Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, for one thing the WSWS attacking her immediately after her win doesn't bode well for her.
As for Real World: New Jersey, Trump's not far right... I'd label him a blue-dog populist.
Ok, so surely that’ll help the Chicken Littles in your nation if socialists don’t think she’s a socialist?
Tbh her policies are basically just normal ones for civilised countries.
Do you assume that New York would have a problem voting for a socialist?The fact that she's a faux-socialist is the problem for them.
I really don’t think many in your country, left and right, have the first clue what socialism is. Any “socialist” running in the US will pretty much by definition be a faux-socialist.
It would bring a few much needed improvements along.
She is as much a socialist as Sanders, and a much better campaigner.I don't know, Bernie was pretty popular with some people that never would vote for Hillary.
So, a Puerto Rican Sanders socialist won a primary in NYC. News at 11.
The Democratic leader deserved to lose. He has ignored the district, and even skipped a debate.
===
There is a lesson here for Democrats this off-election season. All politics is local. If we understand this, then there will a Democratic House in he Fall.
Well I hope Labour gets in next election and you get all the improvements you like.
They haven't understood it for a long time, which is why they've bled almost 1,000 spots nationwide since 2008.
Do you assume that New York would have a problem voting for a socialist?The fact that she's a faux-socialist is the problem for them.
....regardless of what labels outsiders use, it's easy to see why her message resonated with voters in her district. Incumbents of both parties be warned...
Agreed, the key line is not all Democrats are the same. It is in part a reaction to the Democrats working against Bernie and for the more establishment Clinton, and similar such moves.
It was internet programs such as Jimmy Dore, etc. that gave her exposure, more than the media who ignored her. And beyond the individual exposure progressives on the internet have been building the case for reforming, or abandoning the DNC to remove moneyed interests.
The campaign played on those sentiments.
The candidate won because she and her campaign workers made phone calls, knocked on doors, and attended meeting. She also understood their concern about issues that are important to the district, like the treatment of Puerto Rico after the storm.
She was opposed with someone who campaigned through the media, spending 18 times what she did, and had little contact with local issues. The reality is that the district has changed and the incumbent has not kept up with the issues of his district.
This strategy would work for Democrats or Republicans anywhere. Policy of the national party was NOT why she got elected.
As I mentioned, a reaction to the policy of the national party was part of it. That is why she included the language of not all Democrats being the same. The people want the things she spoke of, such as health care for all, etc. and they don't see the national party doing that. They also see the party favoring those who seem to sell out to corporate interests.
I did not deny she got local people involved. That is the point. Local involvement over big money. Internet mobilization through independent content creators vs. using the large media. Focusing on issues the people want.
Ok, I apologize if I misunderstood.
BTW, "healthcare for all" is accepted by most Democrats, and will likely be part of the 2020 platform. Also, her battle cry to get rid of ICE in its present form is getting lots of support.
There was a larger push for healthcare for all since the Trump actions to try to repeal Obamacare, and the revelations regarding the treatment of Bernie.
But the acceptance of it as part of the platform by key Democrats has been slow if at all. For instance, Pelosi now is indicating it could be "evaluated" if they win. But look at what she was saying in May of 2017:
But House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has said that the time has not yet come for a push for single-payer on the national level.
“The comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet,” Pelosi said at a press conference earlier this month. “It doesn't mean it couldn't be. States are a good place to start.”
I understand. The Democrats try to have planks and positions that can pass. Healthcare for All (now Medicare For All) was the policy of Ted Kennedy. Bill Clinton would have passed if he could. Obama was roundly CRITICIZED when he accepted what little he could pass. He certainly favored Medicare For All.
Yes, key Democrats have opposed universal health care forever. That is why Obama couldn't get it passed. However, the time is coming. As I said, I believe that this will be a Democratic plank in 2020 or 2024 at the latest. As far as 2020, much will depend on the candidate, and on how much the democrats want to have this issue as a campaign slogan for their candidates for the Senate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?