Drumpf Diary 2/15/17 - The Question of the Democrats, continued

1.) The Question of the Democrats is something I will likely return to regularly here. Today it popped up first in the form of a very good Vox article about little Timmy (seriously) and how new rules implemented by Obamacare helped make insurance affordable for him. Due to a genetic condition, he had to receive repeated medical care which cost over $1 million. Thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies no longer drop people from coverage after their healthcare costs have reached this threshold. Timmy's parents were able to keep Timmy insured and Timmy's care remained affordable. The message of the article is there are thousands of people like Timmy for whom Obamacare may well have been life-saving, certainly life-altering for the better. Timmy, his parents, and those like him can be considered people "living on the margins," an important concept. It may seem like most people don't see much difference in their lives based on the actions of governmental policies, thus it is easy for people to claim that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. But for people on the margins, there is a big difference. Timmy's parents might have had to bankrupt themselves paying for his healthcare. Who knows. For them, it made a big difference that Obama was in office versus John McCain.

It's also noteworthy that the part of the Obamacare bill that made it illegal for insurance companies to cap coverage at $1 million in healthcare expenses was in there because one woman, a private citizen, aggressively lobbied her senator to put that wording in the legislation. She called, showed up at events, formed a relationship with him, and he came to care about the issue personally. It seems noteworthy that the senator is a Democrat (Byron Dorgan). Would a Republican senator have listened and gotten the language in the Affordable Care Act? Seems difficult to assume given the strong Republican opposition to the bill.

I am not necessarily advocating that we must back Democrats, and fall back on them vigorously as our "opposition."  I am not necessarily advocating the Democrat/compromise position, as I defined it in my original entry on the question. I am just exploring something I see as supporting that position. I feel like it should be grappled with when advocating abandonment of the party. I don't feel that advocates of abandoning the Democrats have a sufficient answer for what to do for marginalized people if you are going to put them at risk by not supporting Democrats against a worse option.

2.) Politico reports that the electorate would currently support "a generic Democrat" over Drumpf in 2020, about 43-33. Sadly, though, one specific Democrat would not beat Drumpf: the poll states that Elizabeth Warren trails him 42-36 in current polling. My sister informed me of this and noted, "This country hates women in power." That and/or, as the Politico story claims, "Democrats could be in trouble- and (Drumpf) could triumph- if they continue their lurch to the left."

3.) Jacobin transcribes an hour-long interview on The Katie Halper Show with writer Doug Henwood (the link also includes embedded audio of the interview) where he discusses how he thinks the Democrats should move forward. He suggests moving away from "elite funding," and campaign based on grassroots funding. He thinks the party is stuck in that it is a "business party" which has to pretend to be a left-wing, populist party to get elected, but it can't actually deliver on those promises on a grand scale because of its necessary ties to big business, whose interests contradict those of working people. He thinks Bernie showed the way forward with his campaign: grassroots funding, and a targeted, simple populist message.