[IntronExon]

I don't believe they had any real impact.

Based on...?

Run Medicare For All, strong commits, nationwide, 80 percent support issue and watch non voters come right out of the woodwork to dominate.

If it’s that easy to “dominate” why has no one done it?

[ddingus]

Money. Specifically, big money donors and their financial interests.

That's no joke.

And it is that simple. Just watch. That, and a couple other strong economic messages will be major issues in 2020.

Or, we will have another irrational election.

[IntronExon]

If you can sweep into office on the basis of a single policy, you don’t actually need those donors. Once in office the people with money and agendas will need you, and since you only need to maintain one policy you could be everybody’s meat.

So again, why not?

[ddingus]

And that's the struggle on the left. You nailed it.

That issue is very strong. It's a winner combined with an otherwise reasonable, if not even all that sexy platform.

Why is it not happening?

Just what do you think all those people getting paid to do political consulting get paid for, and by whom?

The DNC is in debt, it's heavy with these people, and it all is running on big money. Every new office holder gets introduced to the call center, their party quota, and their own get elected again quota.

John Oliver covered this. Did a great segment on "Congressional Funding."

Most spend over half their time on the phones dialing for dollars, and making a lot of promises to those people in exchange for those dollars. The party machine runs on all this, and it literally takes a billion to feed media, consultants, and all that is used to sell an economically tepid message.

This year we will see a few people win office by not doing that, instead actually representing ordinary people. Should they be successful, the next trick will be keeping that funding from those people going, or they will have to smile and dial their way into some of the usual money.

With that, they will lose the agency needed to continue to represent the people.

Notably, Sanders doesn't do that, and spends half his time doing issue events, and interacting with the people who put him in office. He's made that sustainable, doesn't need the big money, and has considerable agency, his recent politics, case in point.

You are correct, the donors aren't really needed. Speaking from the left here, the DNC is dependent on those donors, and that ecosystem doesn't see a transition away from the big money, to actually representing the people.

Secondly, doing it that way doesn't fund the media to anywhere near the same degree. Instead, it goes to events, and a network of people on the ground, selling the value, and the explicit common good.

Health care really is a one policy deal. Of course, the package has to be sane. More importantly, not contain very serious negatives. There are things to balance.

But, health care, as the most stellar example, student loan issues, cost of education being a secondary one, will not only bring out a solid majority of active voters, because they are in real need, but will bring out non-voters, jaded, people who don't believe in the process.

People who are motivated to vote for, not just vote against the worst.

It's a real struggle right now. Party stalwarts holding on to the big money, and fairly tepid economic politics, up against progressives and others looking to start taking seats, chairs, delegate positions, and other close to the people machinery in an attempt to move it away from the big money, and toward people oriented, positive politics.

That's where it stands today. Mid-terms will give us some data, then the real game starts on the run to 2020.

[toomuchtodo]

> If it’s that easy to “dominate” why has no one done it?

It's easier when your candidate doesn't get railroaded by the DNC. Don't run trash candidates, and people will vote.

"Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is the country’s most popular active politician, underscoring his importance to the Democratic Party as it seeks to rebuild in the wake of a disastrous 2016 election cycle.

Sanders is viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, according to data from a Harvard-Harris survey provided exclusively to The Hill. Sanders is the only person in a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders included in the survey who is viewed favorably by a majority of those polled."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329404-poll-bernie-sand...

"Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's favorability rating is at a new low one year after her election loss to President Trump, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Clinton now holds a 36 percent approval rating among Americans, according to Gallup, down 5 percentage points since June. The rating falls below Clinton's previous low of 38 percent in August to September of last year.

The former first lady also reached a new high disapproval rating of 61 percent. Clinton has bucked the trend of defeated presidential candidates gaining popularity after the election, Gallup says."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365656-gallup-hi...

Trump's approval rating (41%) is still above Clinton's; his disapproval rating below hers as well. That says quite a bit.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

And finally, US support for universal healthcare:

"A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.

Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-suppo...

Sorry for the wall of text, there was nothing I could cull away without removing data points to support the argument.

[lsc]

The counterpoint to your wall of text? Trump won. He wasn't so far from even getting the popular vote.

My point is that this goes directly against the idea that people want universal health care. This was a very strong vote against any sort of help for the poor against any sort of government regulation of healthcare.

[toomuchtodo]

My counterpoint to this comment is that progressive candidates will hold a majority in the Senate and possibly the House in 2018 midterms, and you will see a progressive president elected in 2020.

I agree apathy and corruption contributed heavily to a Trump presidency, but I’m confident politics will swing back over the next 3-4 years.

Trump is phenomenal for the progressive movement, far better than Clinton would’ve been. People are less apathetic now, and they will outvote conservatives (IMHO).

[lsc]

I hope your prediction comes true. my point, though, was that arguing that Clinton lost because she was too conservative runs counter to the fact that someone way more conservative beat her.

Really, I think this counters the "Trump won because people are suffering economically" narrative, too. If you are suffering economically, it doesn't make sense to vote for someone who is out to tear down what safety nets we have.