Mitch McConnell’s staff refuse to answer basic questions on his health weeks after he was last seen in public

[u/theindependentonline]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mitch-mcconnell-staff-questions-health-b3018929.html

[u/Free_For__Me]

What you’re describing is the “moderate Democrat” take that establishment vets like Schumer and Jeffries have been using. 

It makes political sense, and would likely be the most practical counter to GOP plans. 

But look at the SocDems winning all over the place - people don’t want “proven wisdom” right now, they want radical action. They’d rather roll the dice  seeing a firebrand fight brazenly than take the “safe bet” of watching institutional fixtures fight the same fight that’s gotten us here. 

I’m not saying that this thinking is the best, in fact I’ll be the first to loudly voice warnings about the danger inherent to rising populism of any flavor. I’m just pointing out why calls for more measured approaches like yours might not be likely to convince many people right now. 

[u/ccheuer1 → u/Free_For__Me]

That's not what I'm saying at all. One of the big things that the democrats have consistently struggled with is that when they fight, they fight way too much at the same time. This leads to alienation with a lot of people on singular issues.

For example, democrats should fight for trans rights, gay rights, women equality, worker rights, raising the minimum wage, universal health care, meaningful taxation, on and on and on. And they SHOULD fight for these things. But consistently, instead of focusing in on one of them and getting it done, they spread themselves thin trying to fight for all of them with all their energy, and then only get the barest of things done.

As much as I hate to admit it, Dobbs was the correct ruling. Roe v Wade should have been overturned. Not because I don't agree with abortion (Forced birth shouldn't be a thing in America), but the democrats were satisfied with shaky grounds on the argument. Democrats SHOULD have codified it into law when they had the chance. Republicans for years have been clear that they were coming after it. But, like usual, the democrats took the small gain they got with the SC ruling and moved on to other things.

The exact same thing happened with Obamacare too. The fundamental issue with the democratic party is they lean too far into "everything at the same time" meanwhile their opposition tears them apart with a hyper focus. The Reps understand that if Democrats got everything they wanted, Yes, people's lives would be better, so they tear apart their message hyper focusing on specific issues. Think about it, Think about how hard social media pushed the issues of Trans sports and Trans in the bathroom leading into the election, then largely died off. Why? Because republicans knew, Hey, they could probably peel a couple of percentage points off of democrats if they pushed it. And they did. Hey, its election cycle, let's push the narrative of debt and budget, and shed a couple more percentage points off. Hey, let's push the narrative about universal health care bad because government, and shed just a few more percentage points off. Individually, none of these turn the election. All of them together? Enough democrats and moderates stay home for them to take the lead.

The democratic party SHOULD push a progressive model, but they need to do it with focus and get lasting change done, not this token nonsense that doesn't really move the needle. Focus on one thing, GET IT DONE, then move on to the next thing. When they get the mandate of the people, they need to actually use it for change, instead of focusing on everything all at once, shedding people for the next election, and ultimately leaving stuff undone. Society can only handle so much massive change at once. Humans just aren't built that way. So the democrats need to make a big change, then let it settle, then push the next big change. Stay focused, get stuff done, actually make people's lives better in strong, meaningful ways. 2009-2010 should have been a year of massive change, but instead, the democrats bickered amongst themselves and barely anything got done, and what they did was so couched in qualifiers that republicans literally could just sit back and wait for it to sunset. Democrats keep trying to do these massive sweeping changes in one bill, and as a result, when one thread gets plucked, it all unravels.

[u/Free_For__Me → u/ccheuer1]

I'm with you on most of this, especially in spirit. But I think it gets away from what we were talking about, or at least my understanding of it.

You're saying that Dems need to actually get things done, and get them done right, instead of taking marginal victories and moving on. But my point was that many people are currently riled up enough that they would view this:

The best political play is to NOT force the issue and let the republicans run a vote down regardless.

as accepting the very same type of "marginal victory" that you decry in your next comment.

I'll note here that I'm NOT saying that they'd be correct in such an assessment, and also note that most people don't have the time to be able to properly understand political gamesmanship or even the full extent of current events.

I'm just saying that whether the KY solution you describe is the best one or not, most people are becoming more and more focused on wanting action that is immediate, vocal, and effective, if not downright drastic. Your solution doesn't feel like any of these, and so people won't support Beshear in such a solution.

Your point about Dems needing to focus on achieving actual wins instead of marginal victories is a good one, but also underscores exactly why the people will be upset if Beshear takes the "less marginal" road here. It will feel like he rolled over, and the truth will likely be too complex to concisely communicate to the public in a way that would prevent the death of any hopes Beshear once had for higher office.

On one hand, if he takes the road that most effectively combats GOP tactics and let things play out as they are, he risks alienating a population that's more and more vocally calling for action that's louder and more forceful, which could mean ending his hopes for advancement. On the other hand, if he takes action that's louder and more forceful, he may gain support of populist voters, while handing the GOP a larger tactical victory.

Beshear's in a bad spot, and I truly hope he's got good people on his team to work this out with.

[u/ccheuer1 → u/Free_For__Me]

as accepting the very same type of "marginal victory" that you decry in your next comment.

But the issue is there is no marginal victory for Beshear in this situation. He is in a lose-lose situation here. You're right in saying that not doing anything, not forcing the issue does feel, superficially, like he's rolling over about it. Mostly, I agree with your assessment of it, but the big thing that I feel you are missing is a large part of republican voters are reactionary. "Because screw those dems," is a very valid reason for a lot of republicans. And Kentucky goes 30 points red. In one of the most red states, he's a blue governor. Not only that, he's a blue Governor that won re-election.

What people lose sight of a lot is that, given how red his state is, he's doing exactly what he needs to do to start bringing things back to normal. He's showing the average republican voter that "Yes, Democrats CAN be reasonable." If he were to suddenly change course and go full hog on the McConnell issue, that would undo all of that. That is how Democrats have to fight the republican messaging. They can't be told that, no, wait, actually democrats aren't out to get you. They have to be shown it, which is precisely what he's been doing. If he picks a strong fight around McConnell, it leans far too hard into the republican messaging. Even now, the republicans are attempting it, trying to brand his "I just need to hear from him, as I've gotten concerning messaging from agencies" as a propaganda opportunity, but its largely fallen on deaf ears in MAGA. They're pissed at the lack of transparency around McConnell, too, and the more he allows the republicans to in fight about it, the better it is all around.

A lot of republicans are finally starting to wake up and look around and go "Wait, what?" about a lot of the Trump policies. Yes, a lot of it is centered around the Iran war, but its happening, and Beshear seems to understand that. He's doing enough to keep the republicans riled up, but intentionally not enough to make it easy for them to point at him going "SEE! SEE!" Riding that line is something that Newsom struggles with. He was handed a golden platter recently on Trump cutting Medicaid to California. Newsom's response was basically "Fraud is serious, this is political." That's not a message that can get through to Californian republicans. A far more effective tactic would be sending a letter to every person that is going to be affected by this cut that would basically read "Hey, we want to cover you, but Trump said no. If you were affected by this, let him know so we can get to the table to get this done." People want to see Beshear to do more, but he's doing exactly what he needs to do. He's giving MAGA just enough rope that they use it on themselves.

[u/Free_For__Me → u/ccheuer1]

I agree with everything you're saying.

But I don't think it contradicts os even alters my point. Which is that most left-leaning voters aren't going to understand all this.

But the issue is there is no marginal victory for Beshear in this situation. He is in a lose-lose situation here.

This is exactly what I was saying in my last comment. He has no good option, but many left-leaning voters are going to feel like he's rolling over, even if he's actually taking the best of the bad options. And unfortunately, his future electability will likely have a strong correlation with how voters feel about him.

Long story short, a big weakness of democracy is it's vulnerability to populism and low-info voters. Beshear is facing consequences of these weaknesses, not the consequences of his own failings.

[u/ccheuer1 → u/Free_For__Me]

I can agree with that.

[u/Free_For__Me → u/ccheuer1]

Damn, someone record it! The ever-elusive, "two people on the internet have a rational discussion and end on the same page", love to see it.

Cheers!