology of the American left, that's not what just happened: That bill did not just double healthcare, it cut it from 100% down to 80%. And thus the liberal politician who just saved millions of lives is not a liberal at all, but some kind of Republican Lite or corrupt Betrayer who "sold out" the remaining 20% in some kind of smoke-filled backroom deal with cigar-smoking Mayflower descendents.

And...this is not an exaggeration of how left-wing politics in America thinks. It's the exact picture. I'm not saying that everyone on the left is guilty of this, or guilty to an equal extent, but it is the general environment. The American left operates like a set of monastic orders, not a political movement. It retreats from the world and from messy reality, content in impotence, seeing it as preferable to guard ideas from the dangers of practical trials than to participate in a "profane" and "corrupt" system that can't possibly do them justice. Needless to say, this is a perfect recipe for self-inflicted under-representation and irrelevance - more perfect than anything the other side could possibly design.

It is, in essence, a Loser Factory: A set of attitudes and cultural prejudices that turn humanistic ideals against themselves, and make people who could do the most end up doing the least. It takes away vital public support from politicians who try to achieve things, making them instead targets of the very people they try to serve, and make useless rhetoric machines incapable of political accomplishment into heroes. There seems to be no analytical ability to distinguish between real liberal achievers and people who legitimately deserve the title of "sellout," and the result is that the latter are empowered because insultingly pitiful fig leaf accomplishments still feed more people than Noam Chomsky monographs recited to empty committee rooms.

[Quixote1818]

85. Sanders already has moved the entire Democratic party to the left

so he and Warren are supposed to give up after all the progress? Also, you negotiate out of strength NOT weakness. Who are these idiots? Maybe they don't get everything but by asking for more you end up with more than if you started in the fucking middle. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Gothmog]

88. Banning private insurance polls very badly

This issue would kill sanders or Warren in they are the nominee

Link to tweet

[quaker bill]

90. The problem with the premise

is some curious notion that "Political reality" is known and fixed, or cast in concrete. It certainly is not. Political reality can and does shift, sometimes quickly and sometimes by increment. Candidates with a big vision can move political reality, but only if they win.

We have been trained over the last 40 years to view government as something best kept small, and that it is basically incompetent. You hear it everywhere: "Do you really want government doing that?", "We cannot afford X", and on and on.

Government did build the interstate highway system and put people on the moon. It only seems incompetent now because people who do not want it to work are running it.

A big vision ended slavery, a big vision granted women the vote, bring it on.

[aidbo]

91. Oligarchic mouthpiece says what?

[aikoaiko]

92. What shitty advice from WAPO.

[Gothmog]

100. Why?

How will these proposals be adopted in the real world?

[wyldwolf]

101. apparently because WAPO is a "Oligarchic mouthpiece."

[Gothmog]

108. I have a subscription to the Washington Post

[Gothmog]

93. Fighting over the details of their healthcare proposals won't help them beat Donald Trump

Link to tweet

[comradebillyboy]

94. I'll agree with WaPo on this one.

[question everything]

95. K&R

[Gothmog]

96. American politics could use a healthy dose of pragmatism

Link to tweet

Most Americans aren’t philosophers, thank goodness, but we are a nation of pragmatists. And so, despite the snap to her zinger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) was out of the mainstream when she shrugged off criticism during the second round of Democratic debates by saying: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

Democrats should be demanding more answers, not fewer. Will Medicare-for-all cost key union votes in critical Midwestern states, as Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) argued during the debates? Does a free-tuition promise at state colleges and universities benefit middle- and upper-class families more than families in need? Is Warren’s proposed tax on the assets of wealthy Americans likely to pass constitutional muster, and what strategies are billionaires likely to employ to avoid it? In light of those answers, will it really pay for all that she has promised?

Do Americans support decriminalizing illegal border crossings? Do Americans oppose lawful deportations? Do Americans agree that the federal government should guarantee a job for every person? Pragmatic questions such as these are highly relevant in a representative democracy, where politics is the art of the possible.

What I don’t understand is why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States simply to ignore questions about real-world realities and promise fights without explaining how to win them. Reality is not going to bend to a new shape come 2021 just because a President Sanders shouts at it or a President Warren fights with it.

[wyldwolf]

98. Magic wands and fairy dust

THATS how we do it!

[Gothmog]

99. Evidently sanders needs some sort of revolution to pass his platform

I would like to know how this revolution works. Where will the new voters needed for this revolution come from?

[wasupaloopa]

103. Have a plan, know what it takes to implement it, control

Discuss the risks. How unprogressive.

This is the best article I have red this election season.

The problem is the moderate voters give ideas more of an going over than do. The candidates do.

[wasupaloopa]

104. Personally I can't wait for Sanders and Warren to drop out.

Also I am glad Biden is leading right now because they can’t catch up to him,

Look for Bernie’s mean season to start soon and Warren’s baseless insults too.

[TreasonousBastard]

106. Warren almost pissed me off with that one. The ultimate irony is she who proposes in great...

detail what we must do complains about people arguing over great details.

Warren certainly knows that the president has great power, but he or she cannot write laws. He or she can only present ideas to Congress, which will then chew them up and digest them in its several bovine stomachs while releasing vast amount of gas.

Of course, no one gets traction by saying "Let's all work together to come up with a way to get healthcare for all, and a way to get it past Moscow Mitch if he's still around". Nope. No debating points there.

Zingers, though...

[Aaron Pereira]

107. We all know the WP is a friend of the status quo.

Warren's plan would meet with political resistance and the Post would certainly be part of that opposition.

At the very least they owe Warren a chance to write a guest editorial outlining why her plan does add up mathematically. She could challenge the Post to present their opposition in a factual way instead of making unsupported assertions as they've done here.

[wyldwolf]

109. no, "we" all don't "know that."

Perhaps you can explain it to us?

At the very least they owe Warren a chance to write a guest editorial outlining why her plan does add up mathematically.

Why has she not done this already? On her web page? On any number of "prooooogreeeesssiiiivvve" outlets?

[Aaron Pereira]

110. What's a "prooooogreeeesssiiiivvve" outlet?

[wyldwolf]

111. oh, you know. The sources that aren't "mouthpieces for the status quo" or "Oligarchic mouthpieces."