If you're not guaranteed a win, you shouldn't even try.

[redqueen]

Poll question: If you're not guaranteed a win, you shouldn't even try.

Agree or disagree?

(This is in reference to HR 676... but it can be applied to other things, too... funding bills, sCHIP, etc... oh but wait... they did try with sCHIP... hmmmm)

Anyway... thoughts?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. It depends

on the circumstances.

[redqueen]

3. Please explain?

Why was fighting for sCHIP (which was vetoed) a worthy battle... but fighting for Medicare for All not a worthy battle?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Because things are complex

I know it's appealing to think there's only right and wrong, good and bad, black and white, but the world doesn't work that way, especially the world of politics.


sCHIP is a good political tool with which to hammer Republicans. They have a hard time defending denying medical care to children. Democrats have something to gain from starting that battle, even if they lose.

Something like impeachment, on the other hand, DOES have a downside that outweighs the symbolic satisfaction that would come from trying.

Single payer healthcare, similarly, has a big downside for a battle we know we can't win this year: it becomes THE single issue of the campaign. It will cause hundreds of millions of special-interest money to be poured to Republicans and 527s. It hands a club to the Republicans with which to beat Democrats - SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! BIG GOVERNMENT!!! TAX INCREASES!! It would divert the entire political discussion over an issue that has no chance of passing this year.

[redqueen]

14. Well as I said I'm most concerned about healthcare right now.

sCHIP is a band aid and as you said, they knew it would fail.

I would like to see the GOP have to spend millions to fight the "Socialized Medicine" battle... considering how many Americans saw Sicko and so won't be fooled again. In my opinion this becoming THE single issue would be a *good* thing.

I guess you are of the opinion that most will buy the lies just like they fell for it when it was used with Hillary's band aid plan a decade ago.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Maybe 6 million people saw Sicko

and you can't presume that every one who did see it is now convinced that single-payer healthcare is the way to go. Further, you can't presume that a sizeable number of those people had their minds changed on the subject by the movie.

Yes, I think many people WILL be convinced by the opposition.

[redqueen]

22. Thanks...

I figure it was much more than 6 million... is that box office? You know how it is with streaming videos now...

Anyway, regardless, we won't see the fight to find out for sure how it'd go, one way or another... so... oh well.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. right

we won't see it because professional politicians have done the calculus.

A New York Times poll from last February finds that while most Americans think big changes need to be made, only 36% think it's bad enough to require a complete overhaul. 77% were satisfied with their OWN health care.

Most people want the government to assist people in getting insurance. They don't want to entirely trash the system we have now.

[redqueen]

33. But that's where we need more visibility.

Medicare for All doesn't trash the system we have now.

Right now the media is doing all the talking... if the pols would step up and seriously discuss the issue, maybe it'd have a chance.

All those people in countries where the media doesn't get to set the agenda are so fortunate...

[Yukari Yakumo]

2. Depends on the stakes and the circumstances {nt}

uguu

[redqueen]

4. Since we have two examples in current events... sCHIP and Medicare for All

let's discuss the contrast in those as an example.

Was it a good idea to waste all that time on sCHIP, considering we knew he'd veto it?

Why is it not a good idea to waste a bunch of time talking about Medicare for All?


Also please consider that sCHIP is a band aid... Medicare for All will raise healthcare in this country to the same standard that other first-world countries already enjoy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Give me ambiguity or give me something else. n/t

[redqueen]

6. What?

This scenario can be applied to lots of issues on the Dem agenda.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. It can be applied to lots of situations in real life. The answer is always the same.

"It depends."

i.e. ambiguous.

[OHdem10]

7. The Way Things Have Been Going:---

To have Media report over and over. The democrats failed
again this week. The Democrats failed again this week.

This surely is not good.

I do not not if this fail fail fail, has anything at all
to do with this, but on MSNBC I picked up a report that
the Independents in NH are leaning Republican more than
Democrat.

[redqueen]

9. The media is going to do that no matter what.

When the republicans fail it's "Democrats are preventing progress"

When the democrats fail it's "Dems FAIL!"

Being afraid of the media's inevitable smearing won't help us. Too bad about that Telecom Act, eh?

[zorahopkins]

8. Bully Pulpit

You would think that some in Washington have never heard of the Bully Pulpit.

[redqueen]

10. Indeed! (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

13. The term

"bully pulpit" refers to the Presidency. We don't have that at the moment.

[redqueen]

15. It does not only mean that office. (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

20. That's what Teddy Roosevelt referred to when he coined it

[redqueen]

23. Yes I know that....

however, that doesn't mean that it is the only office it is currently used in connection with.

[bryant69]

12. It's a calculation you work the odds.

There's no such thing as sure thing or a sure failure. So you calculate the risk, you calculate the expense, and you calculate the value of success or a partial success, and then make your decision based on that.

Take impeachment; I think it's very expensive, not likely to succeed, and could back fire on us (i certainly thought that in 2006, and the first part of this year, now the risk of back fire doesn't seem as high). But I can see how someone else could run the numbers and come up with a different answer, based on the possible benefits.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[redqueen]

16. Exactly...

I guess what is really bothering me is that they'd fight so hard for a convoluted band aid like sCHIP (covers some, not others) yet ignore such a simple solution as Medicare for All... especially when every other first world country has this already.

*sigh*

[BeFree]

17. Don't even

Why, if bushco is against you, and a minority of the dems is against you, why would you even try? You would if you were some idealist, I guess. Ya know, one of them types who thinks things could be better - oh so much better - ya know, that 'With justice for all' kinda idealism that used to be so cool, but now is like so far left that nobody but nobody even believes anymore that they can really have a part in the AmeriCAN dream because its evident these days that you can't win against the bullies so why even stand up to them?

[redqueen]

18. Thanks.

:hi:

[SmokingJacket]

21. Big difference between Not Guaranteed, and Guaranteed Not.

Of course it's worthwhile doing something even if you're not guaranteed to win. That's what life is.


But if you're guaranteed not to win -- to fail -- it's a waste of energy. I'm not going to stand in my yard, flapping my arms trying to get to the moon.

[redqueen]

25. I don't understand why the fight to lose sCHIP

was more constructive than a fight to lose Medicare for All.

[necso]

24. Your referenced examples

have different levels on (ways in) which "winning" can be considered/accomplished.

For example, supporting a bill that has little chance of being passed could be good for scoring political points, associating yourself with an issue, building momentum, making your opponents look bad, etc.

More generally, there may be lessons to be learned, strength to be built, a point to be made, an example to be set, principle to be furthered, etc. And you may have little or no choice in the matter.

However, where the matter is of weight, there's a choice, and there are no possible gains to be had, then generally I don't believe in wasting resources (even if only time) on lost causes. Of course, this is also a convenient excuse for when you just don't want to act.

Thorough consideration and sound judgement are called for in the particular and general case.

[redqueen]

26. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I hope in the case of Medicare for All, it becomes a battle worth fighting... soon.

[necso]

27. And I.

But I am not, however, holding my breath.

[Occam Bandage]

28. Disagree. However, if you're guaranteed a loss, you shouldn't.

[redqueen]

29. So they shouldn't have tried with sCHIP?

[Occam Bandage]

30. First, S-CHIP wasn't a guaranteed loss.

It failed, but it wasn't an inevitable failure; things just didn't break our way.

Second, S-CHIP was a safe issue. Public opinion was clearly and specifically in favor of S-CHIP. Universal healthcare, on the other hand, is not widely or strongly accepted. Many people report leaning towards it, but we're only just beginning the national healthcare debate. Leading with your biggest card--and having it get shot down in a high-profile fashion--is stupid politics. Universal healthcare wouldn't come close to even passing the Senate, and the absolute last thing we need is for it to be painted as a pet issue for ultra-liberal Senators.

The "Hillarycare" debacle put the cause of universal healthcare back a decade. I'd rather not repeat that mistake again.

[redqueen]

31. It was a guaranteed failure. Bush vowed to veto it.

As for the rest... that's all opinion I don't agree with.

[Occam Bandage]

34. The failure to override wasn't guaranteed, especially given public sentiment.

As for the rest, you're allowed to disagree, but it's usually conducive to the debate if you explain why. I'm aware you don't agree--that's why I said it, and I provided my reasoning so you could know why I thought what I thought. This is the part where you explain why you think what I think is wrong.

What specifically don't you agree with? Do you believe S-CHIP was not strongly favored by the public? Do you believe that the public wants a drastic overhaul of healthcare? Do you believe that "Hillarycare" didn't hurt the universal-healthcare cause?

[redqueen]

36. Failure to override was guaranteed... look at the way pukes behave.

Do you really think dems in congress thought pukes would really override their dear leader? That would be sheer idiocy. I really don't think they're that stupid.


As for the rest, since you asked... public opinion IMO is not the barometer with which to guide your every action. Sometimes issues are so important they require the leadership to guide and even push the public towards progress.

While you're correct about public sentiment about single-payer care, the fact is that most of the information people have about the issue is DISinformation, bought and paid for by corporations. This is why I think it's so important for our leaders to step up and discuss the issue in clear, plain terms. Allowing it to be handled in the media is stupid and counterproductive. As someone upthread mentioned, these people have the bully pulpit every time congress is in session... and they choose what to use it for.

Leading with your biggest card and having it fail assumes that it will fail. Single-payer care is not "Leave no insurance executive behind" and this needs to be made crystal clear.

I see that very few politicians have any interest in clearing the matter up for anyone. Disappointing, but not surprising. It's our job to push them. It's disappointing that so many are so willing to allow the media to continue to have free reign to spread lies... or worse, even help spread those lies.

Whether it comes close to passing the Senate or not, it's a discussion that needs to be heard.

I guess we'll just have to keep depending on the M$M to do that job.

Alas.

[Occam Bandage]

39. This is a catastrophic viewpoint.

"Other guys are driven only by evil, and the media hates us, so the only thing we can do is launch media circuses for political gain*."

See: Republican Congress, 2004-2006.
See: Election, 2006.

If we follow your strategy, we deserve the thrashing we'll get in '08.




*That is what you are proposing. "Symbolic attempts to open the debate and lead the public viewpoint" is only a nice way of saying "Media circus for political gain."

[redqueen]

40. Launch media circuses for political gain?

Where did that come from?

I'm talking about increasing visibility and correcting disinformation so that we can help people...

What are you talking about?

[Occam Bandage]

42. Potayto, potahto.

"Increasing visibility" is "launch a media circus." One is a positive term and one is a negative term, but both refer to what is objectively the same action.

"Correcting disinformation" is "for political gain." One is a positive term, and one is a negative term, but both refer to what is objectively the same action.

"No, no, it's only called that when they do it; everyone will think it'll be great when we do it" was exactly the same thinking that led Tom DeLay to treat the House like it was a campaign tool, and it was exactly the same thinking that led to the Republican downfall, and it is exactly the same thinking you're proposing.

You might have different rules for what's right for Democrats and Republicans to do, but the public doesn't.

[redqueen]

43. However you characterize it, it is what is done in every legislature.

Now which 'circus' is it that you think brought down the House repukes? The coma lady?

How are they not doing it now? (That idiotic Christmas thing?)

[Occam Bandage]

45. The fact that it is frequently done does not mean that we should consciously push

for more of it. Everyone loves to be pandered to (which is why Tom Tancredo is a hero among xenophobes, Ron Paul among libertarians, Dennis Kucinich among progressives), but everyone else hates watching others get pandered to--which is why, despite their fanbases, none of those three will ever win a general election.

As for what brought down the House? It was a combination. Schiavo was part. Their never-compromise politicization of ethics--ethics--was part. Their shameless politicization of a failing war was part; when you make it "you're with us or with them," and you support something most people don't*, everyone else shrugs and says, "okay I guess I'm with them." And their failure to accomplish anything meaningful (due largely to their refusal to compromise with Democrats) was part.

How aren't they doing it now? Heh. The daily screeching of the latest "SELLOUT TO REPUKES"--and the ever-growing list of Democratic accomplishments (plus the unfortunate lack of progress on the pet issues of the netroots)--should tell you how they aren't doing it now. As for that Christmas thing? You betray a lack of knowledge of Congressional procedure. Every day, on average, 4-5 symbolic resolutions are passed. They're meaningless, take 5 minutes, and nobody gives a shit. That's a world away from turning people's healthcare into a "we'll beat the repukes" political football.


*Please see the parallels to the recent history of universal healthcare in American politics, especially regarding the "Hillarycare" fight in the early '90s.

[redqueen]

47. Characterizing a discussion about single-payer care as "pandering"...

makes me think there might not be any point in discussing this further with you.

Loaded terms like that make serious discussion impossible.

FWIW, I don't consider pushing the issue so we can clear up the disinformation "pandering".

[Occam Bandage]

48. No, that isn't pandering.

That is an attempt to form a media circus to manipulate public opinion, and while it occasionally works, it often causes resentment among the public.

Are those words "loaded?" Yes. Are they misleading? Certainly not. They are "loaded" with nothing but the insinuation that there is nothing particularly good and holy about the Democrats, or particularly evil about the Republicans. They treat the actions of all parties as purely cynical ploys. If you can't use that language to refer to your own party, then (ironically) you run the risk of having those words legitimately applied to your party's actions. If you can't bear to see a pro-Universal Healthcare push in a most cynical light, you'll propose stupid things, because you'll propose things that the public will see in a cynical light, and you'll propose things that will fail and fail badly. The Republicans forgot that lesson under Bush, and they lost both houses because of it.

If you can't have a discussion about political strategy without keeping a set of words for Republican actions and a set of words for Democratic actions, then you can't have a meaningful discussion about political strategy. What Kucinich does is pandering. What Tancredo does is pandering. If you honestly believe that, tactics-wise, what DK does is objectively different from what Tancredo does...then you're right, there is no point in your discussing this further with me. Or anyone who doesn't already think the same way as you, for that matter.

[redqueen]

49. It's not "Dems" vs. "Republicans" and I don't know why you're trying to turn it into that.

It's "leave no insurance executive behind" vs. "sane healthcare" and if you think that's pandering then I'm sorry we just have nothing further to discuss.

It doesn't require that anyone think the same way I do... it requires a serious consideration of reality and solutions that are demonstratably successful vs. profiteering.

[Occam Bandage]

50. No, that isn't pandering. It's sloganeering.

Which is not very useful. The reason why I'm putting everything in terms of party politics is that everything in Congress is in terms of party politics.

I agree there needs to be a voice in favor of universal healthcare. There really does. It's a great idea, for the reasons you've stated right there. But that voice can't be--and won't be--Congress.

[redqueen]

51. Who do you expect it should be, then? Or will be?

Cause nothing's getting done now. Nothing at all. It's Michael Moore and Kucinich vs. M$M and Every Other Politician.

[Occam Bandage]

52. This is where we come in.

Congress can lead the public debate, but only to an extent. Issues ought be (and are) primarily pushed by (in my estimation of their importance):

1. Private citizens talking to other private citizens, donating to groups, writing Congresspeople, and writing LTTEs.
2. Issue-advocacy groups (like NARAL, Sierra Club, Amnesty International)
3. Independent advocates (Moore)
4. General advocacy groups (MoveOn)
5. Protest organizations leading street demonstrations.

Eventually, public pressure builds, and the idea finds its way into party platforms (written by (R/D)NC delegates--this is why it's important to vote your heart in the primaries). With the party officially behind it, it's made a campaign issue. Once elected, it's passed into law, and we win.

[redqueen]

53. I used to agree with you.

But now it seems that public sentiment means squat and not even the party platform is meaningful...

Thanks for the conversation.

[Mike03]

35. Absolutely, Try

All the candidates contribute ideas, and hopefully the most popular ideas are absorbed into the platform of the top candidates.

An example would be Obama borrowing elements of Edwards' health care plan, or HRC borrowing elements of Obama's foreign policy.

Biden has, IMO, very much contributed to the tone and dignity of the debates by introducing a reality check.

Kucinich has also contributed in many ways, by representing the voices that have not really been heard prior to the campaigns.

[cloudbase]

37. You gotta show up.

If you think you shouldn't, think back to Ap State and Michigan. You can't win if you're not in the fight.

[TahitiNut]

38. Even the fox tried before stalking off muttering "sour grapes!"

Two percent is better than zero percent. Any number of votes in the House or Senate is better than NO VOTES in either chamber. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." "Do the Right Thing."

I have no room in my personal life for Dedicated Cowards who don't make an effort - people who arrogantly anoint themselves with some perfect foresight that conveniently doesn't put their own ass on the line. Clay-footed cowards.

We're NOT getting out of this alive, folks, so we might as well give it our all while we can.

[redqueen]

41. As is so often the case...

we're in complete agreement on this one.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. So since no Senator is sponsoring

universal health care, that means they're all dedicated cowards?

All of 'em?

This is like the impeachment debate - Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer - nobody is arguing for it. But the armchair quarterbacks on DU decide that it's all done out of cowardice. Isn't it just possible that people who make a living doing this have evaluated the situation and come to a decision that's not the same one you've come to - but for honorable reasons?

This is the biggest problem I have with arguing on DU: No matter how hard one tries to explain one's position, and how one arrived at it, if the conclusion is not the one some people come to, one gets branded a coward, a troll, a right-winger. It's frustrating.

[redqueen]

46. I just assume that's hyperbole.

We're all frustrated... we vent.

The thing is... while you find it frustrating to be here and argue with people you think are unreasonable... I find it frustrating to be forced to support the only "opposition" party in town and see them not doing much at all about much at all... and most of what I see on here are excuses for it. Reid had some good reason to put that version of the FISA bill forward... ditto for Pelosi.

I'm glad that you believe that they know the risks and that you think they have honorable reasons for choosing the battles they're choosing.... because I envy you that comfort.

Please don't assume that just because we disagree on that that I think you're a coward or a troll or whatever... we just disagree.