politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
To be clear the ACA was Romneycare...not progress.
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.
Chicken or the egg?
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.
Except every time Democrats do win then the excuse becomes that they can't unite the party.
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.
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
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!
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
Yeah but it still kneecaps them. He can't even do a sweetheart border deal without the House.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
Your first sentence is a joke right? Most progressive health care ever is a misnomer. It was Romneycare rebranded.
Get a clue
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.
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