-24
submitted 1 month ago by paf0@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I think “For Now” should be in that headline. No progressives I know are okay with this, but they are okay with her political messaging shifting, for now, in order to get elected. We understand how politics works, but she better not betray us.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think discussion is fine. I think the article fosters discussion. I also completely agree with them sidelining what could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.

But I'm just a Canadian who hates headline gore and want to point out that:

Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Progressives say that’s OK.

Is a shitty headline. It doesn't match the tone or even fully the bias of the article and is click baity at best. It instantly paints the discussion for headline readers and article for the clickers as contrarian.

Harris isn’t pushing Medicare for All anymore. Is that OK?

Is what a headline should look like in this case and would probably foster discussion and less downvotes. But one can't even tell shitty journalism from manipulation these days, can we?

Edit: whipped out my black highlighter for some bolding.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

could give the Republicans ammo and votes in this critical time.

But republicans will immediately pivot to another area they want her to be more conservative with, and this change will have a negative effect on Dem turnout.

This one thing won't erase her lead, but she's also said she's not for banning fracking anymore either. That will also negatively effect Dem turnout.

Everytime she becomes slightly more conservative to appease Republicans, she gains no votes and loses a little.

That's not even getting into how at the end of the day, we desperately need to do these things she's now say she won't even try to do.

There's no way to look at this and honestly say it's a good move, unless you just always personally agreed with Republicans on these issues. And for those people, they were probably never going to vote D anyways.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

Dunno who those progressives are but most of the progressives I know are not okay with the shift.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

She supported it 5 years ago when she was running against Bernie Sanders in the primary.

She no longer has to do that.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

So, I'm reading the article. This is what I'm getting out of it.

  • Medicare for All is off the table.
  • Harris is worried that a full-throated embracing of Medicare for All will turn off voters happy with their current insurance.
  • She's got other plans, such as building off of Biden's wins in Student Loans, Infrastructure, and Medicare expansions.
  • The votes aren't there for Medicare for All.
  • Progressives are taking the mindset that it's better to stop Trump than hold Harris accountable.
  • This doesn't mean they are going to go quietly into that night.

My thoughts are that the Progressives would be served by pushing for RCV in more places, while pushing Progressive candidates in the Primaries in 2026 and 2028. Hopefully the shitgibbon will be dead by then and the next person won't be worse on Team Red, so the Progs have some room to hold the Dems accountable. And hopefully the Progs recognise the reality on the ground and maybe advocate for Medicare Buyin before Medicare for All.

That said? If you're saying "We'd like better behaviour out of the Dems, but no way do we want Trump in office," I'll never have beef with you.

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

If you're saying "We'd like better behaviour out of the Dems, but no way do we want Trump in office," I'll never have beef with you.

This is what I'm trying to say but I think the time to get them to listen is now. The threat of Trump looms regardless. Everyone knows who he is and no thinking person will vote for him. I have been voting for more years than a lot of lemmings have been alive and I'm tired of picking the lesser of two evils again and again. If we keep giving everyone a pass I don't believe we will ever get what we want because there is always another threat.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is where I point you to a simple fact. We don't always get what we want in elections. I know, that's defeatist mindsets, but let's get real. We live in a country where 3 out of every 4 voting aged adults say they are NOT liberal.

I know the lines that come next, but I think that's just ignoring the polling, which is never a good place to be. The good news is that the largest collection of people, the people who call themselves Moderates, outnumber the hard-alt-Right side of the Conservative spectrum. Like us on the Left, they don't want to see a Trump in office, nor Project 2025 implemented. But they also don't want to see many changes in their lives. Here's the hard part -- they get a say as well. If you push Medicare for All, just saying 'it's that or Trump', they're going to say, "I don't want either, so I'm just going to stay home." It's a lot easier to sell putting 3 million houses on the market, or forgiving loans after you've paid the principle back, or even 'if you want, you can pay a premium to Medicare and switch to that, or keep your insurance otherwise.' As the reminder goes to all voters -- it's not a marriage where you must find the Best Candidate Ever. It's public transit. You take the bus that gets you closest to where you're trying to go, and not all busses go exactly to the destination. Doubly so when other people want to go to different places than you want to!

[-] paf0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I understand but I'm not sure I agree. The bus isn't going to go near where I want it to go if I don't speak up. However, I appreciate the thoughtful response nonetheless. Thanks.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Bullshit it's "ok" with progressives.

[-] iamanoldguy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

We need enough representatives and senators in the house and senate who will pass it then Harris can just sign it when it crosses her desk. She’s not the one that has to push it. The down ballot candidates need to win their elections and get MFA through congress.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Politico:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/19/medicare-for-all-harris-progressives-2024-elections-00174447
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
-24 points (25.0% liked)

politics

18998 readers
3643 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS