[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.