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.
Dunno who those progressives are but most of the progressives I know are not okay with the shift.
And yet they will all vote for her anyway because she is not Trump and is pro-choice.
Yup we all (all the progressives I know IRL, not everyone here - I don’t know yall) will fucking vote for Harris while giving her shit and trying to push her to the left because if Trump is elected a lot of people will die. It fucking sucks but we’ve got to play the hand we’re dealt.
I was, for the record, also planning on voting for Biden in the general if he didn’t drop out while being fucking pissed off about Gaza.
I’m fully behind whatever pressure you want to put behind trying to force candidates to the left (I have no patience for fucks that decry the “lack of decorum” in protesters) but come election day I’m fucking voting for Harris.
I’m 100% here for this. Put pressure on her. Vote for Progressive candidates in the Primary. Push for RCV or something similar so we aren’t having to do ‘risk mitigation’ votes and instead can vote Progressive knowing the main-stream leftist gets our vote if the Progressive doesn’t, or the Progressive vote percentage in the House matches the polls. Protest the shit out of milquetoast third-way bullshittium decisions that just enrich the Moneyed Class. But when the alternative to Team Milquetoast is Team Fascist, I expect EVERYONE to show up for Milquetoast.
Honestly, as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize most voting is risk mitigation. I was brought up to think it was about making positive change but votes that do that are less common than the risk mitigation votes.
I think, unfortunately, part of becoming an adult is realizing just how much fucking inertia awful shit has behind it. Often times in business, even, you’re choosing between two shitty situations - things are rarely ideal.
and is pro-choice.
At least for now.
That’s just a bizarre statement to make - until there’s even an inkling of a shift on reproductive rights your comment is extremely disingenuous.
That’s just a bizarre statement to make - until there’s even an inkling of a shift on reproductive rights your comment is extremely disingenuous.
That’s what you guys said about immigration. I trust Democrats to move to the right.
Nah, Democrats have long been absolute shits about immigration. The fact that temporary working visas exist is an affront to labor rights.
And they recently moved to the right. Because it’s what they do.
Democrats claim to be pro choice while doing nothing to protect women’s choice is rather suspect.
So you’re going to vote for the overgrown oompaloompa who actively wants to take it away? We unfortunately only have two real choices here.
YOU have 2 options that have been created for you for them to stay in power.
Yes, and? Exactly how many freedoms are you willing to allow Trump to take away so you can vote for someone who can’t possibly win?
I would rather vote for something and not get it than to vote against something and still get it. You’re willing to settle for table scraps from Democrats so you don’t get table scraps from Republicans. Either way, all you get is table scraps.
Awe, your first time? It only hurts a little bit.
We’ll have better luck if we push for systemic change with things like RCV, term limits and overturning citizens united. Otherwise we’ll always be stuck between a rock and a fascist place, and we don’t want to choose the fascist place accidentally.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
She supported it 5 years ago when she was running against Bernie Sanders in the primary.
She no longer has to do that.
Bullshit it’s “ok” with progressives.
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.
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 sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
They don’t need to lie about what they support anymore. They don’t have to offer anything because they’ve never been held accountable for their lies. All they need is that D next to their name to get elected. Policy means nothing as long as they are not the other fascist team.
Removed by mod
I don’t think she lied in 2019 about M4A being what this country needs.
I think the same thing that happened to Obama happened to her
I might think Biden is a poor president, but fuck, anyone that spends four years with the guy does become a lot more conservative. He’s incredibly effective at that apparently. It’s probably why he’s always got along so well with Republicans.
It’s debatable if her mind has really changed on the matter, or she’s just been convinced to take this stance for donations.
But I don’t think she lied in 2019.
I’m not allowed to post things from the candidate’s own blog. I’m not allowed to post articles from 2019, but what about this?
Her reversal is not ok and we should be allowed to discuss it.
I want it, but I’m willing to wait a while longer in exchange for freedom now. Bigger problems to work on with Project 2025. I got a preteen niece that cannot grow up in that kind of world. And couchfucker needs to go away.
OP posted a similar article a few minutes ago, and I will say again they’re like MAGA and are using anything and everything to kill the momentum.
Momentum sustained over here. Would love MFA but there no point in talking about it without the right Congress.
Exactly.
I am not a MAGA person and I am only one person. If the candidate were consistent then she wouldn’t have this problem.
Are you completely unaware of how political campaigns work?
I’m more interested in how they should work.
You should be interested in both how it should work, and how it DOES work, because you’ll never win if you don’t learn how to play the game.
I’m going to try to be nice here and say I don’t think throwing ‘MAGA’ around is helpful unless it’s clear you deserve it, but I don’t know how theprogressivist has interacted with you in the past, so I can’t speak for them, just for me. If your goal is to hold the Dems’ feet to the fire, I’m here for that. I think you need to be realistic and accept the fact that you can’t win America on a straight Liberal platform with all the fear-mongering Team Red has put on that word.
Right now, I have but one thing on my mind – Trump must not win in November. Once we deal with him, we can start pushing our own side, for sure, but we need to come together during election season and kick the Alt-Right to the curb. Project 2025 waits if we falter.
The headline saying progressives are ok with it is bullshit.
But if stupid headlines broke any rules, there’d be a lot less posts here.
This one will likely stay up
That’s the headline from the article and I’m not allowed to change it. I ended up having to copy paste it as the automatic import did not work, so I suppose the title tag could be different. I can’t quite tell on my phone.
Nah. I meant it’s not your fault it’s a dumb headline, it’s the journalist/editor who picked it.
I should have explicitly said that to be clear tho considering how much hassle you’ve went thru to get a post in
Says the person who amplified an equally shitty and misleading headline from Axios literally less than 24 hours ago. Anything to fit your preconceived notions though, right?
My preconceived notion is that people should fight for the things they believe in and not just shift their beliefs because the money said so. Strange, I know.
My preconceived notion is that people shouldn’t amplify misleading headlines. That goes doubly for people who criticize misleading headlines when the shoe is on the other foot.
It’s not misleading if I provide a date in the body, one is provided in the article/blog and the candidate totally said all of that. I’m not allowed to change the title, so how am I otherwise supposed to compensate for a lack of reading comprehension?
