myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
2014 elections--what do they mean?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting essay by John Nichols in the December1/8 The Nation:

Quote:
When Bernie Sanders gets to griping about the Democratic Party, which happens frequently, he asks, “What does it stand for?” The independent senator argues that, after years of sellouts and compromises on issues ranging from trade policy to banking regulation, and especially after letting campaign donors and consultants define its messaging, the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman has become an ill-defined and distant political machine that most Americans do not relate to or get excited about. His point has always been well-taken, but it was confirmed on November 4. How else can we explain voters who chose Mitch McConnell senators and Elizabeth Warren policies?

That’s what happened in Arkansas, where 65 percent of voters expressed their concern about income inequality and poverty by approving a substantial minimum-wage increase on the same day they gave Senator Mark Pryor just 39 percent of the vote. Pryor was one of many Democrats who ran away from President Obama in 2014, and part of how Pryor distanced himself was by announcing his opposition to increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Republican Tom Cotton, who also opposes the federal increase, slyly endorsed the state ballot initiative and swept to victory in a race where what could have been sharp distinctions between the contenders were neutralized by the Democrat.

Arkansas wasn’t the only state where voters cast ballots for economic-populist and progressive policies and then elected Republicans who are militantly at odds with them. Sixty-nine percent of Alaska voters backed the boldest formal proposal for a minimum-wage increase on a state ballot this fall—a hike to $9.75 an hour, with future increases indexed to inflation—but a substantial portion of them helped elect Republican Dan Sullivan, whose first vote as a senator will be to put McConnell in charge of blocking a federal wage increase. Minimum-wage hikes won overwhelmingly in Nebraska and South Dakota, both of which elected right-wing GOP senators and governors. In Massachusetts, 59 percent of voters approved a paid-sick-leave law and then elected a Republican who used to be a healthcare executive—and who opposed the ballot measure—as their new governor. In Denton, Texas, 59 percent of voters approved a ban on fracking on the same day that fracking-friendly Republicans won most state and local contests. In Wisconsin, 73 percent of voters backed county advisory referendums calling on the state to accept federal Medicaid money and expand access to healthcare, while at the same time re-electing Governor Scott Walker, who rejected the federal funds. Eleven of the nineteen counties that enthusiastically called for expanded healthcare also backed Walker. Similarly, voters in a number of Wisconsin counties and cities that called for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood and get big money out of politics also supported a governor who, with the assistance of the Koch brothers, has run the three most expensive campaigns in the state’s history.

While voter suppression and low turnout are huge concerns that must be addressed, voters who came to the polls on November 4 were sufficiently progressive and populist to support minimum-wage hikes, paid sick leave, crackdowns on corporate abuses of the environment, expansion of healthcare and radical reform of a money-drenched campaign-finance system. They just didn’t elect Democrats. Of course, personalities, dark-money interventions and plenty of other factors were at play. But the consistent pattern of progressive policy votes in combination with Republican wins provide the starkest evidence of the extent to which the Democratic Party was an incoherent force in 2014.

Sanders and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus tried to get Democrats on message throughout the year. Warren wowed the crowd at Netroots Nation in July, where she outlined a platform centered on economic populism but also including progressive social, environmental and political reforms. But the memo never got to most candidates, consultants, party chairs and leaders. And the results were devastating—not just at the federal level but in the states, where Republicans grabbed governorships and eleven new legislative chambers. Midterms are usually rough for the party of the sitting president, but the 2014 defeats ran deeper, and in many cases will be harder to reverse.

At the root of the problem is a delinking of politics from policy. Increasingly, Democratic candidates in major contests run as “brands” carefully constrained to make a lowest-common-denominator appeal that is satisfying to campaign donors and insiders in Washington but that makes little sense to voters. While GOP candidates rage cynically against “elites” and “crony capitalism,” Democrats peddle pablum. As such, they don’t excite even their own base. What excited activists were those initiative and referendum campaigns; indeed, some of the biggest rallies I witnessed during the 2014 campaign were organized by backers of minimum-wage hikes and “Move to Amend” campaigners for an end to corporate influence on politics and policy. They were right to be excited: they were on their way to big and meaningful victories because they were fighting for big and meaningful—as well as popular—proposals. That’s a lesson Democrats should ponder, because as Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee reminds us: “When elections are about nothing, Democrats lose.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What does the 2014 election mean?
Well it means it time to cover your own ass if you are a democrat. We keep hearing about the civil war w/in the GOP, but it's nothing to what the Dems are going thru now, a case in point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ObamaCare author: Health law is 'really complicated'
By Alexander Bolton - 12/03/14 06:00 AM EST

Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the co-authors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill.

The Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, laments the complexity of legislation the Senate passed five years ago.

He wonders in hindsight whether the law was made overly complicated to satisfy the political concerns of a few Democratic centrists who have since left Congress.

“We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it,” Harkin told The Hill. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.

“What we did is we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively,” he added.

Harkin said the sweeping healthcare reform bill included important reforms such as preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and keeping young adults on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26.

He also lauded the law’s focus on preventing disease by encouraging healthy habits, something he contributed to by drafting the Healthier Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, which informed ObamaCare.

But he believes the nation might have been better off if Democrats didn’t bow to political pressure and settle for a policy solution he views as inferior to government-provided health insurance.

“All that’s good. All the prevention stuff is good but it’s just really complicated. It doesn’t have to be that complicated,” he said of the Affordable Care Act.

Harkin, who is retiring at the end of this Congress, says in retrospect the Democratic-controlled Senate and House should have enacted a single-payer healthcare system or a public option to give the uninsured access to government-run health plans that compete with private insurance companies.

“We had the votes in ’09. We had a huge majority in the House, we had 60 votes in the Senate,” he said.

He believes Congress should have enacted “single-payer right from the get-go or at least put a public option would have simplified a lot.”

“We had the votes to do that and we blew it,” he said.

Many liberals at the time expressed deep disappointment that the huge Democratic majorities in the Senate and House failed to pass a public option. It was the first time since 1978 that Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Harkin’s comments come on the heels of a speech delivered by Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democratic leader, last week questioning the wisdom of focusing on healthcare reform in 2009 and the start of 2010.

Schumer argued that Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-targeted economic programs in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse.

“Unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them,” he said. “We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — healthcare reform.”

Schumer acknowledged problems in the healthcare system, including the plight of millions of uninsured people, needed to be addressed but argued that’s not what voters wanted when they elected President Obama in a landslide.

His criticism was more targeted at the political timing of the law than its substance, which he believes has helped reduce healthcare costs significantly.

Harkin, however, believes Obama and Democratic leaders could have enacted better policy had they stood up to three centrists who balked at the public option: Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), a Democrat turned independent, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

He argues they could have been persuaded to vote for the legislation if Obama had put more effort into lobbying them.

“The House passed public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said.

“There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. "We had “[Sen.] Mark Pryor [D-Ark.] so we could have had Lincoln. We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things but he wouldn’t do it."

Harkin and other liberals are now faced with the bitter irony that the centrists tried to placate five years ago by crafting a labyrinthine market-based reform are now all out of the Senate.

“So as a result we’ve got this complicated thing out there called the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

He believes Congress should have moved legislation in the first 100 days after Obama’s inauguration, which drew over a million people to the National Mall on a frigid January day.

“There’s this old saying, ‘If you have the votes, vote. If you don’t, talk.’ We had the votes but we talked,” he said.

Then-Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) held listening sessions with Republican senators for months but ultimately failed to pick up a single GOP vote on the floor.

Harkin acknowledged, however, that knowing what’s right is always much easier in hindsight.

“I can Monday-morning quarterback with the best of them,” he quipped.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those who keep holding out for more are really on the sidelines. Better than nothing. Nothing humans do--with the exception of two posters here who never admit errors--is perfect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Those who keep holding out for more are really on the sidelines. Better than nothing. Nothing humans do--with the exception of two posters here who never admit errors--is perfect.

So does that put you in the 'shouldn't have passed the ACA' camp along with them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boy are you ever thick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Boy are you ever thick.

As a brick, get over it, you will never penetrate me, or the many that are just like me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I often get the feeling that many on this forum have not ever actually been involved in any governmental process. I urge everyone to attend a council meeting and argue for a new law or ordinance or argue against a new law...doesn't matter. Have a face to face talk with your Senator or Representative. Do something that gives you some understanding of how a representative democracy really operates.

The Dem's did a health care law. Not the one Liberals wanted, not the one the Conservatives wanted. But, a consensus law. Is it the best law? Of course not. In my business, architectural engineering, we abhor consensus designs...but, we can still get a building built that serves a purpose.

Government is sort of like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Government is a tedious group of bureaucrats coming together like a devouring organism to benefit mostly itself. Mostly worm like milky pasty faced liberal whites who think they know best. Every time I go to a city counsel meeting I want to puke. The minutia and boring un-artistic approach is sickening. Yeah I've been there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Government is a tedious group of bureaucrats coming together like a devouring organism to benefit mostly itself. Mostly worm like milky pasty faced liberal whites who think they know best. Every time I go to a city counsel meeting I want to puke. The minutia and boring un-artistic approach is sickening. Yeah I've been there.

Yes, but what do you dislike about government?

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I go to meetings back in my hometown. Liberals are very rare at those meetings, but it is mostly white people and endless minutiae.
Those who are willing to play the game are the winners and make the decisions.
That's how evolution was cancelled in Kansas, for example. Liberals were not willing to sit through boring school board meetings so angry old white people who deny science did all the voting.
This was a wake up call to educated conservatives and liberals alike and the next few times a school board election filled a position there were dozens of candidates. Many supported other candidates, not just themselves.
They worked together to put the clowns on the sidewalk and save their kids education.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group