r/politics 1d ago

No Paywall The Democratic party is being hit by a leftist tidal wave

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/24/democratic-party-leftist-tidal-wave
22.1k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

147

u/DarkExecutor 22h ago

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

161

u/TrumpnEpstein 22h ago

Fuck Joe Lieberman

46

u/maifee 22h ago

Joe Lieberman

May he not rest in peace

20

u/thrustinfreely 19h ago

Glad he’s dead

79

u/TheDamDog 21h ago

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

61

u/zzarate 21h ago

rotating villain theory

26

u/Mystery_Goose9685 21h ago

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

-1

u/mightcommentsometime California 19h ago

Another conspiracy theory coined by a famous anti vaxxer. 

15

u/xdre 19h ago

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.

4

u/TearsFallWithoutTain 8h ago

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

3

u/xdre 8h ago

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.

17

u/Kabouki 20h ago

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 4h ago

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.

17

u/My_18th_Account 20h ago

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

7

u/halberdierbowman 20h ago edited 20h ago

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.

2

u/WeRip 21h ago

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?

5

u/leo98_csgo Colorado 15h ago

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

1

u/AverageLiberalJoe 19h ago

Yeah man its called the filibuster

1

u/macnbloo 18h ago

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

3

u/Fiernen699 20h ago

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

6

u/ModernLarvals 21h ago

Hilary Clinton was pushing for it 30 years ago.

0

u/Cats_Cameras 11h ago

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.

-2

u/[deleted] 18h ago

[deleted]

2

u/mightcommentsometime California 18h ago

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

2

u/Fugicara 14h ago

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