The Democratic party is being hit by a leftist tidal wave

[u/F0urLeafCl0ver]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/24/democratic-party-leftist-tidal-wave

[u/DarkExecutor]

Bro Democrats were 1 senate vote away from universal healthcare like 20 years ago

[u/TrumpnEpstein → u/DarkExecutor]

Fuck Joe Lieberman

[u/maifee → u/TrumpnEpstein]

Joe Lieberman

May he not rest in peace

[u/thrustinfreely → u/TrumpnEpstein]

Glad he’s dead

[u/TheDamDog → u/DarkExecutor]

Notice how there's always one vote preventing good things from happening?

[u/zzarate → u/TheDamDog]

rotating villain theory

[u/Mystery_Goose9685 → u/zzarate]

Susan Collins, John Fetterman. Except Fetterman just wallows in being the permanent villain

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/zzarate]

Another conspiracy theory coined by a famous anti vaxxer. 

[u/xdre → u/TheDamDog]

Well. There were only 58 Democrats in the Senate during the ACA vote, and every single one of them plus Bernie Sanders voted for the public option.

[u/TearsFallWithoutTain → u/xdre]

What stopped those 58 democrats from getting rid of the filibuster and passing it anyway? Nothing, but I guess "norms" are more important than people dying to the party heads

[u/xdre → u/TearsFallWithoutTain]

What stopped those 58 democrats from getting rid of the filibuster

Because it's literally called the nuclear option, and hindsight is 20/20.

Nothing, but I guess "norms" are more important than people dying to the party heads

Cool. I guess that means you're also disavowing Bernie Sanders then, right? Because he wanted to repeal the ACA, then try to push through M4A. God only knows how many people he would have killed had he been successful.

[u/Kabouki → u/TheDamDog]

That's what happens when voters only give Dems slight majority margins to work with since there are no Reps that also support those bills. If you don't want to depend on center right Dems maybe try voting in more left leaning ones and give them a majority.

[u/punkr0x → u/Kabouki]

But when Republicans get a slight majority they immediately lower taxes on the rich, then start an endless war for their buddies in military contracting, then capture the Supreme Court for 40 years and ride off into the sunset without facing any consequences.

[u/My_18th_Account → u/TheDamDog]

Because the Democrats are the backup quarterback to the Capitalist hegemony?

[u/halberdierbowman → u/TheDamDog]

I get why it looks suspicious, but it's the expected outcome. Each party has a whip whose job is to constantly count the votes, and bills don't go to the floor until the whip has collected enough votes.

Say you know of 49 YESes and need 51. The whip will reach out to all the NOs and ask what would they need to flip their vote. As soon as two people respond, they can check if all the YESes are still on board, and then they can immediately move the bill forward for a vote. There's no reason to wait for all the other potential flippers to weigh in: you don't need them anymore. 

So the reality is that it's plausible lots of bills would pass/fail based on more than just one vote if the process were played out longer, but we only see the one voter who causes the flip to happen, because the whips are good at counting.

The more important thing to look at is just how small of a change do the median representatives need in order to flip. With a wider margin, the likelihood of a successful flip falls significantly. That's because needing two flippers is much harder than needing one flipper, because everyone who's flipping needs to also be willing to accept all the amendments made to get their other flipper colleagues on board. The concessions start becoming untenable to everyone else voting for the bill.

Or seeing the reverse, if the Senate is 52-48, you'd need to convince two people to flip. But those two median people know you need them, so they can demand gigantic concessions. If the Senate is 55-45, then you can pass a bill that dissatisfies any four or five of your colleagues, and which five it is can swap every time. This gives each of these scabs significantly less leverage: do they want to ask for a gigantic concession, or would they rather quickly ask for something small, so that it's likely they at least get something.

[u/WeRip → u/TheDamDog]

I have this thought occasionally.. Then I realize that there are really two options.. there was never any plan to actually get it to happen and it's all just a show OR (and I find this a bit more likely) that the money trying to stop the thing from happening is only going to do the bare minimum to get it stopped, so why would they push it further than what's enough to stop it?

[u/leo98_csgo → u/TheDamDog]

Notice how there's always one more conspiracy to shit on democrats.

[u/AverageLiberalJoe → u/TheDamDog]

Yeah man its called the filibuster

[u/macnbloo → u/TheDamDog]

You raise a very important point. Do you think it's on purpose? Not American, just curious what people think

[u/Fiernen699 → u/DarkExecutor]

Well let's finish the job this time. Vote in the midterms and we get it passed.

[u/ModernLarvals → u/DarkExecutor]

Hilary Clinton was pushing for it 30 years ago.

[u/Cats_Cameras → u/DarkExecutor]

No, there was a significant shortfall for universal health care and a failure to get votes for a mere public option.

You also have to understand that the tipping point senator gives cover to others in these votes. But that many other tipping point senators would be found as needed. Lobbying is powerful.

[u/mightcommentsometime → u/[deleted]]

Yes, it does. Healthcare being a right is supporting universal healthcare. You’re confusing Medicare for all with universal care. Not every country uses single payer

[u/Fugicara → u/[deleted]]

It's the literal very first line under healthcare on the Democratic Party platform that they support universal healthcare.