Though the political consesus does not see this way, this kind of common blantant corruption that directly affects public policy is is a far bigger scandal than Hunter’s Ukraine job, imo.
Bernie and Warren should rake Shifty Pete over the coals for this.
That’s a really good point. As much we most of us might disagree with her, we shouldn’t discount the possibility that she came to these conclusions genuinely and without coercion. I don’t know if that makes it better or worse. Maybe it doesn’t matter.
I really can’t figure out what people are trying to convey when they so often post about candidates they don’t like who are polling at close to zero percent, but it’s something other than what they think about that candidate.
Well, its highly unlikey she is being directly coerced. Look at the actual, documented infiltration of the NRA and National Prayer Breakfast by Russian operatives.
In those cases the Russians didn’t just start depositing money directly into R politician’s personal bank accounts in exhange for favors.
The Russians found out what Rs cared about, pretended to care about those same issues, used the access to make the Russian case on issues, and oh by the way, suddenly R campaigns/PACs started getting big donations from random companies with names like Oil & Gas, Inc. And because of US #1’s campaign contribution laws, apparently no one is under any obligation to find out just who the fuck is behind Oil & Gas, Inc. and why they are giving them money.
Apparently if you get too blantant and out of line, like Giuliani’s Ukranian buddies, you can get caught, but for the most part nobody is really looking into it.
I think Warren needs to shift her approach from engaging in policy minutiae towards calling out people like Pete for being bought and paid for.
One of the things Trump adjacent types loved was him calling everyone else out. “Interesting, Pete, that your stance on healthcare is now a collection of health insurance company talking points after they bought you” plays much better than what she’s been doing.
Sometimes I just like taking cheap shots and talking shit.
Yes for sure. I find all of those explanations persuasive. I can see that being an easy path for someone to not even realize how they’re being manipulated down a specific path.
I can’t get too high on my horse, though. The only people who think they aren’t successfully manipulated by advertising and propaganda are the people who are most affected by it.
I agree with a lot of your post, but in the context of you saying you don’t care that much about Senate seats… how do you think we get SCOTUS seats?
In the long run the brand is the most important thing. I think we shouldn’t compromise it without a truly massive payoff. A moderate dem from a red district who we have an ugly fight to hold every six years while they constantly tarnish the brand? Hard pass.
Pretty much by Presidential appointment and party allegiance. The last time I could find a Senator voting against an appointment made by a POTUS from their party was in the Bork nomination.
Right, my point is we would be thrilled to have a Senator Pete from Indiana in that context.
@boredsocial The other thing is that it’s possible to twist arms ok moderates in these situations on policy votes, if party leadership is better than it currently is.
Like, I would snap take a Senate with 51 Dems in 2021 thanks to a Mayor Pete clone in Indiana. It’s also possible that we make enough progress on campaign finance reform and democracy reform to negate some of the issues with big corporate money or to get rid of it, at which point Pete’s talent again becomes the key factor in evaluating him.
Strongly disagree. That seems roughly equivalent to HRC campaigning on why Trump was a bad choice rather than why she was a good one.
Warren should keep pounding how her policies will help Americans and not get into mud-slinging matches. This goes for the primaries and the general (though a certain amount of counter-punching Donald will be necessary).
So we are fine with terrible people as long as they are on our side?
That’s the kind of thinking that got the country here imo. I used to be all about compromise to get our agenda done… but we’ve been trying to do that my whole life.
We need to bolster the party brand so that we can get the poor people and the young people out to vote. That’s how we win. Allowing corporate democrats to undermine the brand is the political equivalent of spiking a good product with carcinogens to reduce costs. It helps in the short run but is insanely harmful in the long run… and yeah once you’ve started it’s really hard to stop.
It wasn’t even possible to stop before the recent advances in internet fundraising… but those advances let us run competitive races without diluting the brand.
Fact is if the product is great it needs less marketing spend to compete. That’s what I want for the party. We run on an undiluted good for the median family inclusive platform and win that way going forward. You’ll be surprised how many red districts are really blue districts when we actually do stuff that’s good for the median voter.
I would too, but 2020 is the off year for Indiana Senate.
2022 would be the next opportunity against Todd Young, who beat Evan Bayh by 10 points in 2016. Seems like a long shot.
I don’t think Pete has been blatantly bought (permaban for the next person who posts blantant) by insurance companies, so I think it’s premature to declare him politically dead forevermore.
Let’s assume he’s allowed himself to be unduly influenced… there’s time for him to see that error and make changes. He’s the mayor of a small town who suddenly finds himself on the big stage and maybe isn’t handling some things in the best way.
Especially if Warren wins on progressive ideals, I could easily see Buttigieg adopting (or re-adopting as the case may be) more progressive stances as his career continues. No need to write him off when you can welcome him back into the fold.
Attacking other politicians for being sellouts is somewhat different imo. You’re right that warren needs to be primarily campaigning on what she can do for the median family… but when her establishment opponents take shots at her her rebuttal needs to be to call them out for being on the take. It’s a devastating attack line that authentically fits with the rest of her campaign.
Nope. He’s too smart to deserve the benefit of the doubt. He’s not some naive waif who was waylaid by evil healthcare interests. He went in with his eyes open.
I think Pete understands healthcare policy as well as anyone in this thread… and decided to go ahead and undermine the fight for single payer because it’s a good attack line on the front runner. That’s sociopathic behavior.
I think the main reason I’m so mad about it is that I really genuinely expected better from him. He was supposed to be what you guys have described, a top 5 under 40 young political talent for the Democrats. Having some integrity was absolutely essential to that ranking though. We really have more than enough sell outs already without adding a new one with a 50 year future and skills.
I think you’re wrong about Pete and “healthcare interests”. There’s a strong argument to be made for a public option approach, including that it’s likely to result in actual medicare for all in a decade instead of result in nothing at all. I like M4A mainly as a bargaining position, but if anything positive is done on healthcare it’s most likely to be a public option, or maybe even the reform/reinstatement of Obamacare, which is in many respects dead.
Thinking that Pete is in the thrall of “healthcare interests” isn’t a bad talking point, but it’s pretty dumb and basically false. Pete has more $ from grassroots donations than all but Bernie and Warren. He’s trying to find a lane (ie, move in to Biden’s lane), or admit that his cause is lost. I think he would be better off with the latter, but his position on healthcare makes plenty of sense.
