I'm pretty sure the political group that can guarantee a quality National Health Service in the US will win
Despite how big a problem healthcare is in the US, most voters fear any change that may put their current health coverage at risk. Most people under 65 have (or feel like they have) decent-to-good health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan and don't necessarily see a big benefit to throwing that away. People over 65 are fiercely protective of their Medicare benefits and tend to worry that Medicare for All is going to make their healthcare worse. (Judging by the amount of "shocked Pikachu face" we see lately from Trump voters who expected him to fix the economy, there's a critical group of swing voters who seem unwilling or unable to accurately judge candidates based on their policies vs. their vibes.)
I don't agree with those people. I'd love to see our healthcare system dramatically overhauled. But between the polarization and risk aversion of American voters, "a quality National Health Service" has not proven to be a winning platform so far and is unlikely to be in the future.
I’ve heard it frequently claimed, but where has a progressive Dem won where a moderate didn’t?
They seem to lose badly. The Sanders people were all in on Paula Jean Swearengin in WV and even tried to primary Manchin with her.
WV has all the supposed demographics Sanders appeals to. White working class people mired in poverty.
She was the worst performing Democratic nominee in West Virginia history.
You would be floored by how many Obama 2008 voters are now Trump voters. Obama beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries and people believed he did it by running to left of her. People thought he was going to burn for-profit health care to the ground and deliver a single payer system, and that he'd throw the bankers who triggered the 2008 crisis in prison.
The disappointment when he governed like it was a third Clinton term did major damage to the party, and it let Trump pick up the populist mantle.
Populism, however, is like candy. You can add it to something wholesome, like Sanders does, and get virtuous results. Or you can add it to antifreeze, like the Musk/Trump regime, and get what we're getting.
Obama voters who voted for Trump didn’t vote for better healthcare. They voted to hurt healthcare insurance workers. They then voted to hurt someone else with Trump.
As they first seemingly voted for universal healthcare and then voted for abolishing what public healthcare the USA had. That’s not consistent with caring about it as an issue at all.
I can accept that politically, the Dems may need an enemy. Shared hating of someone is a potent bonding agent.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/17/trump-aoc-vo...
I'm not american but i remember looking into this because of all the drivel and distinctly remember polling finding bernie was actually more popular in notable swing states than his dem counterpart but actually a bit less popular in states that were going to vote dem regardless.
If bernie would take more undecided voters and republicans over to his side where it actually mattered I think it's not conclusive that he would have win but no far stretch to say he would have had a better shot at winning.
What's worse is that they'll inevitably be attacked by those same centrist incumbents while they do run: Jeremy Corbyn was a great example of this. One of his fiercest critics is now a minister for health, another was made a Lord, others are now safely pickled in think tanks which will tide them over nicely until they can return to the fold.
The only way to fix this is to do as the right have done across Europe: to accept that it'll be a very long haul indeed until your people get power, and to start insurgent, radical parties. This sidesteps the big incumbent parties as a filter, and makes it clear who one's friends are. That's what needs to happen in the US on the left, but the odds of it paying off in anything less than decades are staggeringly low.
I don't agree with you here. On the right of the Socialists, you have Macron's party. These two parties vote together on some things but disagree on others.
Also the fact that the socialist were part of the downfall of the previous French government is telling that they are not on the same side and their respective electorate are very different.
So to say that the socialists are hostages of their right leaning members is not correct. All the right leaning socialists have already jumped ship to Macron's party a long time ago.
Obama wasn't elected with a super-majority. He had 58 votes, but Al Franken's race was contested, then Robert Byrd got sick, then Ted Kennedy died.
He did have one briefly for about 20 working days the Senate was in session about 9 months after he took office.
The republicans STILL claim to have "A concept of a plan" when it comes to healthcare. The one time they claimed to have an actual bill, it wasted 10% of it's text to strip government healthcare from people who win the lottery, like that's fucking worth it.
But they STILL get elected, because the same electorate who didn't want to lose their healthcare to goons killing it for profits for some reason go right back to them just a few years later, despite republican politicians lying TO THEIR FACES about it from day one.
Meanwhile, Democrats can come in with an entire presentation and plan and stats and graphs and all sorts of things and the electorate doesn't care because Fox News didn't tell them to vote for it.