• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3823 days ago

    Barack Obama had a lot of great ideas, but I think people have forgotten how many times he gave up without a fight. His motto seemed to be, “We can’t win, so why try.” I really blame him for the demoralized Democratic base that stayed home and allowed Donald Trump’s win.

    Harris needs to fight for progressive ideals, even if she doesn’t always bring home a victory.

    • @someguy3
      link
      25
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      Obama lost the House of Representatives in years 3 and 4. And again in years 5 and 6. Then he lose both the House of Reps and the Senate in years 7 and 8. That was the thanks he got for the ACA. He pushed for progress, got it, and the left voters never showed up for more.

      You want progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.

      • @Dkarma
        link
        2023 days ago

        To be clear the ACA was Romneycare…not progress.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Romneycare that didn’t kick into action until 2014. And because state agencies got to rebrand their programs, you had some crazy A/B poll testing results.

          In Kentucky, a new Marist poll conducted for NBC News finds that 57 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable view of “Obamacare,” the shorthand commonly used to label the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That’s compared with only 33 percent who give it a thumbs up – hardly surprising in a state where the president’s approval rating hovers just above 30 percent.

          By comparison, when Kentucky voters were asked to give their impression of “kynect,” the state exchange created as a result of the health care law, the picture was quite different.

          A plurality – 29 percent – said they have a favorable impression of kynect, compared to 22 percent who said they view the system unfavorably. Twenty-seven percent said they hadn’t heard of kynect, and an additional 21 percent said they were unsure.

        • @someguy3
          link
          3
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          I look at it as a Mexican standoff. The protest left voter is not going to win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out, to go for the center voter. Which is a voter that actually shows up. The leftist has no alternative. Bemoan the two party system if you want, but there is no alternative.

          When the left doesn’t show up, Dems just go to the center even more.

            • @someguy3
              link
              123 days ago

              Call it whatever you want, when they lose they will go to where the votes are. They have an out in this Mexican Standoff. You don’t.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -523 days ago

                And as they go to where the votes are, republicans, they should be abandoned by left leaning voters.

                • @someguy3
                  link
                  6
                  edit-2
                  23 days ago

                  Depends if you want to stop them from going center. They will go where the votes are. When you don’t vote, you tell them to not do anything left ever. “Don’t bother with us, there’s no support over here!” Congrats, it’s the biggest self own ever.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    23 days ago

                    I’m going to vote Harris in Nov, but I think the perception by many on the left (including me) is that when Harris wins they won’t go “good thing the left/progressive faction helped us win despite not being in lockstep with our policies because they understand how detrimental a Trump presidency will be” - they will instead go “Look at this clear mandate delivered at the ballot box. Harris’ policies are overwhelmingly popular, there is no need to push for a more progressive platform.”

                    And frankly, that’s exactly what I think will happen, so I’m voting Harris, but I’m doing so knowing that I’ll die of old age before there’s someone like Bernie with any chance of winning again. (and that person will probably get fucked by corporatist/centrist Dems just like Bernie did anyhow)

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -323 days ago

                    They don’t need to pander to centrists because they will vote for them regardless of what they do. So as they move further and further to the right pandering to Republicans, the DNC sees that as a mandate to shift further to the right.

                    As long as centrists keep rewarding bad behavior they will keep moving the Overton Window

        • @Lasherz12
          link
          723 days ago

          Walz is the perfect solution for this excuse. He passed progressive policies weekly in the governorship with a 1 seat majority. There are plenty of reasons to be excited about this ballot that are new. You could of course argue the same thing about early Obama, but I trust Walz.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            22 days ago

            What evidence is there that Kamal will even try to pass an agenda that is similar to what Walz did in Minnesota?

            I think Walz is the most progressive governor in the country and would love to see his policies implemented on a national level. What evidence is there that Kamala’s administration will even attempt to enact those policies? She has been light on policy, with the exception of supporting Israel and building the wall via the bipartisan immigration bill that the Dems are now running on.

            I’m assuming Tester wins in Montana and dems have a blue house and 50/50 senate. But even with that, idk why we would presume she would be as progressive as Walz

        • @someguy3
          link
          5
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          When do they win? They need all 3 of House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency to do much of anything. And they’ve had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. They basically never win. So they are forced to compromise and then they go to the center to find voters.

          And when they do get all 3, Obama passed the ACA, Biden passed green energy, student debt, drug price control, etc,. And the thanks they get is to then lose the midterm elections. Thanks voters that don’t show up!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            122 days ago

            Biden did historically well in the midterms tbh. If it wasn’t for gerrymandering and a population capped House, Dems would still have complete control of Congress

            • @someguy3
              link
              1
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can’t even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                222 days ago

                Yeah my point is that voters did show up. Dems did historically well in 2022 for an incumbent party

                Its just that the structure of our electoral politics favors rural areas and gerrymandered districts. Which currently means the red team benefits. Which isn’t the fault of recent voters

                • @someguy3
                  link
                  -222 days ago

                  He still lost the house. Not enough showed up.

        • @Leviathan
          link
          123 days ago

          Honestly, voting for representatives was a hard sell back then but after 2020 young people actually showed up to vote between presidential elections. Uniting the party is easy if all the elected party members are progressives.

      • @chakan2
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        The ACA is a huge black mark on Obama’s legacy. Clinton certainly wasn’t going to push for universal healthcare. She was just a terrible candidate.

        It was just really hard to get excited to pay 1100$ a month for bare bones family insurance. (At the time…it’s closer to 2500 a month today).

        • @someguy3
          link
          5
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever is suddenly a bad thing? Fucking lol.

          Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories. 2 years every 16 years is going to be slow. Bump that up champ.

          • @UnderpantsWeevil
            link
            English
            623 days ago

            Oh the most progressive healthcare reform ever

            In America? That was Medicaid, and was established in 1965 by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act. The PPACA was the biggest increase in enrollment since it was established, but was by no means universal or even approaching the scope of the original act.

          • @Dkarma
            link
            423 days ago

            Your first sentence is a joke right? Most progressive health care ever is a misnomer. It was Romneycare rebranded.

            Get a clue

            • @someguy3
              link
              -1
              edit-2
              23 days ago

              It’s a joke if your “black mark” is a joke. Like it or not, it was and is the most progressive healthcare ever, on a federal level if you want to be pedantic. Get a clue indeed.

              Which brings us back to: If you want more, then you have to give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                22 days ago

                In what way was it more progressive than Medicare and Medicaid?

                Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society is the high-water mark of progressive domestic legislation. Nothing in the 60 years since then is remotely close - quite the opposite, actually

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            -322 days ago

            Want more? Vote and give them consistent and overwhelming victories.

            Lucy with the football.

            • @someguy3
              link
              5
              edit-2
              22 days ago

              Hello Mr Crab! You have graced me with two messages today. What shall we cover today? Oh, that they “take away” something. Ok let’s cover how much power they have had:

              They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you to go back further, then it’s 6 years of the last 44 fucking years. If you want more progress, then you’re gonna have to up that!

              Is this where you complain that they didn’t do everything, everywhere, all at once when they had control? If so, then I say that writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.

              Ok we’ll see how this conversation goes huh MrCrab.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                -422 days ago

                They have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years.

                And they wasted as much of that as possible. How large does the majority have to be? How long do we have to hold it before Democrats actually keep their fucking promises to someone other than Netanyahu?

                When will Democrats start using the majorities we give them?

                • @someguy3
                  link
                  6
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  Yup there is Mr Crab! so I’ll just C+P

                  Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.

                  Here’s a very short list of what Biden has done: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along ‘party lines’). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine.

                  But you want to suggest they aren’t using the majority to do anything.

                  I wonder if that will suffice for this conversation!

                  • @jordanlundM
                    link
                    122 days ago

                    Most of what you’re claiming Biden accomplished aren’t real accomplishments though… not yet at any rate. He WANTS to do more, it’s that what he has done is either ineffective, blocked by the courts, or so far in the future nobody knows or cares.

                    For example…

                    EV investment. Biden signed a law pushing $7.5 billion dollars into fast charging infrastructure. That’s fantastic! And 100% mandatory for an EV future.

                    In the 2 years since signing it, only 8 have been built. That’s NOT a success.

                    https://reason.com/2024/05/30/7-5-billion-in-government-cash-only-built-8-e-v-chargers-in-2-5-years/

                    Now you can go “Well, that’s not Biden’s fault, he gave everyone the funding they needed to make it happen…”

                    No, but what IS Biden’s fault is claiming it as a giant achievement when it’s absolutely not.

                    When Republicans do it, we actively mock them, not claim we should put their face on Mt. Rushmore:

                  • @Ensign_Crab
                    link
                    English
                    -222 days ago

                    marijuana rescheduling

                    HE. HAS. NOT. RESCHEDULED. A. GODDAMNED. THING.

                    You’ve decided to lie to me, so we’re done.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -6
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        That was the thanks he got for the ACA

        I was paying for health insurance when the ACA was passed. My cost went up and my coverage got worse, and nowadays I can’t afford any coverage at all despite making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The ACA increased “access to healthcare” but it was an absolute, unmitigated failure - Obama got exactly what he deserved for it.

        • @tburkhol
          link
          923 days ago

          I make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but my ACA premiums, net of tax credit, are $0. Sorry it hasn’t worked for you, but that’s obviously not the universal outcome.

        • @someguy3
          link
          023 days ago

          You want [more] progress? You need to vote and give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            022 days ago

            So they can find just enough no votes like they always fucking do.

            • @someguy3
              link
              222 days ago

              Hello Mr Crab! What should we cover today? Oh ok it looks like you’re on a semi-conspiracy that they will “find” aka you are implying create no votes. I think it’s enough to call out the conspiracy. I wonder if that’s enough for this one.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                -322 days ago

                It’s not a conspiracy to notice that the party breaks its promises.

                • @someguy3
                  link
                  122 days ago

                  Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want. Thus the semiconspiracy. As addressed in my other reply, you can’t do everything, everywhere, all at once. Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital. You can’t do literally everything, everywhere, all at once.

                  • @Ensign_Crab
                    link
                    English
                    122 days ago

                    Ah MrCrab, you are implying that they do nothing, ever, anywhere, that any one of their voters want.

                    No, they do what you want. Break their promises and support genocide.

                    Because: Writing up legislation takes time, energy, and political capital.

                    You’re pretending that legislation can’t be written ahead of time. You’re making excuses.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      923 days ago

      It is really quite something how Obama almost categorically opted to give up without a fight on virtually every issue. He had to be dragged across the finish line for the ACA and was trying to kill the public option before Lieberman even took that charge up.

      The backroom politics of the Obama years should have primed anyone for what came after.

    • @4lan
      link
      2
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      never forget he authorized the extra-judicial drone-bombing of an American child.

      Obama is just a character. He is the charming face of the bloodthirsty elite.
      Look at his record

      If he were not attractive and charming people would be treating him like Pelosi

      I’m convinced liberals are really just sneaky centrists. We need to rid the party of neo liberals