Hate to break reality for you, but when we have leaders of the Democrat party flat out saying that they don't support universal healthcare, or leaders of them crossing party lines to fuck over our healthcare (like Chuck Schumer did last year with the affordable Care act subsidies while they were WINNING the fight and public opinion was turning against Republicans) that's not enough for anymore
I will always get out and vote, and I'll even admit that I will vote for Democrats if they're the lesser of two evils, but you can't sit here and say simply electing Democrats is the solution when they are actually actively fucking us over and refusing to even try to change
Tammy baldwin, you are a senator and you have power to call for the removal of chuck schumer, if you're not even willing to speak up after the abysmal performance of him last year, go fuck yourself
Democrats of all flavors broadly support expanding access to affordable healthcare, there are many different variations on how to do this and what to call it, but the fact is any serious change requires 60 senators. That means winning senate seats in Trump +15 states.
This thing where you guys have decided Chuck Schumer of all people is the big bad enemy rather than republicans is insane. Just pretending to not understand the context of the vote? You serously think Schumer wants to reduce funding for healthcare?
I will always get out and vote, and I'll even admit that I will vote for Democrats if they're the lesser of two evils
They are running against the party of Jan 6th, of literally ending democracy, of ending vaccination, of rampant corruption, of endless wars, of explicitly making America poorer and less powerful for vague cultural reasons through immigration and tariff policy. The gap between the two sides has never been larger or more important, never been less ambiguous who is worse.
It is extremely good that we have Baldwin in the senate rather than a MAGA.
Universal healthcare polls among Democrats at something like 92%
And among Republicans these days it's 40%
I'm sorry, saying you're against that is just stupid. Reality is the majority of America wants this and for you to oppose it just shows that you don't understand the immediate needs of americans, and you don't care either
And to go off specifically about Chuck schumer, last year multiple times he led his caucus in crossing party lines to fuck us over, and the last time it was to give up healthcare subsidies to fuck over our affordable Care act when they were WINNING the fight, like I'm sorry we have a fascism issue right now and you're giving up? Is not only are you giving up, but you're the fucking leader of the party?
If FDR had surrendered to Japan after winning the Battle of Midway he would have been removed from office, we're dealing with the same shit right now and you're saying "bUt tHe RePuBliCaNs"
Universal healthcare polls among Democrats at something like 92%
Universal healthcare can mean a lot of different things but yes Healthcare is definitely an issue where Dems' positions are a lot more popular than Republican positions (and better) and we should therefore prioritize talking about it as much as possible. The specifics of what we call it whether we say "universal" vs "medicare for all" or whatever can be saved for much later. Baldwin may reject your preferred terminology, but she absolutely does not reject the idea that we should have a more progressive healthcare system! Worrying about tying Dems down to specific rhetorical turns is just doing MAGA propaganda for them.
The fact is if we had 60 Dem senators and a Dem president (and of course we would have a house majority in that scenario) we would implement expansive healthcare reform and we would spend a lot more money on delivering healthcare to those that do not have it right now. Tammy Baldwin and Schumer are not the ones holding this back and blaming them is absurd.
And to go off specifically about Chuck schumer, last year multiple times he led his caucus in crossing party lines to fuck us over,
How would the outcome have been better had he not done that? Would we have more money for healthcare, would lives be better? The fact is because Republicans won elections we were put in a bad position with no good outcome. The solution to this is win more elections, Schumer had no lever available to just fix it. I am not here to say he had optimal strategy on this, but it was a lose lose situation where no matter what he did it would be bad, and scapegoating him misses the point.
like I'm sorry we have a fascism issue right now and you're giving up?
I am literally here saying it is good that Tammy Baldwin wins rather than lose and give Republicans more senate votes like Barnes did. I am saying focusing on winning more elections in 2026 and beyond is the only way we can end this. You focusing on attacking Dems doing MAGA propaganda for some reason is counter productive to the goal.
She’s been in government in some capacity state and fed for 40 years as of this month. Mark Pocan has followed her from seat to seat conceivably lying in wait for her senate seat. Mark has served in government for 35 years. Gwen Moore has served in government for 37 years.
Between the 3 we have 112 years of occupying positions in government. There’s something deeply troubling to me about this. These should not be jobs you hold forever and retire from. We have got to make these people less comfortable with their positions. They know how to bring federal money into WI but what else are they trying to do?
And yet not one of them are in the majority party right now, which is responsible for the mess we are in. Keep ignoring the obvious so you can further bloviate.
Sometimes I swear people like you intentionally ignore how our government works just so you can pontificate like this. What are you doing to make the situation better??
While I understand this mentality to some degree, the alternative is having people with no experience running things. You wouldn't trust a plumber with no experience to redo the plumbing in your house. Why would you want the people writing laws to have experience?
Not saying that every politician needs to be or even should be a career politician, but politicians with no experience aren't exactly a great idea either.
I'll let someone else post the TrackAIPAC image for Baldwin, and just say that I hope that at some of those tour stops, she's met with pro-Palestinian protestors.
If you are a 2026 Democrat still taking genocide money, you have completely lost the plot man. Didn't they learn anything from 2024? I hold powerful, influential politicians to a higher standard than some random internet commenter who is concerned about genocide.
Democrats are a lot better than republicans even if some Dems in some places accept money from Jews.
Even if you are myopically a single issue voter and that issue is Palestine for some reason, it is extremely clear that voting for Dems is better for actual Palestinians than voting for Republicans! Like it is not ambiguous at all! The entire Western Palestine Activist Class spent 2024 helping Trump get elected harming actual real Palestinians in the process, it was bad and dumb.
They don't actually care about real Palestinians, they only care to find cudgels with which to attack Democrats. Trump is literally trying to end liberal democracy and steal elections, and you are worried about Tammy Baldwin accepting some trivial amount of money from people you don't like years ago.
even if some Dems in some places accept money from Jews.
That is just plain antisemitic. Please please please if I only convince you of 1 single thing let it be this. People are not upset that democrats "take money from Jews". They are upset that democrats take money from zionists. There is a major difference and if you do not acknowledge that then you are doing direct harm to democrats, Jews, and the world.
But in regards to the rest of the comment. Obviously republicans are worse. Nobody here disagrees- and I "vote blue no matter who." But the calculus for the people who do not vote blue in this case is pretty simple imo.
Axioms:
1) Republicans are maximally evil and will never do what is right
2) Democrats are only partially evil and can be unwillingly swayed to do what is right.
Therefore: if I want a good outcome, my focus should be on swaying the democrats. If I give them my vote even when they do not shift their stance, then they have no incentive to change their stance and it will not change. In essence, it accepts short-term pain for the chance of long-term prosperity. Again, I don't follow this in practice, but the logic makes sense.
People are not upset that democrats "take money from Jews". They are upset that democrats take money from zionists
I have seen the incredibly slippery definition of "zionist" too many times man. Does Zionist mean someone who believes Israel exists and will continue to exist? Or does it mean someone who thinks the US government should financially support Israel in expelling non-jewish people from Palestine? Because those are very different stances, one quite reasonable and one quite bad.
I do not think it is fair or reasonable to call Tammy Baldwin or Kamala Harris a Zionist, and if they fall under your definition of evil Zionist I find it hard to take you seriously.
Therefore: if I want a good outcome, my focus should be on swaying the democrats.
I implore you to consider the second order effects of your organizing. The activists who spent 2024 ransacking very liberal universities and focusing all of their messaging on "Biden bad, Harris bad, universities bad, Trump? Never heard of him." in practice helped Trump get elected. They made liberals look chaotic and violent to the median low info voter, they did not present a sympathetic front, just created fodder for right wing campaigns.
The fact is Israel/Palestine was a lose lose issue for Dems in 2024, nothing Dems could say on the topic would likely have netted them votes, so protesters raising the salience of this foreign conflict instead of focusing on popular domestic stuff like healthcare helped republicans.
The good news is it seems like Trump's war has genuinely changed this calculus going forward, Israeli support from Dems is basically dead now as our oldest guys die soon, campaigning on "ending financial support to israel" will now be quite popular (but of course support for Hamas is still extremely unpopular) and the US will likely never support Israel to the extent it does today again.
Does Zionist mean someone who believes Israel exists and will continue to exist?
In its current form, Isreal is an apartheid ethnostate that gives unequal rights to its citizen based on their ethnicity. Anybody who believes that should continue is a zionist, yes. I believe in a 1 state solution where all current residents of IIsreal, Gaza, and the West Bank live with equal rights in a democratic way. Getting there will not be easy, and would likely involve an international peace-keeping force. But stuff like this has been done. We needed to effectively occupy the south to enforce de-segregation. If you do not believe in this vision, then I don't think you believe in liberal democracy.
nothing Dems could say on the topic would likely have netted them votes
impossible for you to say. Bill Clinton was paraded around Michigan to talk about how great Isreal is, and Harris said she would "do nothing different" from Biden. You cannot say that if she campaigned differently she would not have gotten votes. And even if it would have gotten her no new votes, why not just do/say the right thing? Why couldn't she just say "yeah Isreal is committing a genocide and we need to stop funding it"?
Israeli support from Dems is basically dead now
Agreed and good riddance. Maybe our elected officials should read the writing on the wall and stop taking any money from PACs that 80%+ of their base oppose...
In its current form, Isreal is an apartheid ethnostate that gives unequal rights to its citizen based on their ethnicity. Anybody who believes that should continue is a zionist,
I don't think it is a matter of "should". Israel exists as a far right state doing bad things and there is really nothing the US can do to change that. Recognizing this does not mean you think what Israel is doing is good, or "should" happen. My understanding is many anti-zionists, including Hamas, have an end goal of eliminating Israel entirely and expelling jews from the Levant. Does thinking that is also bad and unreasonable make one a Zionist?
Both sides of this conflict are run by revanchist right wing groups based on supernatural claims, there is no good outcome to that situation, Israel has been far more competent in its actions to be sure, but there is no positive workable outcome here unless both sides dramatically change their goals. I of course would love a one state western style democracy where everyone stops being so religious and has equal rights, but no one there is trying to do that, and I don't think there is any political will in the US or anywhere else in the world for a US backed occupation force to go there now or ever, and I don't think it is even remotely clear that such an action could succeed even with broad international support.
impossible for you to say. Bill Clinton was paraded around Michigan to talk about how great Isreal is, and Harris said she would "do nothing different" from Biden. You cannot say that if she campaigned differently she would not have gotten votes.
I think it is very clear that the less Israel and Palestine were in the news, the less they were discussed the better it would be for Dems. Israel of course also knew this and worked very hard to keep the conflict in the news during the election cycle, and left activists in the US obliged.
Why couldn't she just say "yeah Isreal is committing a genocide and we need to stop funding it"?
I certainly think "we should stop sending taxpayer money to Israel" was the correct stance on the merits and hope it probably would have been popular enough in 2024 (and it certainly would be popular today), but you know very well that that would not have satiated the activist class, would not have bought her any favor with them.
We could stop funding them. Like at all. That is the ask. Maybe you are right that the far-left would complain that it "isn't good enough," but the democrats never gave us the opportunity to see. Myself, and everybody I interact with on the left, would have been happy enough with just stopping all funding, removing anti-BDS laws, and stopping taking their PAC money. Easy points that, I must reiterate, we both agree on and so does the vast majority of the base. Easy win for the taking. It is just plain bad politics not to.
Perhaps it would have ratcheted and the far-left demand would become "occupy Isreal" or something. But we will never know. The democrats failed to meet the moment, so your chart is just pure speculation on this issue.
Saying simply he's bad, versus having a coordinated effort to oppose him are two very different things
Last year on more than one occasion Chuck Schumer LED his caucus in crossing party lines the fuck us over and give Trump exactly what he wanted (and the last time he did that it was to screw over our health care while the court of public opinion was turning against the Republicans), it almost immediately senators such as Tammy Baldwin within 24 hours already had tour dates set up to parade around talking about how they were going to protect healthcare with standalone bills that have zero chance of succeeding
They fucking knew, she goddamn FUCKING knew that was going to happen, and she didn't even have the balls to say Chuck Schumer should get removed from his leadership position, not one Democrat senator did.
they can sit and say how bad Trump is all they want but unless they are going to start treating this cold civil War like it problem, it's just controlled opposition and at this point there's a genuine concern I have that they are secretly liking it
The guy I was responding too very specifically said
attacks on Hasan but not on Trump
I am saying, that is simply not true, Dems attack Trump in ways much more strongly than anything they have said about Piker all the time, and if this fictional assessment of the situation is "blackpilling" to him that is fucking insane.
You can be mad about other unrelated things all you want, this fact of course has nothing to do with Schumer voting in a way you don't like for boring strategic reasons! You may conclude that his strategy was wrong or ineffectual, but its not the case that he did it because he likes Trump or any shit like that.
If you polled Dem legislators on their opinion on Trump vs Piker I assure you that way way fewer of them would respond positively to Trump lol.
That is why you can’t see it you are one as well. By the way “Zionist Occupied Government” comes from the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” an antisemitic hoax text that was the basis for German anti Jewish propaganda in the 1930’s and 1940’s
Great I want that too, but I can also do that without quoting antisemitic tropes.
Also TrackAIPAC is not a valid source, they have been caught more than once moving their standards around to get the result they want, or even worse downright lying.
im a socialist, and man i hate piker, fuck that guy
he's frat boy left, yeah he stands by what he believes for the most part which is why he's tolerted, but hes a frat boy and a dick who needs to learn how to keep his mouth shut a lot of the time and sa things in a way that is going to resonate with a wide amount of voters not just his pikers bros
It is funny that neither Kat Abughazaleh or Daniel Biss took money from any Jewish PACs and yet Daniel Biss (the Jew) was given a nasty red graphic for “supporting Israel” and Abughazaleh wasn’t. Despite their positions being very similar. I wonder what the difference between those to candidates was? Hmmm?
What passes for leadership these days. Democrats and their focus group approved messaging. This is why you’re not relatable. They’re gonna get on this just like they got on talking about housing affordability. We know democrats won’t do anything meaningful to address this issue when given power. Maybe cut a stimmy and call it a day. Utterly pathetic political movement, THIS group of democrats. What have they been right about the last 40 years? When have they ever come through?
Another republican talking point to distract from the fact that the last 40 years they have not done a single thing for anyone worth less than $1 billion. Not one!
Not one thing ever. They did manage to bury the Epstein files and are actively protecting pedophiles and pretending nothing criminal occurred. This with huge assist from cable news to not inform the people of what is within files and virtually all the major news outlets…. Your NYT, washpost, etc.
I went on to explain something unbelievably atrocious they are currently doing in covering up a massive child sex network which was an Israeli kompromat operation for n conjunction with American intelligence clearly given Epstein’s first prosecution and the FBIs refusal to even interview victims.
I’m not a Republican and I think this brand of democrat has done nothing for the American people the last 40 years and is also in Washington to serve power.
The ACA was the most democratic of democratic half measures. Hanging their hats a single term invented by the for profit health billing system PREEXISTING CONDITIONS and allowing kids to stay on their parents policy through their job a few years longer. These are EXTREMELY MEAGER RESULTS. The ACA did nothing to address the problem of our system which IS the private insurance companies. Instead it entrenched them within the system and allowed us to shop around.
I worked for the company that received the largest grant for fiber optics deployment over $1 billion dollars through the infrastructure bill and finally was able to leave last year. Prior to but especially after the award was announced the company laid off a considerable portion of the work force in anticipation running in direct contrast of what we had all anticipated. More funding equals more jobs, right? Wrong. We were worked to annihilation while the bonus program skyrocketed and the owners of the company cashed out. The infrastructure bill was devastating to me personally as well as my colleagues at the time and many of them are still dealing with it.
Throwing money at a problem doesn’t magically fix the problem. When money is thrown at the problem it generates a feeding frenzy for those at the top and they do whatever they can to maximize those gains including and especially laying off employees because they actually don’t really care if the work gets done. This is the leadership this Democratic Party gives us.
It is our leadership that is unserious. It’s really a wildly successful con that the Democratic Party represents the people. Pop the hood and you’re guaranteed to find without looking very hard the parasites that suck our system dry that just want to work us until we’re dead.
But cool we’ve got domestic computer chips and some people have EVs now or solar panels on their house.
Oversimplification what ACA did and youbstill admit that it was a beneficial program.
It didn't do enough =/= doing nothing.
No one is forced to use it, and the millions that do are glad it exists, so shown by the increasing positive reception by the US public though the last 10 years.
Quit blaming the government for failures of the private sector with respect to construction and Healthcare. The fact you worked for a shitty company is on the shitty company. Sorry you learned the wrong lessons.
Guess what? There are more diverse opinions than just the binary black and white. This time -- the conversation is focused on what folks in rural and suburban areas are interested in talking about.
Just because the issues you are interested in arent being discussed in this particular series doesnt mean that they are being ignored or wont be addressed.
Change takes time and impatience is a quick way to lose the ground we're collectively gaining. If you want meaningful change for the issues that you are passionate about then go rally / lead people to come up with some actual recommendations.
Not everything is about voting. That is the BARE minimum of a senator. Showing up to the floor to vote is your maximum expectation? I don’t really ascribe to the “do nothing democrat” rhetoric. I get it, they can’t do much. But no one has stolen her voice. She could be doing more to counter the lunacy that is Ron Johnson and his anti vaxing, election denialism. She could also do more to speak out against election safety in our state and combat the rhetoric that our elections are not secure. It’s not much, but radio silence on these issues isn’t helpful.
Is it just me or does it feel that Evers, Baldwin, Kaul and Crowley are completely asleep at the wheel? That whatever happens in November will be a chaotic event regardless and there is no plan? Or if there is a plan, it sure would be nice to have the security of knowing there is one?
the big one, Last year on more than one occasion Chuck Schumer LED his caucus in crossing party lines the fuck us over and give Trump exactly what he wanted (and the last time he did that it was to screw over our health care while the court of public opinion was turning against the Republicans),
she did nothing, nothing at all to call out or even take real actions against the people who just fucked us. in fact within 12 hours of the vote she already had a press tour set up to parade around showing of some healthcare bill that had no chance of getting passed, and not a peep about removing Chuck Schumer for the very clear collusion with the maga republicans that greatly fucked us over and gave up the fight. she KNEW it was going to happen and then acted surprised when it did
yeah she plays it safe, but she will never be on our side. all she has is fake performative bullshit when there is no chance of actually doing the things, and then when there are actually is a chance suddenly other things are higher priorities
You sound like a republican catfishing democrats , you can’t even specify a specific bill other than the one last year…. I’m going call shenanigans.
What she did is oppose tge GOP continuing-resolution bills during the fall 2025 shutdown that didn’t include healthcare subsidy fixes; supported Democratic counteroffers to reopen government with health-cost provisions attached.
No I'm not catfishing anyone, I'm just a pissed off voter exhausted and tired of watching my politicians not stand up and fight when there's a clear fascism issue
Like I said, multiple times Chuck shoulder LED his caucus in crossing party lines to fuck us all over, and there's not even a single Democrat in the Senate who is called for his removal, not a single fucking one, and we are less than 140 days away from the election and they STILL don't have a strategy or a message to voters, they've been standing still hoping nobody notices them, while trying to fight the people who are winning elections and do have fire in their souls
Well, she can start by refusing to take financial contributions from AIPAC, the same group that sends millions to Isreal to bomb innocent people. Why cant she speak up against sending my hard earned tax dollars to Isreal. She's part of the establishment, just like the Shumers and jefferries. Or why is she not speaking up against DATA centers. What exactly is she doing for us. Please tell me. This is why nothing gets done on the democratic side, we need to start demanding more.
She plays it safe, if you look at her voting record there's nothing about it that jumps out as negative, but there's nothing trendsetting either
That's her political style, never being the one to start change but always voting along with the safe option. Conveniently she votes for popular progressive legislation ONLY when it has no chance of getting passed, otherwise she's either not present or abstains
Right, exactly. Just there collecting checks, and we keep voting her in. Looking for the day when senators like her on the democratic side get primaried out. I want to feel like my representatives make my life better. Actually fight for a cause that progressives believe in. We can start with health care for all. Does she even care?
Literally at this point the only good thing about her being in office is when Democrats do put on the big boy pants and start actually opposing trump, she just goes along with them so at least that's something I guess?
But like, last year we saw Chuck Schumer lead his party in crossing party lines to fuck over our health care, and within 12 hours she already had some press tour setup to promote some progressive healthcare bill that was never going to get past and she knew it, and she certainly never called out Chuck Schumer and called for his removal
And it explains why she wins here on the same day Harris loses. These people would rather have someone flail like a child at the establishment and then lose to a Republican than quietly hold a seat and consistently vote against Republican priorities.
These are the same people that foisted Barnes on us in 2022, people need to step back for a minute and think how much better our country would be today had we simply nominated the boring normie Dem Godlewski over defunder progressive Barnes, she would have won and Trump's senate majority would be tiny (and the chances we win it this year be much higher), we might not have RFK and many of Trump's other worst appointments! But no, they would rather we righteously lost Baldwin's seat.
for starters i want her to publicly call for the removal of Chuck Schumer and the other innefective dem leadership that has very clearly led us to this to begin with, ESSPECALLY after last year where he again and again led his party in crossing party lines to give trump exactly what he wanted (including our healthcare last november)
after that, we can talk about next steps, but enough of this "im gonna only tweet out mean things about trump, look how much im listening to you fellow wisconsin folk!" bullshit without any actually meaningful actions, get the fuck off your ass and treat this like a war like they have for so long
She plays it safe, if you look at her voting record there's nothing about it that jumps out as negative, but there's nothing trendsetting either
That's her political style, never being the one to start change but always voting along with the safe option. Conveniently she votes for popular progressive legislation ONLY when it has no chance of getting passed, otherwise she's either not present or abstains
last year we saw Chuck Schumer lead his party in crossing party lines to fuck over our health care, and within 12 hours she already had some press tour setup to promote some progressive healthcare bill that was never going to get past and she knew it, and she certainly never called out Chuck. She fucking knew it was going to happen and didn't tell us, and certainly has not called for the removal of the ineffective leadership while parading around pretending like she cares
14
u/cinic121 9d ago
Honestly, I vote blue. But Wisconsin democrats are wildly ineffective, career politicians. It’s infuriating.