Instead of electing Joe who will give incremental change with police and justices reform elect a progressive who will fight for far more change. Same goes for the environment, our wars, healthcare…
The worst you get doing it that way is incremental change the best is massive change. Where the other way you get the same old slow change we have always had.
Come on you are just being silly now.
All Bernie or AOC would do is a different version of incrementalism. They don’t magically end racism.
Basically what nobody said. Withhold your vote until the Dems start nominating candidates that don’t think of Black people as superpredators.
Alright im done…
The police killing Black people isn’t a racism problem. Other countries have racism and the police still doesn’t just shoot minorities on sight.
I agree but don’t see what that has to do with this discussion.
I’m just glad that Climate Change will respond well to eDem incrementalism and milquetoast half measures. If our incremental progress toward “equality” (LOL) in the past 50 years is any example, the planet will be on fire before the establishment decides to do anything.
It’s an example of where the incrementalism approach has failed miserably.
I also agree with that. There are tons of examples where it comes up short. Jwax just mentioned the most obvious one in climate change.
I still don’t know what the alternative is. As long as we are not defining incremental as slow.
What is the one big change that ends cops killing black people or climate change? They don’t exist.
The only solution to the world burning is the world burning therefore we should burn it as soon as possible 
If you are looking for this one weird trick that solves everything then I agree. It doesn’t exist.
Is the tranquilizing drug of gradualism a pill, something you smoke, or a suppository?
Abolish the police.
Compare 1944 to 1954 (West) Germany.
Until the Democratic Party has a bunch of in prime Robert Redfords or Amandla Stenbergs out pushing M4A as winning elected political officials we’re never going to have the nice things people want. As much as people don’t want to admit it, a lot of people liked Obama because of how good looking he is. There are very few good looking politicians capable of being a great messenger for good. And most of the ones who could be don’t want to be. It’s shallow, but this country is super shallow.
The only people who even remotely filled what I’m talking about in the Dem pres. primary were Pete and Bullock and they weren’t interested in advocating those positions.
Fair but that is a bit like saying we should just end fossil fuel use. There are some likely knockoff effects that need to also be solved.
Was the CTH summary of the DNC accurate?
Morgan Freeman is not a bad second choice.
the vast majority of that 11% is republicans lying to spite the pollster, who they view as fake news enemy of the people
Late to the party but I disagree with this analysis. The issues of anti-choice or anti-marriage equality or anti-trans have no relevance to the issue of M4A. Each of those other issues has zero impact on the lives of a vast majority of Americans. So if you’re a liberal minded straight person, it’s no skin off your nose if gay people are allowed to get married, and it seems pointlessly cruel to say that they can’t.
The issue of M4A is more comparable to something like public housing. Most people support it in theory, but you’ll see a lot of them change gears if it comes to their neighborhood.
Most Americans under 65 are covered through their employers. If you tell them, “the government should provide healthcare to the poor,” they’re on board, but if you continue, “and you should be on the same plan, and maybe your taxes will increase a bit,” that’s where many start to pump the brakes. And it’s not entirely irrational. The idea that the government product will be inferior has decades of propaganda behind it, and a lot of the political system (e.g. the Republican party) devoted to making that propaganda true.
Healthcare as a human right is not a great argument for this group. Single payer proponents should be pounding how everyone but the rich personally benefits from M4A. You’re gonna get a raise at your job. You never have to deal with medical bills ever again. You can leave your shitty job even if you have a medical condition. Etc. Sell it like you would sell a product, not an ideology or theory of change.
I have some more thoughts, but they’re reasonably separate from this train of thought and it’s already tl;dr, so I’ll do a second post.