What If More of Today's Bernie Sanders Supporters Had Voted in the 2014 Midterm Elections?


What if all the Seattle liberals who fret over which Democrat represents them in City Hall instead volunteered/donated to a Democrat running for State Senate in a suburban swing district?

Then maybe we'd have a Legislature that gives Seattle the freedom to do what we want re: housing, transit, etc.
What if the Democratic politicians did things to actually motivate voters to come out and support them?
@2: Like passing Obamacare just before the 2010 midterms?

Our Democrats already refuse to do that. Frank Chopp? Complete neolib. Most of his tenure has been under a D-led house, senate, and governor...yet they can't figure out how to fix our tax system (and keep giving breaks to Boeing and Microsoft).

What this article assumes is that the Democrat Party has the liberal back, when they largely don't. The liberal Democrat is a pipe dream. Sure they support gay rights or are pro-choice. But, when it comes to economics, it's "yes corporations. How high do we have to jump?"
@3 Is Obamacare supposed to be a GOOD thing? It penalizes the semi-poor, and yokes us to a for-profit corrupt-as-fuck health care system with little to no oversight. Premiums and costs have still skyrocketed. But, go Romneycare...uh. I mean ObamaCare.
@5, It's a vast improvement over the previous system, which penalized the poor, semi-poor, and anyone with a chronic medical condition -- and that's not including all the people who *did* have health insurance who were paying higher premiums to subsidize emergency care for everyone who didn't have coverage. A tax-based universal system would be ideal, but what we ended up with is probably the best we could achieve, particularly in light of the Dems' subsequent midterm losses in 2010 and 2014. Had Dems turned out, our health care system might be much different (better) today.

I don't know if anything has changed about industry oversight, however premiums have, on average, gone down (http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/…).
Do we know that Hillary Clinton supporters did come out in 2010 and in 2014? You'd think that'd be a question to answer before regurgitating a Clinton talking point...
oh, @5, the 09-11 congress got a lot of shit done, and then ran away from their achievements while the mighty tea party and fox news pushed the death panel lie and whipped up elderly white turnout.

even single-payer zealots realize that it was not going to happen (it took a whole goddamn year as it was), and despite that, there is good in the bill. young adults being able to stay on their parent's policies until they're 26, for instance.

the perfect is the enemy of the good, change is incremental, play the long game, blah blah ad nauseum.

There's just no pleasing some people

Speaking of, where's Ansel?
The Dems' management of the House and Senate when they had control was, quite frankly, appalling. The most conservative Dems were in charge, and they proved that they were just as corrupt and destructive as the Republicans, which demoralized millions of voters and depressed turnout. That's just my theory, of course, since me and everyone I know votes regardless. Would be nice for someone to do some research on non-voters to confirm what's actually going on.

Another more likely possibility is that people are just so comfortable that they're simply apathetic. It's mind-boggling, but the fact is that there are countless people out there that are satisfied with the status quo and don't give politics a single thought, ever. They might be vaguely aware of a presidential election, but otherwise meh.
@ 3, Dude, do you have an Obamacare policy? I do, and it fucking sucks. Nothing routine is covered, the deductible will wipe me out, and my premiums doubled over my former and similar catastrophic care policy. Glad other people now have access to coverage, but I can see why no one's celebrating this bullshit.
@1: Are you saying there's no difference between Mayor McGinn and Mayor Murray? If so, you're wrong. (Also, has anyone seen Ed Murray in the past few months? I'm started to get worried.)
How about the Bernie supporters stay home on election day in November and throw their ballots away Eli? Would you prefer that?

Seriously, I know "The Establishment" gave you one of their prizes but your condescending attitude towards Bernie supporters does nothing but keep them from voting in November. And Clinton is going to need those votes come election day.
That whole interview is hilarious and very worth reading.
@10: I don't have an Obamacare policy, but regular employer-provided policies are moving to a high-deductible model as well. My deductible is now $2500, and it had been $1000 for the last 15 years.
Poor Barney Frank, he got it all backwards. What the young Bernie supporters are saying is if you want our votes, you need to be putting up more candidates like Bernie. The Democrats have by far the larger constituency of supporters, but they have been drifting right on their policy positions for 2 1/5 decades and still expect us all to march off to the polls dutifully and put our X by the D candidate. Franks attitude is exactly why the party with the much larger coalition of voters was only in charge of one of the branches of government.
I love how to blame is placed on progressive voters and not on the shitty democrats who represent us in Washington, D.C. The strategy of the democrats in 2010 was only to pass the ACA. They didn't go for other big, progressive ideas and they let the tea party roll over them. They thought that by being more in the middle, moderate voters would support them, and instead we got the tea party. If they seriously pushed progressive policy the way Bernie does, people would have been energized to get out and vote in the mid terms.

We don't need neoliberal democrats, we need socialists who are going to fight for the shit we desperately need to change before things get much worse, before there's no more middle class, before the ecosystem collapses.
@ 14 & 15, Yes, exactly. Thank you.
Remember being a child and how much you ENJOYED playing with the kid that would take his ball and go home anytime he didn't get his way?

Of course you don't, you DESPISED that kid for ruining things for everyone. So now as grownups they are threatening to let Republicans stack the supreme court, restrict voting rights, make reproductive services impossible to find, sanction discrimination against the LGBTQ community, and god knows what else, all because Bernie Sanders is losing the primary because a majority of Democratic voters prefer Hillary.

If you hold any of the principles Bernie Sanders is fighting for dear, you will be frustrated if Sanders loses but vote for Clinton rather than let Republicans undermine every one of Sander's goals.
@5 And the alternative was? Oh yeah:

-Skyrocketing premiums at an even more accelerated rate.

-And 15 million fewer people insured (in fact nearly 22.8 million Americans got coverage due to all ACA provisions)

-And insurance companies able to fuck you over because of pre-conditions.

Thanks to Obamacare millions of people can't be denied coverage because of pre-conditions.

Insurance premiums have been growing faster than the rate of growth in income for well over a decade. Thanks to Obamacare there are more regulations aimed at reducing the growth in premium rates like the rate review provision that stops insurance companies from unjustified rate hikes, and the medical loss ratio provision that stops insurance companies from spending your premium dollars on non-health care related expenses.

And as for the bullshit about how it's "harmed" poor people - the expansion of Medicaid 138% Federal Poverty Level has insured millions of poor Americans. Cost assistance offered through the marketplace greatly reduces premium costs of those making less than 400% of the Federal poverty level. (400% of the Federal Poverty level equates to individuals making less than $46,021, or a family of four making less than $93,700 a year)

What ever magical healthcare kingdom you think existed seven years ago is a product of your imagination. But sorry you had to contribute to the greater good and buy some insurance, poor dear.
This whole interview annoys me to no end. I could go on forever about this but let me just say what comes to mind....

* Many of these young voters are being engaged in the political process for the first time. Possibly voting for the first time. How can you blame them for losses.

* How can the DNC blame voters when it puts up candidates that voters don't like. Somehow it's an issue because activists weren't willing to support milquetoast establishment politicians who were receiving generous campaign contributions. Sanders appeals to activists precisely because he doesn't take that money and yet runs a viable campaign.

* Steve israel's lack of strategy in midterms promoting actual progressives who were competive in their districts and opted to go with conservaCrats who opposed Obama policies. Repeating this mistake again by supporting Patrick Murphy in Florida over Grayson. Patrick Murphy's votes have been almost identical to his crazy Republican predecessor.

* Treating OFA as an afterthought. Not utilizing organizers like it had before. At the time of Obama's first inaug they had were 2/3 seats short of fillibuster proof. Maybe if they had sicked OFA on those vulnerable repubs rather than watering down the bill to appease them they would have been able to get more for the people rather than embracinng this canard of "budget neutrality". Than being incensed when those organizers would not spin for a gutted healthcare reform bill.

* This learned helplessness by Democrats that they can't do anything because of Republicans. There was amazing public support for Wall Street Reform at Obama's inauguration because of the recent collapse and TARP granted amazing powers. Yet not a single entity was put into receivership. Not a single creditor got a write down. What was apparently good for the auto companies (public ownership and forced restructurings) was not necessary for an outsized financial industry?

* Furthermore They claimed that there was no legal course to pursuing executives at these institutions. This was BS. Sarbox was specifically designed to go after the "I'm CEO but I don't know anything". Why wasn't it used?

* Obama claimed in one meeting with high level finaciers said " I am keeping you from the pitchforks" How can he then expect our trust?

*Hillary says "I will use Dodd Frank powers [to break up banks] if *appropriate*"

*IF* appropriate?! It's clearly appropriate to the public who got screwed. This is clearly a way of dodging responsibility by saying "we need to study further" Plenty of industry experts argue for it as well Meryn King and kashkari off the top of my head.

* incrementalism isn't the only way that change has been secured. Civil rights act and ACT-UP and Medicare were radical proposals. Hardly incremental. Reagan went strong in right wing economics and we are still trying to fight it back. Incremental change can be rolled back so much quicker.

And finally and possibly most importantly the DNC does not respect it's liberal grassroots. It treats them with derision. not inviting single payer advocates to the ACA discussions but inviting health plan execs. Even when they were present Obama dismissed them with adjectives such as "little" even though "Medicare for all" focus tests amazingly well. Hillary being outright dismissive of a Greenpeace activist asking her to stop taking corproate oil Money. They treat things they think they can't sell (even though they haven't really tried) as something to throw under the bus when debating Republicans. I'm just waiting for Hillary to throw us under the bus when she wins the nomination. And then being incensed when we won't support someone who treats us unfairly. Its not how you would deal with people in a personal setting. Why should it be allowed in politics.
There's an awful lot of apologists for not voting in this thread, which is why conservatives eat the liberal's lunch every midterm, despite the country being overwhelmingly liberal in its sentiments.

Conservatives don't like all their candidates, but they show up and vote for them.

@10 The trend in rising deductibles was happening without the ACA. And . you know, you're getting older and deductibles tend to go up anyway.

God damn. Nothing like judging a massive social change through the lens of singular selfish anecdote.
Chill out, everyone, most of Bernie's supporters will vote democratic come November, even if Clinton is the nominee. A small contingent are threatening to stay home but I really don't see that making a huge difference. She'll get the turnout that you'd expect for an only semi-inspiring candidate, perhaps with a boost if the opponent is Trump or Cruz.

Of course, if she looses, everyone will probably blame Bernie anyway.
20. "Conservatives don't like all their candidates, but they show up and vote for them."

They also give them hell in primaries,
@3- You mean the mandatory insurance program with no cost controls? That was not a remarkable achievement, that was a demonstration of how useless the Democratic Party is.
@20- I sympathize a lot more with people who don't vote than asswipes who seem to think that being slightly less terrible entitles them to elected office.
To everyone saying something along the lines of "well, if you gave us a reason to vote, maybe we would": Nobody gives a shit about people who vote when they feel like it, or when they are "inspired," or when they have a single candidate they particularly like. You want to push policy in the direction you like, you need to vote each time, every time, and make candidates fight to get your vote. That's why every election is a competition over who can suck-up most to seniors. It's why even the most centrist Democrats fight over getting union endorsements. And it's why the NRA freaks keep Republicans in line, even when their positions are detested by the majority of the electorate.

It's a lot easier to get someone who's already in the booth to pull your lever than it is to get someone sitting at home to show up at the booth in the first place, and the former is worth twice as much, since it's both a vote for you and a vote taken away from the other guy.
@14, 15, and 16. If you want the Democratic Party to start producing more of those candidates then you have to be MORE INVOLVED in the Democratic party, not less. You need to produce a crop of candidates starting at the local level who can then rise up through the levels of (start as a local representative -> mayor -> governor -> President). If your only involvement is during the Presidential election, and even then you threaten to sit out of the Presidential election unless you get your way in the primary, you are telling people running for office that you may abandon them at the drop of a hat.
So like the kid that always threatens to take his ball and go home, you have to realize that over time the prerequisite for being able to put a game together is being willing to keep playing even when your team is not winning.

Finally, part of the reason the super delegates are supporting Hillary is because she has been working with Democrats running for offices down the ticket. She shows up at their campaign events, shares information, HELPS THEM WIN!!! Sanders has not done any of that, and since super delegates are looking out for the interests of EVERY Democrat who is running, they will support the candidate that is doing the most for EVERY Democrat.
#26 and #27 are 100% correct. Petulance doesn't get you change. You have to work for it.
@27 - And I'll add that if the only candidate you are excited about is someone who doesn't give a shit about building and supporting the Democratic party, you shouldn't expect the Democratic party to fall all over itself trying to cater to what you want. If the party is going to go down, it might as well go down fighting, and not just surrender to the barbarians at the gates.
Dwight dear, I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy, but they don't get much more out of that arrangement, do they?

Conservatives have it easier, since most of them aren't too bright, and tend to do as they're told - particularly if you add a religious component to it. But liberals need to either take over the Democratic machine (as the conservatives did with the GOP) or put in the long, hard, tedious, generational work it would take to start a new party. I think they are too fractured and distractable to succeed at that.

Trends in the individual market in certain states could very well be higher than they would have been without ACA because the healthy people aren't buying in because it's too expensive. Many states are worried about death spiral. State intervention will be required but many states have Repubs who don't give a crap. Possibly if the premium subsidies had been more generous it would be easier to convince these people to buy the policies and keep down the costs of the pool somewhat. Many of these "healthy" people had cheaper insurance before. From their perspective Obama is a rip-off. If we had given them subsidies to keep them whole it may have worked better. However to appease repubs and conservaCrats in the senate who wanted "Budget Neutrality" we didn't do that.

Medicaid expansion has been successful but the individual market isn't necessarily working.

This is also another example of how "means-tested" programs actually work worse politically since they hurt these persuadable "middle-class" worker. It actually made Obama care a harder sell in the midterms.
To followup Clinton's College plan is exactly the means tested program that I'm criticizing above.
@ 27, I always vote, including primaries. What's clear is that the current Dem strategy is not working, and it's in their own interest to figure out why. Blaming non-voters isn't a strategy. These are the numbers:

Under Obama, Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats in Congress, and the results are even more staggering on a local level. Democrats have lost 12 governorships... 30 state legislative chambers and more than 900 state legislative seats.
So, they are telling us that the massive support for Hillary in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina is from people that always turn out for mid-term elections? There are voters all across the political spectrum who only show up for presidential elections.

If the establishment wants to change that, they should end the neo-liberal obsession with charter schools, properly fund public education, and create a better informed electorate for future generations. Of course, to do that, they'll need to have real progressive candidates in every state and federal congressional race, which they don't seem interested in doing.
Maybe you should stop using "Bernie supporters" to describe every progressive or liberal Democrat you don't like. Maybe more young people would come out and vote if old gray-hair DNC types stopped writing condescending strawman pieces about them every chance they got. Stop attacking a strawman and start making an actual case for Clinton. Maybe you'd earn some respect from the "Bernie supporters" and those of them who happen to correspond to your stereotype will actually come out and vote in the mid-term. Too many Clinton supporters and surrogates (like a lot of Sanders supporters actually) are tone deaf as fuck and I have wonder where you learned to advocate like this.
Remember when people used to make fun of GW Bush and say that his answer to every question was "9/11"? The answer to every doubter's questioning of the Dems are now, "TRUMP".
Oh, fuck off. I'm middle-aged at this point, not some Millenial demographic caricature (although I'm likely almost as broke as they are and won't ever be able to retire at this rate).

I've voted in every fucking midterm since the 90s, and I continue to back Sanders in the primary race because he is the closest candidate to the majority of political positions I've had since the 90s and if he goes down before/during the convention I'll willingly shift my vote to Clinton who will logically at that point be my best option.

In the meantime, I hope the DLC wing of the party will feel free to continue to condescend to me and my wing of the party. I'll continue to eat your slop. Remember to make sure to bring up the Nader 2000 guilt trip on lefties and progressives. We got in line then, and lost. We got in line behind your fucking loser John Kerry, and lost.

Then when some of us viewed Obama as a compromise candidate we could live with (or enthusiastically endorsed) in 2008 we got told we were backing a weak candidate with no experience who would get chewed up by the G.O.P. in November. You may remember him, the guy who gave Clinton and Kerry a job.
12, you think that Bernie's young supporters will refuse to vote for Clinton just because Eli's condescending to them? That's pretty sad for our country, considering those children are going to be around for another sixty years. If they're that childish, they deserve what they get.

As far as the ACA, the things people don't like about it -- like no cost controls and insurance companies making money from it -- are due to the Republicans refusing to vote for it unless those things were included. The Republicans have been trying to eviscerate it ever since, and tried at least sixty tries to completely repeal it, which failed because the Democrats and Obama wouldn't let that happen. However, one of the best things about the ACA -- the Medicaid Expansion for poor people -- was stymied by a number of Republican governors who simply refused to allow their states to institute it, despite the federal government covering all the costs for the first three years. That -- and just about all actions of Republicans over the last eight year -- was just plain heartless.
Mandatory reminder: Elections are not about what you want. Elections are about what we get.
Given the state of the race, I knew that regurgitating DNC propaganda was going to be thick this week but damn, one article per day Eli?
Isn't it cute how conservative Democrats keep claiming this primary race over yet they don't stop attacking the Sanders campaign and its supporters?
@3 if you think that people would mobilize for Romney care when overwhelming majority have wanted single payer healthcare forever, you are probably living in a delusion.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this completely tone-deaf, out-of-the-loop article for what it is. Instead of bitching and moaning about "Where were you when I needed you?" why don't you ask yourselves, "What is it about the Sanders campaign that has suddenly got people excited?"

My Democratic congressman was given to me by the party elites. He had a challenger, a progressive, that was given no support or money by the party. They knew who they wanted and that's what we have. And what has Mr. Magic done since elected? Not much. He's been straight party ticket, said nothing, done nothing, happily supporting the corporate status quo.

The reason why people are excited about Sanders is because he inspires trust. He walks his talk. It's not only that he's prepared to "do it his way," but that he is the only one who has correctly identified the many problems that America faces, and dismisses the ones the media and the bigots want to rant about. If the Dem party was willing to put forth candidates like that, instead of their hand-picked toadies, then it would have created a big shift in the mid-terms.

The point is, the situation we have now is precisely the one the Dems want. But like all losers, instead of looking in the mirror and trying to figure out what is wrong, they blame others.
@3 You've got it exactly backward, people didn't show up for the 2010 midterm precisely because they felt let down by Romneycare after Obama showered them with progressive rhetoric to get elected. I mean in addition to O's other shenanigans like reappointing the architects of the financial collapse. You think that people are stupid and don't see what's going on but you are wrong. This primary season should be a lesson for you but somehow you are showing yourself to be incapable of learning, so far.

It worked out for my wife who has a ton of recent and upcoming medical expenses that would have been catastrophic without the insurance. Yeah, it's not great but its something and it saved our asses at 285 a month.
By the way, Bernie won Wisconsin and Hilary's losing streak continues. Can't wait for the next Slog post quoting Hillary folks talking about Sanders' missteps.
Shorter @39: "If life gives you a pitcher of urine, make lemonade!"
@39 -- It's a deep truth, which you may need to think deeper than usual to comprehend.

It seems more likely that they will talk about that than about Hillary referring to a fetus as a "person" or saying that feminists can be prolife.
This shit is so presumptuous and backwards, par for the course here now I guess. My borderline millennial anecdotal experience tells me that my moderate democrat family and friends sit out important local elections and midterms (and caucuses!), yet argue with me over spoon-fed establishment talking points like those brought up here by Slate. I've been politically active for over a decade, voted in every election cycle & special election, "worked" (they later decided they couldn't pay their employees) for a WA nonprofit to engage young people with the democratic party, only to see our Stranger-endorsed, Chopp-led house fail at every turn. Stop brushing your saltiness off on everyone else, Eli. Seriously, you Dan and Keck are so wrong. What a joke.
Of course feminists can be pro-life. And misogynists can be pro-choice. In fact, most of them are...

Sanders picked up about ten delegates (net) on Clinton tonight. At this rate, he'll catch her in January.

Sanders enthusiasts are democratic socialists. Democrats and Republicans are free market capitalists. Democratic socialists have nothing to vote for in the mid-terms and, every four years, pick the less evil option. This isn't complex.

"people didn't show up for the 2010 midterm precisely because they felt let down by Romneycare after Obama showered them with progressive rhetoric to get elected"

So, if we are to accept that premise, what exactly did they hope to accomplish by that? Some sort of middle-school angst along the lines of "boy, will they ever miss me if I don't come to that party they didn't invite me to!" ? Anon dear, I hate to break it to you and the rest of those "people", but life is not a Janis Ian song.

I think it was more along the lines of they got bored because there wasn't enough celebrity endorsements and novelty songs written about it.
@37: Damn son you salty.
Barney Frank, calm down. We did not fail the system, you the system failed us. We DID NOT WANT to vote for the Democratic party in the midterm elections. (Though I did anyhow.) We want to vote for real people who don't simply join the party's rank and file, and would listen, advocate for, and represent people on issues they actually care about. As for writing this article right now, after Bernie is winning state after state after STATE! I'd say it sounds like sour grapes. What's going on now is an important story. How the democratic party failed and failed again is an important story. But to blame the PEOPLE for not propping up another winner for your team, shame on you, Barney Frank. And to the writer, this is not a story.
@43 sweet.
My god, now people are blaming Sanders supporters for mid term losses in 2010 and 2014? Perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on Slog, and that is saying A LOT.

Is there some magical way everyone knows that only current Sanders supporters did not vote in those years? Or that Clinton supporters did? My god, what completely transparent bullshit of an "opinion."

Just another piece of BS, and another proof that Clinton supporters literally have nothing good to say about their candidate, only condescending and nonsense vitriol for the Sanders campaign and its supporters.

Clinton will probably win the primary, but I really hope she doesn't now just so I can see even more whining from Clinton supporters for not kowtowing to Empress Clinton's divine right to be president.

Also, pretty much nothing said in this thread here about the ACA is accurate. Especially one of the initial statements that it covers "nothing routine." This is a complete and utter lie.

@53 " what exactly did they hope to accomplish by that?"

By definition disenfranchised people don't accomplish anything. Giving in to disenfranchisement often makes matters worse but telling the disenfranchised to vote for the lesser evil is bound to failure because it doesn't empower them to affect positive change, especially when that lesser evil will continue neoliberal policies that further dismantle the middle class, the social safety net and send their children to war.

"they got bored because there wasn't enough celebrity endorsements and novelty songs written about it"

Your disdain for people is shameful. This isn't a fair description of the folks who got genuinely excited by the promise of Obama 2008 progressive campaign to be let down on day 1 of his presidency. You are not making any constructive suggestion of how to bring these people to vote in midterms and in dismissing their ability to be energized by policy proposals that attend to their needs and will move us forward, you become part of the problem.
@58 "pretty much nothing said in this thread here about the ACA is accurate. Especially one of the initial statements that it covers "nothing routine."

It depends on the magnitude of the premium i.e. Gold plan cover some routine stuff but bronze plans are essentially coverage for catastrophic occurrence because of the large deductible and for most will cover almost no routine health care. I also would think that most, especially those people who didn't have coverage before the ACA, don't have the resources to buy gold plans.
Anon dear, anyone who got "genuinely excited" about Obama and was then too "disappointed" to vote for him in the mid-term is a major weenie who deserves disdain.

And it's not my place to make any "constructive suggestions" on how to get them to vote. If they're (most likely) too lazy, or need their candidates to pass some sort of individualized purity test, we'll just see the status quo continue, which is fine with the corporations and other big money interests. Voting - even if it's for the lesser of two evils - is the absolute least that should be expected of us as citizens, especially in WA state, where you can literally vote anytime or anywhere.

I'll say it again - Liberals either need to take over one of the parties (which will take decades of hard work and compromise) or start their own party. And by that, I mean a party that works to fill offices at all levels, and doesn't just show up every four years to complain (like the greens)

What will happen to all these Bernie Sanders idealists if Senator Sanders doesn't get the nomination? What will happen when he dies? We need a progressive movement that rallies around issues, not people, for people will always disappoint you and/or die on you.
@60: Also incorrect. Either people do not know what is actually "routine" care, or they have been conned into purchasing illegal plans. I have been working with the ACA and its interaction with various health care plans and companies since early 2010, I know exactly what ACA compliant plans cover and how they are required to cover it.

ALL routine preventative services (in addition to maternity services and care such as breast pumps) are covered with no member liability, that means NO copay, coinsurance or applicable deductible. Routine but non-preventative services will likely carry member liabilities such as the applied deductible, but they are still covered.

These restrictions are different for minimum value plans, but no one using a health exchange should be able to buy or be offered a minimum value plan, by law.
@61 Again, you are pretending that people are so stupid they don't know they have been fooled when their supposedly progressive president reappoints Goldman Sacks at the helm of the economy and proposes Romneycare instead of single payer, literally. It's not because corporate media gatekeepers refuse to say it that people don't know it. You are wrong.

@62 "Routine but non-preventative services will likely carry member liabilities such as the applied deductible, but they are still covered. "

Due to insurance jargon. Otherwise, in the real world, if your deductible is $3000 (very common) and you aren't chronically sick, you end up paying for essentially all of the health care you need, i.e. you are only insured against catastrophic health events.
@64: You do realize that health insurance coverage is not just "all healthcare is free" even for people who have health insurance through their employers, right?

Because while you may be on the hook for a $3,000 deductible, you are not on the hook for the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) that could be charged to you even for things that are not a part of catastrophic coverage. That is what healthcare coverage is.

Besides, many people without chronic conditions can easily spend upwards of 3 grand on healthcare costs per year, not everyone is a young single person, you know.

Things like prescriptions, routine preventative care, birth control, private duty nursing, allergy testing, allergy serums, medical foods, dental services due to injury, DME, spinal manipulation, transgender services (including the hundreds of services contained therein), mental health services, hospice services, removal of impacted teeth, basic vision, obesity treatments, autism spectrum disorders, abortion services, HIV testing...

I could literally go all day here.
Lol at the "when things are already just how we want them we'll start voting" crowd.
Ask yourself why so few dems are afraid of getting primaried from the left the way reps are terrified of being primaried from the right? Ask yourself how our politics have gotten pulled so far to the right over the last few decades when popular opinion really hasn't? Could it be that their highly motivated base keep their feet to the fire?
I also call bs on not bothering to vote being some principled stand rather than just lazy apathy.
@43 - I'm sorry, but this "inspires me" crap is exactly what we heard the True Believers spew about Obama in '08. And those of us who were there, year in and year out - us 'establishment' Democrats - were left to struggle alone in '10 and '14.

I recall getting HAMMERED (because I live in a southern state) in the '09 off-year, when every pissed off bigot in the state came out to vote in reaction to Obama...where were the dems? Home...for the most part, except for the boring establishment types - you know, those of us who tend to come out for moderate centrists like the Clintons. I know about who turned out because as an "establishment" democrat, I have access to to the voter files - and it's not hard to see who showed up in '08 and failed to show up in '09 (and it included a lot of the AA community too - another huge disappointment). And what did we get? Bob McDonald (convicted felon now) and Ken Cuccinelli (transvaginal prober).

And these "inspire me" types? They are now complaining that Obama was a closet centrist, despite getting two huge pieces of PROGRESSIVE legislation passed between '08-'10: Dodd-Frank and the ACA when he still had majorities in Congress. What the hell does the "inspire me" crowd really think Bernie is going to get done with a GOP House and a Fillibuster-able Senate? It sure as hell won't be the rainbows and unicorn ponies he's promising...

And let's talk about what "inspires" a lot of the "inspire me" crowd: for a HUGE slice, it's free tuition. I love this idea (for brick-and-mortar Community College) but it's the most cynical naked buy-votes ploy I've ever seen...well, I take that back: every GOP candidate is outdoing themselves to promises giveaways to their constituency that make Bernie's tuition plan pale by comparison. But I'd like to remind you all: the party of "what's in it for me" and FYIGM is the GOP - so if you need tailor made gimme incentives, you're in the wrong party to begin with.

The GOP has made a shit-hole out of our country by having the grit and determination to TURN OUT every single goddamn election - including the ones for dog-catcher. They've moved the needle; they've made "progress" in the direction they want to go, on all fronts, since about '72, precisely because they play a long game and SHOW UP. Yes, the GOP has a baked in bias/advantage in voting procedure (access, regulations, etc.), but obviously, since we elected a black man - a LIBERAL black man - not once, but TWICE it is possible to overwhelm that bias|advantage.

The article is spot on: if people on the left made a concerted effort to turn out every time, we'd get a helluva a lot more done - you'd already have a lot of what Bernie is running for - instead of being lazy and acting like anything less than the perfect ideal isn't worthy of even "meh", much less taking time to vote.

If the prospect of Ted the Zodiac Killer Cruz or Donald as President doesn't inspire you sufficiently to pull the lever for meh Hillary, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on - you deserve exactly what you fucking get, which is going to be an ass reaming....I'll call you the whaaaambulance.
Anon dear, I'm not saying people are stupid. Yes, there was a certain percentage of voters who took their ball and went home to pout when they didn't get exactly what they wanted when they wanted it. but there was the much larger group of people who were too lazy to bother to vote. They weren't let down - there just wasn't the hype to get them excited. .

But yet they showed up again in 2012 to reelect President Obama, who was supposedly such a disappointment. Or are you proposing some sort of group amnesia?

Face it, the liberal voting bloc is flaky and finicky. .

@68: righteous!
@70 Calling people 'lazy' when they have repeatedly been betrayed bu party elites is righteous? you couldn't more wrong. No wonder, Democrats are going nowhere fast with working folks while the size of the independent block soars.
Anon dear, I'm not the one that venomlash was referring to, so you can just relax about that.

And yes, not voting is lazy. And pretty stupid as well. because it is playing right into the hands of the corporate interests.The less people who turn out, or who vote for hopeless vanity candidates, the more power the corporate interests can seize.

And again, if people are so very bitter and disenfranchised (instead of lazy and/or stupid) why the big turnout for Obama in 2012?

Finally, I'm not at all a Democratic operative. I'm speaking for myself and myself only. But, while we're on party politics, it doesn't seem like preachy, self-righteous progressives are winning the independents over, either.
@3 (Eli Sanders):

Like passing Obamacare just before the 2010 midterms?
To those of us who consider the Affordable Care Act to be the Munich Agreement of healthcare reform, your comment is more apt than you know, but in a sarcastic sense. Healthcare with honour ... healthcare for our time.
@71: There's laziness and there's betrayal, and the one does not have a thing to do with the other. You could make a plausible argument for the betrayal excusing those non-voters' laziness, but instead you appear to be claiming that BECAUSE those non-voters have been (in your opinion) betrayed, they cannot possibly BE lazy. That's bullshit.

And yeah, they're lazy. It takes a lot less effort to complain "oh, neither party represents me perfectly, so I just won't vote" than to actually go out there and vote for the candidate who represents you more closely. It's a lot easier to whine than to do something about it.
You want to talk about righteousness? The viewpoint you're espousing is that of the self-caricaturing SJWs, the ones who spew hatred of those who support their cause in an insufficiently vehement matter and who bite the heads off of people who accidentally use the wrong pronoun on them. It's a viewpoint that cares more about being right than being effective, more about winning an argument than winning a war. You're not going to GET the Democratic Party to take a hard turn to the left by threatening to sit out elections, because for every ultra-liberal voter they pick up they will lose several moderates. The math simply doesn't favor that kind of political positioning in this country. So all you do by refusing to vote for the candidate who's so-so is give a better chance of victory to the candidate who's absolutely fucking awful.

And if you do think that the Democratic Party stands to benefit from moving sharply to the left? If you think that pissing off moderates is worth the massive flood of liberal voters that will allegedly come out of the woodwork and start voting? Well, then you're just as delusional as the Tea Partiers who have taken over the GOP. They've been losing the moderate vote for a decade (probably longer) by trying to appease a fringe that swears that the only reason the GOP loses is because their candidates aren't conservative ENOUGH.
@73 - no doubt, when we failed to get single-payer, we should have just let the moment pass by. Just let the old system keep creaking along until the wheels fell off and a helluva a lot more people didn't have coverage. Nihilists always prefer that "blow it all up" option, as if they don't have to then live in the rubble for a good long while, and as if once they blow it up, they will get to rebuild it exactly as they want it. Keep telling yourself that.
@55 --

I'll cop to that, always.
@74 "There's laziness and there's betrayal, and the one does not have a thing to do with the other. "

You should try to be coherent once on a while. Of course they have nothing to do with one another since you are making shit up about people being lazy to avoid discussing constant betrayal by corporatist party elites for 30+ years: NAFTA and corporate globalisation, deregulation and financialization of the economy, welfare "reform", charter schools and privatization of public education, industrial farming, and on, and on but these are the data that you and your pals will never, ever discuss ....

"the ones who spew hatred of those who support their cause in an insufficiently vehement matter and who bite the heads off of people who accidentally use the wrong pronoun"

Your constant providing cover for corporatists is hardly equivalent to using the wrong pronoun or not being vehement enough. It is in fact being squarely on the wrong side of history.

"hard turn to the left"

the American public is way to the left of the corporatists in power so fishing for a mythical "center' in between right wing Democrats and hard right wing GOP is the sure recipe for failure that it has repeatedly shown to be
@72 "And again, if people are so very bitter and disenfranchised (instead of lazy and/or stupid) why the big turnout for Obama in 2012? "

55% of the electorate is NOT a big turnout. It is significantly larger than when Gore ran (50%) but it still is wholly inadequate. Some people do vote for the lesser evil when bat shit crazy Republicans could take all 3 branches of government.
You do realize that health insurance coverage is not just "all healthcare is free"

Since when paying a monthly insurance premium amounts to "free"? what world do you live in? In my world, paying a monthly insurance premium and then, paying out of pocket for actual healthcare is called catastrophic coverage insurance, at best because I do not know for certain that catastrophic cost would actually be covered.
What a weird article. There was no such thing as a "Bernie Supporter" in 2010 because he wasn't running for President then. And since Clinton is doing all sorts of gymnastics to pretend she supports things like gay rights, minimum wage increases and prison reform, perhaps Eli should write about how rich well connected Democrats actually support policies that the public supports instead of being dragged to the Democratic position by Bernie Sanders??
@80: "Today's Bernie Sanders Supporters"
Right in the headline.