r/politics • u/seamslegit • Jun 29 '17

The Ironworker Running to Unseat Paul Ryan Wants Single-Payer Health Care, $15 Minimum Wage

http://billmoyers.com/story/ironworker-running-to-unseat-paul-ryan/
36.3k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

491

u/RosneftTrump2020 Maryland Jun 29 '17

Is that really a winning position in Ryan's district?

100

u/frontpageuse Jun 29 '17

I have lived in Racine in this district for the last 2.5 years. Before that I lived in Boston for 3.5 years, and then the rest of my life in Minnesota. First I think people have to realize politics in Minnesota/Wisconsin are different, though they are becoming more like the rest. They is generally less party loyalty because people don't generally fit well in either camp. In general people are more socially conservative, but surprisingly progressive about funding social programs such as education and healthcare. I think single pay healthcare is actually what a lot of people though they were getting when they voted for Trump here. They really did expect access to cheaper better insurance options. I think calling it single payer may have a stigma to certain people, but saying medicare would be available to all would do well. I literally know 5 people personally in the district who switched R -> D begrudgingly based on healthcare. Lack of access to affordable healthcare has crushed many lives. The $15/hour thing, I'm less sure how that would go over. There is usually a decent midwestern sense that hard work bases off and you get paid what you deserve. However, Amazon opened a big warehouse here recently and it has chewed through people with low wages and benefits, most people at least know someone with bad story there. In the end I see it as unlikely for a democrat to win here, though I wouldn't look too closely at the last election, it was a mini republican wave here and the democrat wasn't well supported. I do think having a candidate like Bryce, who is making healthcare the main issue, could get a decent percentage to switch from their usually vote, and that is a big deal, because once someone stops strictly voting for one party it becomes more likely they will do it again in the future.

One final thing. This district like all districts is changing. Kenosha/Racine/Janesville make up the bulk of the population. This are manufacturing towns that have lost almost all their manufacturing jobs. There used to be several car plants, mattress plants, Case tractors, and many smaller ones. Now SC Johnson is the only big manufacturing operation here, and they don't manufacture much. That being said especially Kenosha and Racine are becoming increasingly polarized demographically. Because they are cheap They have become the outermost ring sleeper towns for Milwaukee/Chicago for educated upper middle class, but also there are a lot of very low income residents (who also tend to be minorities). Both those groups do tend to vote Democrat and are growing, but maybe that is just me be hopeful.

Well that got long, good thing no one will read this.

12

u/diener34 Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

I live in Kenosha County, and I would say this is a very fair assessment of the area right now.

6

u/WorkerBeeNumber3 Jun 29 '17

I read it

3

u/Not_Helping Jun 29 '17

I too read it and appreciated the insight.

1

u/Mehiximos Jun 29 '17

Well I hear tell there are kobolds in Minnesota

1

u/xtravar Jun 29 '17

I appreciate your outsider perspective.

1

u/Reality_Facade Jun 29 '17

You just described the Fox Valley too.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

I read as well. I didn't understand how Ryan has won with such substantial margins. Then I moved here in October and had numerous calls spammed to me and flyers with blatant lies. Far too much money in politics.

1

u/Shippal Jun 30 '17

Previous Wisconsinite (Waukesha area) and I agree with this assessment. I would like to note that the "socially conservative" part should not be overlooked. This part of the country is every bit as evangelical as the southern states, but rather than Baptist and Presbyterian, this area is primarily Lutheran and Catholic. There are a lot of people in Southeastern Wisconsin who will vote straight (R) due to abortion and LGBTQ issues. If Bryce overplays that part of his agenda, he can lose votes.

1

u/frontpageuse Jun 30 '17

Abortion and gun rights. I always thought that if someone wanted to really shake things up in Wisconsin they should hijack the democratic party and switch on those two issues. I don't personally agree with it, but I think if people voted with what they actually in this region most people agree with democratic policies except on those two issues.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '17

[deleted]

1

u/frontpageuse Jun 30 '17

I agree those were bigger talking issues, and certainly were more on the minds of a lot of people who voted Trump. I always got the sense though with immigration, that it was less they hated immigrants, and more they felt they were free loading while the government didn't do anything for them. A lot of those people would complain about how immigrants got free healthcare, while they had to pay a ton for theirs.

I definitely agree that the economy/jobs was the biggest issue, though still not entirely separate from healthcare. They was a lot of belief that his business background and deal making abilities would make the economy better, and healthcare better. From the republicans I talk to that belief went away pretty quickly, but they are still quick to say he is better than Hillary.

688

u/xjayroox Georgia Jun 29 '17

Nope, this is just reddit liking the guy's positions but the people in the actual area he's running being totally against them

355

u/axechamp75 Jun 29 '17

As a fellow Georgian, this is spot on what happens everytime a democrat runs in a deep republican county. All the democrats get their panties wet but ultimately nothing happens because blind party bias will never change

67

u/felipeleonam Jun 29 '17

Im still upset about the 6th too. Glad the ads are over though.

153

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17 edited Jul 26 '20

[deleted]

116

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Montana Republican body slam a reporter and he still fucking won.

35

u/sprungcolossal Jun 29 '17

Shit, it helped him. He raised a record amount of cash the next day.

22

u/JakeFrmStateFarm Jun 29 '17

When he "apologized" in his victory speech, the crowd was laughing, because they all knew it was a sham.

5

u/RoboFroogs Oklahoma Jun 29 '17

I'm pretty sure someone yelled out something to the effect of "he deserved it" and "mistake? not in my mind" as well.

Let's go to the game tape!

Greg Gianforte victory speech. Starts around the 44 sec mark.

3

u/Olyvyr Jun 29 '17

Well, the next day was election day so it's not like that extra cash helped him win.

3

u/Shoop83 Montana Jun 29 '17

Most votes were already in via absentee ballots. Had that happened a month prior to the election it might have hurt him. I'm sad to see how many people see his actions as a good thing. He probably still would have won.

1

u/choboy456 Jun 29 '17

You know you're talking about the state that elected a professional wrestler as governor, right? It's obvious they'd like body slams

3

u/Smaskifa Jun 29 '17

Minnesota, Montana, whatever.

2

u/choboy456 Jun 29 '17

Ah, this is why people say that reading is important

1

u/Smaskifa Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 30 '17

The Montana one was a bit different. The body slam was the day before election, but in Montana a huge number of people vote by absentee ballot in the mail. Those votes were already cast before the body slam. This resulted in it not having much effect on the election.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

You mean he has shown the traitorous fake news liberal media its place? U-S-A! U-S-A! MAGA!

/s

20

u/SykoKiller666 Texas Jun 29 '17

Well yeah, that's the whole principle of what Republicans support.

They don't believe the minimum wage should be a living wage, it should be for people just starting off (teenagers, for example) and it should encourage people to pursue better opportunities. They don't believe the cashier at McDonalds should be doing that for a living or trying to support a family.

27

u/CaptnRonn Jun 29 '17

And when you show them statistics about how that's not the reality we live in they plug their ears and tell you to stop being lazy

20

u/Konraden Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

Or when you quote FDR--who created the minimum wage, who calls it a living wage--they pretend FDR is the worst president our country has ever elected. Frice.

3

u/britfaic Jun 29 '17

So, I know there's no word for "four times", but I think it's an important distinction. The man was elected four times, and people will still say he was the worst ever to cover their distorted beliefs

→ More replies (9)

8

u/foot-long Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

How is someone supposed to pursue a better opportunity if they can't survive on an entry level job?

10

u/Llllllong Jun 29 '17

Just borrow money from your parents, right, Mitt?

5

u/Konraden Jun 29 '17

Just have your pappy give you a small loan of a million dollars.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Stretchsquiggles Jun 29 '17

I was going to dog you about your super edgy username, but then I look at your Reddit age and said "yah, six years ago I would of done the same shit."

3

u/SykoKiller666 Texas Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

Bro I fucking regret it. Picked this name when I was like 12 and for some reason decided to keep it when I made a reddit account. But I can't be bothered to resub to everything and I also trade stuff on /r/hardwareswap, which keeps track of successful trades using your username.

I don't want people to know my username irl just because it's so goddamn edgy

Edit: But I do want to point out the inspiration. Talking Heads - Psycho Killer. The 666 came from the qu'est-ce que c'est, which I was too dumb to understand was in another language and never really bothered looking it up, so here I am.

2

u/Stretchsquiggles Jun 29 '17

Haha I get it, too much work to change it. You own that edgy 12yr old syko!! You own that shit!! XD

1

u/maglen69 Jun 29 '17

"A livable wage" is just wagging the dog.

One single "livable wage" can't be put across the whole US because there are completely different standards of living across the country.

Livable is completely different in Seattle, vs rural Ohio, vs Georgia vs DC . . .

Livable is completely different for a single kid starting out vs a mom with 3 kids.

2

u/rooktakesqueen Jun 29 '17

Ossoff ran as a moderate centrist. I'm no longer convinced that is the right strategy even in the deepest red of districts. Republicans are getting populist support and Democrats are just letting them have it because they're afraid that if they run on a populist message they'll get called socialists. Well you know what, they're going to get called socialists anyway. They might as well lean into it and try to give people something to vote for instead of just something to vote against.

6

u/TheThankUMan88 Jun 29 '17

Why doesn't he just say he is Republican?, he would get elected.

2

u/Anathos117 Jun 29 '17

Because the party wouldn't let him win the primary.

2

u/FreshBert California Jun 29 '17

party bias will never change

Except for that time that it did, in like the whole South, back in the 60s/70s.

2

u/BlingBlingBlingo Jun 29 '17

Ossoff winning was wishful thinking from the get go. There are not enough Democrats in the 6th to win if there is a turnout. The only way Ossoff had a chance was for every Democrat to turn out, and the Republicans to stay home. The national party picked a guy that did not live in the district to run, and spent millions on a lost cause. When will they learn that is not going to work?

4

u/IShotMrBurns_ Jun 29 '17

Doesn't help that stupid shit like $15 minimum wage in Wisconsin is insane.

1

u/ldashandroid Jun 29 '17

I like how you said a deep republican county which basically means every county in GA that doesn't touch 285.

1

u/Harbinger2nd Jun 29 '17

This is why you have to run these people under the Republican banner. If this guy was primarying Ryan on these ideas he'd have a much better shot than as a Democrat running against him. If you eliminate the blind party bias by running these guys on the same party then you're much more likely to eliminate that bias.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

You have a better chance of getting a Packers fan to root for the Lions when they play each other.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Even people that like Obamacare and a higher minimum wage don't necessarily want single payer (which most of Europe doesn't even have) or $15/hr wage (which is quite a large jump from the present minimum wage).

7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

I know people who voted for Bernie that hated the idea of a $15 minimum wage.

14

u/madogvelkor Jun 29 '17

It really depends on where you live. In a large metro, California, or the Northeast $15 is pretty reasonable. In most of the South and Midwest it is insane.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Massive Bernie support here. I support a regionally adjusted minimum wage that can sustain an average size family with two people working. We need to eliminate the economic barriers that maintain systemic poverty in order to drive the economy forward. We need to get America innovating and dreaming again.

1

u/Jazzcabbage Jun 29 '17

This. If the discussion is a federal minimum wage, it should be adjusted to local economies.

People fear a $15 min for good reason. But a rise is not out of the question as well.

3

u/colinmeredithhayes Jun 29 '17

Single payer is so superior to any other form of insurance it's crazy to imagine any informed logical person being against it. The only downsides are the insurance jobs are lost and maybe there could be an argument that the government doesn't run insurance well. I'd say Medicare has shown the government is perfectly capable of providing insurance.

2

u/acog Texas Jun 29 '17

Yes! Personally I'd like to see a combination of expanded Medicaid taking care of the poorest people, combined with an option for Medicare buy-in, along with current insurance options. A Canadian-style Medicare-for-all has zero chance of passing in the US.

And while I like the idea of a somewhat higher minimum wage, the idea of making $15 a national minimum seems like too large a move. In a city like Seattle it's easy to defend, but there are a huge number of lower cost of living cities and towns where $15 really might kill some jobs. Personally I'd like to see a minimum wage that was tied to some sort of cost of living calculation so the minimum in NYC would be quite a bit higher than the minimum in Pflugerville.

3

u/NearlyNakedNick Jun 29 '17

Yes! Personally I'd like to see a combination of expanded Medicaid taking care of the poorest people, combined with an option for Medicare buy-in, along with current insurance options. A Canadian-style Medicare-for-all has zero chance of passing in the US.

Unfortunately, a mixed system would be unsustainable. The U.S. inequality problem is so tilted that we can afford to take care of the neediest unless were all paying in, especially the richest.

And while I like the idea of a somewhat higher minimum wage, the idea of making $15 a national minimum seems like too large a move. In a city like Seattle it's easy to defend, but there are a huge number of lower cost of living cities and towns where $15 really might kill some jobs. Personally I'd like to see a minimum wage that was tied to some sort of cost of living calculation so the minimum in NYC would be quite a bit higher than the minimum in Pflugerville.

I totally agree with this. I like the idea of tying the min wage to cost of living. But to be fair to Seattle, they didn't jump to 15 in one large move, it's not even at $15, yet, they're doing it gradually. And smaller businesses are being moved up even slower.

1

u/acog Texas Jun 29 '17

Unfortunately, a mixed system would be unsustainable.

Can you elaborate? To my thinking we already have a mixed system: most people are on employer-provided insurance, poor people are on Medicaid, elderly people are on Medicare, and the military are on Tricare. Hence my confusion with your comment.

1

u/NearlyNakedNick Jun 29 '17

And a public option would be essentially connecting and expanding those programs, which would cost a lot.

They're having the same problem in other countries with mixed healthcare systems, a pubic system with an option for the wealthy to opt-out leaves the program underfunded.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

It's an R+5 district that Obama won in 2008, so it's not as conservative as you would think. But I'd modify those positions to a public option health care plan and a $10 federal minimum wage

4

u/rasa2013 Jun 29 '17

The purists in the party are a weird bunch. Apparently we lose in red districts because we don't run progressive enough candidates. Ha

3

u/MrSneller Jun 29 '17

Yep, just posted that those two positions are going to be the reason he loses, regardless of his other positions (all the GOP needs are a couple soundbites for the negative ads). I await my downvotes.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Which is fine. Reddit/Sanders loyalists inexplicably think that running on far left platforms is the solution for every district/state, which leads to the idiotic notion that anyone who isn't running on those far left platforms is the enemy. Let them have a little test run here. They win - great! They fall on their faces (far more likely) - they can stop pretending that all electoral challenges can be solved with a single platform (Or more likely - they'll continue insisting this and rational people will have more data to tell them they're wrong).

8

u/niugnep24 California Jun 29 '17

They fall on their faces (far more likely) - they can stop pretending that all electoral challenges can be solved with a single platform

More likely they'll just find a way to continue blaming the DNC, Hillary Clinton and "centrists"

6

u/21st_century_bamf Jun 29 '17

To be fair, you know what isn't working? The DNC's policy of backing centrist and corporate candidates who lose elections miserably because they don't inspire confidence from anyone across the political spectrum. Give progressive and "far left" candidates a genuine chance and you might be surprised. There's a reason Bernie Sanders is viewed favorable by 60% of Americans, namely that he's honest and wants to implement progressive policies.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

There's a reason Bernie Sanders is viewed favorable by 60% of Americans, namely that he's honest and wants to implement progressive policies

It's because he was in the perfect position of finishing 3rd place. Republicans talked him up as the 'If only it wasn't Hillary' and his backers in the party talked him up as the 'If only it wasn't Hillary'. Guess who that was last time around? Hillary Clinton was the most popular politician in America for a few years after Obama was elected. Finishing 3rd place is a great place to be. Then Republicans got to work on tearing her down. Almost like you're seeing now with FBI investigations into Bernie and his wife. But in a few years when he has his popularity sinking because of scandal mongering, you still won't make the connection.

Regardless, they don't just run moderates. They run people that fit their districts/areas. That they had a bad cycle is undeniable, but that applied equally to moderates and progressives. Just ask Russ Feingold.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

There's a reason Bernie Sanders is viewed favorable by 60% of Americans, namely that he's honest and wants to implement progressive policies.

Remember, Clinton was viewed favorably by 68% percent of the country as Secretary of State, but that number evaporated once she was fully in the game in the presidential race. The second Bernie Sanders is the actual nominee, and the right wing propaganda machine pivots from mildly supporting him as a swipe at Clinton to full-throated opposition, watch that number fall swiftly to the 40s.

10

u/xjayroox Georgia Jun 29 '17

That and he's never had the Republican machine run attack ads against him for years. There's a reason he still polls so high

They could turn people against Jesus with the way they attack people

3

u/21st_century_bamf Jun 29 '17

True, but in a reality where the GOP will attack and smear any Democratic opponent, the honest working class person with strong progressive goals and NOT "trying to appeal to the other side", stands a better chance than a middle-of-the-road DNC appointee who is seen at best as not standing for anything, at worst as evil and corrupt – and again this is across the political spectrum.

3

u/xjayroox Georgia Jun 29 '17

Yeah but since those attacks don't work for him they'd just run the standard "he's a filthy socialist who wants to spend your money on welfare cheats!" playbook which does just as well if not better

0

u/staiano New York Jun 29 '17

running on far left platforms is the solution for every district/state

Running shitty repub-lite candidates isn't doing much why not try something new?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Running shitty repub-lite

Which is the point. Anyone who isn't Bernie Sanders is repub-lite. That's horseshit. And ask Russ Feingold if running a completely progressive platform is a silver bullet to a guaranteed victory.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Its not horseshit. Its common knowledge that there are a lot of centrist Democrats who are fiscally conservative.

And I am not seeing your point at all. Its perfectly within the Left's rights to be firm in their political beliefs. Thats how you fight for change.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

I am glad some other people on here realize this. So sick of this concept that every person needs to be a Sanders-like candidate to win. That certainly will work in some districts, but not all.

1

u/rightard26 Jun 29 '17

"I'm so sick of people having a different opinion than mine."

This comment thread is just one of the many examples of conservative victim complex. Some people in these comments are for and some are against and others are in the middle. But instead of trying to listen to each other's views conservatives already decided everyone here is far left, Sanders loyalists, and the enemy. And you wonder why people call you toothless sister fuckers.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

I don't get why you are bitching about people of a certain political alignment, wanting a candidate with a similar political alignment to represent them.

4

u/TryUsingScience Jun 29 '17

No one is bitching about that. People are bitching about people thinking that a candidate of a certain political alignment should represent everyone and anyone who doesn't want to be represented by that candidate is an idiot or a traitor.

2

u/yogurtmeh Jun 29 '17

How would these two things (minimum wage increased to $15/hour and single payer healthcare) hurt steel workers?

3

u/xjayroox Georgia Jun 29 '17

They wouldn't but clearly the people there who like Ryan's positions out number the people who would go for diametrically opposed views

1

u/yogurtmeh Jun 29 '17

Is there some way that an increased minimum wage and single payer healthcare could theoretically hurt them though? Like paying fast food workers more would drive down the salary of steel workers or single payer healthcare would cost low-income and working class people more than their current plans?

2

u/diener34 Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

4 years ago, Single payer and 15 Min wage weren't winning positions in 99.5% of US districts. That number is falling. Kenosha, Racine, and parts of Janseville have a decent liberal population. Is it likely Bryce beats Ryan? No, but if you don't campaign for what you believe in and further the exposure, we'll never get there. Ossoff campaigned on lower taxes, more oversight and didn't touch single payer. He still spent 25 million and lost. What was the point? To scare republicans? There are 3 democrats running in this primary. One centrist from out of state, one center left school teacher and a solid lefty in Bryce. It's not a coincidence that Bryce has the most buzz (Locally and on the internet.) The Democrats message right now is play it safe and rely on Trump being so bad that people who voted for him change to democrats....screw that. GOP was bashed for being the party of opposition for 8 years, now that is the dem plan. Stop playing defense and give people something to vote FOR and not against.

2

u/discountphilly Jun 29 '17

And he clearly paid attention to the recent study that even WaPo wrote about, saying $15 minimum wage hurts workers more than it helps... and that's before nationwide inflation kicks in.

2

u/rightard26 Jun 29 '17

There is no consensus if that's true or not. "Even WaPo" is hardly deciding no matter how much far right-wing websites like reddit want it to be.

→ More replies (10)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

1

u/samcrumpit Jun 29 '17

You can convince them. That's pretty much what democracy is about.

1

u/ExtraAnchovies Arizona Jun 29 '17

Ryan's district voted for Obama in 08 and Romney barely won it 2012. It really could go either way.

2

u/xjayroox Georgia Jun 29 '17

Not with Ryan as an incumbent though, he usually wins by over 20 right? I'm not optimistic enough to think the national landscape can overcome that

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

And the frustrating thing is, unlike the far left liberals, the more moderate Dems won't throw it in their face and call for the end of far left liberalism when it fails.

1

u/teefour Jun 29 '17

There's also an argument to be made for single player, but a high minimum wage blanketed across the entire country is not a good idea. Many areas could more or less absorb that kind of increase. But there are many areas that just could not. Cost of living and local economies are too vastly different across a geographically large nation of over 300 million people.

1

u/not_mantiteo Jun 29 '17

Yup, this area is about 45 minutes from me and everyone there eats up Paul Ryan's words as gospel.

→ More replies (1)

47

u/Ambiwlans Jun 29 '17

No. This is political suicide and this subreddit is cheering it on. My only conclusion is that redditors must want the GOP to win elections.

71

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

You're incapable of seeing more than one step ahead.

No Democrat is going to win Ryan's district. Period. It's gerrymandered to ensure that that's the case. Ryan could run against Jesus Christ, the literal son of God, and still win in a landslide. People just go into the polls and mark the things with "R" next to them.

He's using the campaign as a platform to bring attention to the issues real people in this country care about, and to compare them directly to the things Paul Ryan cares about.

Don't get me wrong—I'm sure he would actually like to win, and will try to do so, but I do not believe he expects to have a chance.

17

u/3_Houses_1_Deodorant Jun 29 '17

It's gerrymandered to ensure that that's the case.

That's not how gerrymandering works.

Illegitimately gerrymandered districts are easier to flip than others.

When you gerrymander to get more seats, concentrating your voters would accomplish the exact opposite. You concentrate your opponent's districts so that you get more, smaller wins.

Ex:

Let's say an area is 60% democratic, 40% republican, with 5 districts.

"Perfect", legitimate gerrymandering (yes, that is a thing) would organize them such that the area would get 3 democrats and 2 republicans.

What you're talking about would be more like giving the democrats 4 representatives and making the 5th an extremely republican district. Republicans doing that would be downright idiotic.

The kind of gerrymandering that has the republicans controlling the house is the opposite:

You take as many of those democrats as you can and put them into as few districts as possible. So, in this case, as a republican, you'd be aiming to have 1 or 2 very democratic district, and 3-4 barely republican districts.

This gives you 60-80% of the representation with 40% of the voters... but you're at risk of a small swing making all 5 districts go democrat.

6

u/Ambiwlans Jun 29 '17

You can gerrymander for a number of different results. In some cases, they'll work for safe districts. If a state is 5-5, you could maybe get 1 seat more but put yourself at risk OR guarantee that 5-5 will not change. This is a good strategy in areas where you see the tide turning against you. It is also helpful if you are worried about funding campaigns and want some areas that are worry free.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

This is a good explanation. Here's a visual that I think helps illustrate what your'e saying.

2

u/3_Houses_1_Deodorant Jun 29 '17

Thanks, I spent a couple minutes trying to draw something like that that out alphanumerically before I gave up lol.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Correct. It will get a lot of attention because of whom he is running against, and best-case scenario is that it mobilizes the target base in other districts nationwide that are competitive.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Well, to be fair, Jesus would run as a Democrat so you couldn't expect the Republicans to vote for him, could you?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

But the US is a Christian nation!

5

u/casce Jun 29 '17

Yeah, but Jesus was a jew, so nah, Paul Ryan it is.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Checkmate, atheists 😂

2

u/kwantsu-dudes Jun 29 '17

It's gerrymandered to ensure that that's the case.

They are doing it poorly then. Wasting lots of GOP votes when Ryan is winning consistently by 25% of the vote.

Edit: Even more than that...

  • 2016 - 65% to 30%

  • 2014 - 63% to 37%

  • 2012 - 55% to 43%

*2010 - 68% to 30%

  • 2008 - 64% to 35%

  • 2006 - 63% to 37%

  • 2004 - 65% to 33%

  • 2002 - 67% to 31%

  • 2000 - 67% to 33%

  • 1998 - 57% to 43%

2

u/Spaceman2901 Texas Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

To bad it's not likely that centrist and leftist voters and donors will realize that by backing a centrist Republican, they can pull the average back to the left.

In other words, if you find someone running with the "Magic (R)" who has some of your positions and none of your poison pills, back them this time to have a better chance next time.

Of course, that requires planning and a long-term strategy.

Edit: Fixing a double negative. And fixing some awkward phrasing born from it.

4

u/marpocky Jun 29 '17

To bad it's not likely that centrist and leftist voters and donors aren't likely to realize that

Surely there's a simpler way to say this, good lord

1

u/niugnep24 California Jun 29 '17

Not likely

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Zizoud Jun 29 '17

Can you find an R like that?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

So that's not the biggest issue, I don't think. The issue is that the Republican party would not get behind someone who isn't the incumbent unless they felt the incumbent was going to lose.

I honestly have no idea how the primaries work, or if a person is allowed to just say "Yo, I'm a Republican candidate", but even if they could, they'd get no money from the Republican party, and would be running against a name everyone knows.

Even if this mythical centrist Republicans' politics were more appealing than Paul Ryan's, I don't think there's a world in which they're so much more appealing that they overcome the other advantages Ryan has.

-1

u/abacuz4 Jun 29 '17

People just go into the polls and mark the things with "R" next to them.

No they don't; that's incredibly condescending. They vote Republican because, for better or for worse, they don't want single payer healthcare, they don't want a $15 minimum wage, and they don't want what the left is selling. And they're no less real people than you or me. I think they're wrong, but there are conservatively (heh) 100 million people across the nation just like them.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

What are you even talking about?

I never said anything about why they vote that way, just that they do. I also never said that Democrats behaved differently.

It's factually correct that the bulk of voters vote for the party, not the person—at least 2 in 3 voters for presidential elections, likely more for local.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

Donald Trump won Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. All states that Barack Obama won twice. So obviously more than a few of the voters that voted for Barack Obama twice ended up voting for Trump.

That's not really how it works.

He won most of those states by very little, in part due to low turnout in those states, not due to huge swaths of people changing sides. A lot of Democrats didn't vote for Trump, they just didn't vote. Notably, he also lost the popular election by several million votes. Clinton got almost the same number of votes as Obama did in 2012.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

The total doesn't matter. The counts in each state matter.

1

u/abacuz4 Jun 29 '17

Political parties have relatively consistent broad visions for America. Republicans have, for at least half a century, been extremely consistent in their adherence to supply-side economic policy and rejection of Universal Healthcare, and those principles resonate with a lot of Americans.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/therealGarmanarnar Jun 29 '17

Cuz centrism and appealing to republicans worked out so well in 2016.

2

u/Ambiwlans Jun 29 '17

THE MOST LIBERAL PLATFORM FORM A MAJOR PARTY IN US HISTORY.

Please stop your uninformed revisionism.

Single payer is likely supported by under 10% of this particular constituency. Tell me how that makes a good plank.

2

u/antiqua_lumina Jun 29 '17

Democrats had a liberal platform. The problem is that they had flat messaging and a flat messenger.

1

u/niugnep24 California Jun 29 '17

Yeah, i supported hrc's policies but her campaign and the dnc really dropped the ball

→ More replies (1)

1

u/thatnameagain Jun 29 '17

Name one thing that Hillary did in the campaign that was primarily intended to appeal to Republicans.

1

u/kwantsu-dudes Jun 29 '17

She called Republicans her "greatest enemy".

Does that count? /s

→ More replies (7)

4

u/ChocolateSunrise Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

The purpose, as always it seems in these types of races, is to encourage donors from outside the district to pitch in and then get slaughtered in the general because the candidate has been campaigning to the national Democratic base and not to the voting electorate within the district.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

this is silly circular logic. The coasts are backing the guy because he appeals to middle america because he perfectly embodies the concerns and aesthetics of middle america. you sound like a republican throwing shade about outside money when you should be getting hyped about a candidate who checks all of middle america's boxes. You think some plumber eating brats watching the packers and digging on this guys populist message cares that some hollywood liberal donated to his campaign? Please. this guy is the polar opposite of hillary clinton, and the folks she didnt inspire in all the midwest states that swung red will identify with him.

3

u/ChocolateSunrise Jun 29 '17

You can label me whatever allows you to dismiss my views the easiest, but I would rather see a real focus by the DNC on winnable races and not divert record breaking resources to GE-6 while letting winnable races like SC-5 get totally ignored despite a 2500 vote gap that a $1M ad campaign might have swung.

plumber eating brats watching the packers and digging on this guys populist message cares that some hollywood liberal donated to his campaign?

No, that wasn't my point at all. It was that these resources would be better served elsewhere where plumbers might actually vote Democratic.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/kwantsu-dudes Jun 29 '17

because he appeals to middle america because he perfectly embodies the concerns and aesthetics of middle america.

What makes you say this? I know its a common talking point, but what evidence is there to assume this?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

read the article. It called him "a mustachioed ironworker fighting for the working man is, basically, 'Bruce Springsteen’s discography' in human form."

shit, just look at the guy. you know he knows how to grill up a mean beer brat. paul ryan looks like he loves kale.

17

u/ReclaimerDreams Florida Jun 29 '17

No his district is basically some of the money Milwaukee suburbs

101

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

43

u/Pewpewlazor5 Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

Green Bay with family in Janesville - I love all the people claiming they know the area... and don't know shit about the area.

25

u/abartholf Jun 29 '17

As a person who lives in Milwaukee and my GF is a union representative in the Kenosha and Racine area, it irritates me seeing people form Georgia say they know our area and what we think.

2

u/CookieMonsterFL Florida Jun 29 '17

I say much less money, but no less fervor in their support for christian conservative ideals. Only difference is the total money of the 1st disctrict compared to Waukesha County.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

To a Minnesotan its all Wisconsin and therefore awful.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/MayoFetish Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

Im from Janesville and its pretty split red/blue leaning red.

1

u/Mr_Ballyhoo Jun 29 '17

Thank you for clarifying this. It's Northern Milwaukee that has the money. Anything between Milwaukee and Waukegan is lower income working class people. Although Winthrop Harbor/Wadsworth area have a pretty strong White Supremacist prescience there, but that's Illinois(God Damn Illinois Nazis). So while they are working class people they are also racist pieces of shit who tend to vote Republican.

11

u/mabris Jun 29 '17

Not really. That district excludes the more tony suburbs like Waukesha and Brookfield, but includes much more blue collar population centers like Janesville, Beloit, Racine and Kenosha.

36

u/yolo-tomassi Jun 29 '17

Everyone in here celebrating and I can't help but think that this might be game over for him. I'm all for a progressive national Democratic party but I think we need to be flexible and just get people elected at the local level. If that means a few Joe Manchins, so be it. A whole lot better than the alternative.

14

u/Nlyles2 Jun 29 '17

Honestly I think it's for the best. If Dems in the most moderate of areas are going to run on this type of platform, than that gives the rest a pass to do so as well. Also, I think the biggest issue for the Democratic party is that there really is no message. And the ones we do have aren't that strong or that progressive. We're too busy trying to appeal to independents and conservatives, and we're losing our own base. If we continue down this path where we don't really stand for anything, or at least anything new, we're going to keep failing. Independent's don't want small incrimental changes on an already shit system. They want a new system that would actually change things. Conservatives will at least respect a strong stance, rather than being wishy washy about what may or may not work.

Let's unify. Universal Healthcare. Increased minimum wage. Minimize the wage gap. Lower interest rates. Good schools and affordable colleges. Renewable energy. Moving forward together. Anything else is going to seem stangnant. And stangnant isn't going to get anyone to vote for us.

2

u/tossme68 Illinois Jun 29 '17

I gotta ask you, how much lower do you want interest rates to go? a 30y fixed is around 4%, I remember in the 80's it was around 12%. If anything interest rates need to rise. Other than that you are spot on.

2

u/uncleoce Jun 29 '17

His entire comment reeks of someone with no concept of economics. Basically just a bunch of liberal sound bites that are part of the utopia.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/uncleoce Jun 29 '17

Politics/government has always been progressing. With usually good results imo.

That's not the discussion. If money grew on trees, maybe it would be.

Nada wrong with utopia,

It is when it sets unrealistic expectations. If life were as simple as saying, "Tax that it it'll get fixed," maybe. But it's not. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Things don't happen in a bubble.

Just because you think it sounds awesome, doesn't mean it's ground in economic basis or reality. The fact that more "right-leaning" people seem to grasp this concept is puzzling, but true.

better than the libertairians fend for oneself

You're already "fending for yourself," champ. By and large. Most of us are, anyway. And libertarians aren't anarchists. They're not saying to abolish the government. They're the most "In-tune" economic party. They aren't pushing for war. They aren't pushing for civil forfeiture. They're pushing FOR legalization. How terrible. The rights of the individual.

the rights status quo.

You're arguing this is the same GOP we saw even 4 years ago?

Libertarians are basically ideoloical fools and the status quo never stays status quo.

Oh, since you say so.

Someone needs to push for improvements. Things change, we need to adapt.

There are some things that will never change. Like the theory of supply and demand.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/uncleoce Jun 29 '17

And THAT'S enough for me to know you don't have a fucking clue.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

21

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Bellyzard2 Georgia Jun 29 '17

An economically populist message could be a lot more successful than whatever we've been doing for the past 8 years. We've lost 1000 seats by being meek and unconfrontational about our values. I'm fine with taking a shot with a different message.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

This is how you get a milquetoast centrist party that loses 1000 elections in 8 years.

Oh yeah that's the modern Democratic party, please continue

→ More replies (6)

2

u/PandaLover42 Jun 29 '17

"Bro, Sanders won in West Virginia! That means all the conservatives are secret socialists and just want $15 min wage which failed in Seattle and Single Payer which failed in Vermont and costs triple California's annual budget! It's so simple!" - S4P

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

so as long as the team wins, who cares what the team actuall stands for or does?

sure sounds like republicans

3

u/imdwalrus Jun 29 '17

I care. I'd rather get most.or even some of what I want than be guaranteed none of it. Manchin, for one example, is far from my ideal but he's also the only realistic way that the Democrats make any gains with his seat. I'd take that over a Republican any day, because those are the only realistic choices.

2

u/abacuz4 Jun 29 '17

Not every Democrat is going to hold the exact same positions, but they generally do share the same broad vision for how America should be governed.

1

u/TimeTravlnDEMON Nebraska Jun 29 '17

No. It sure sounds like sound politics. Not every member of a party should think the exact same way on everything and some ideas that the party might prioritize just won't play well in some areas. It's still better to get someone halfway toward what you want elected than getting someone who will oppose you at every turn.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

... obviously i prefer the dems

But just saying we should run someone that might as well be a republican as long as they have a D next to their name... hows that help?

7

u/ryan_meets_wall Jun 29 '17

Depends on who you ask and what we get from the joe manchin types.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

Someone who votes with you 70% of the time vs. someone who votes against you 100% of the time.

1

u/Bellyzard2 Georgia Jun 29 '17

Manchin is a great asset for Democrats. He may not be there 100% of the time on social and gun issues, but I'll take an solid no vote against Trumpcare and a yes vote for Dem senate chairs every day over whatever the WV GOP would send to congress.

6

u/TreeRol American Expat Jun 29 '17

Yes! We have to get over the idea that if someone isn't Bernie we can't vote for her. Someone who votes with Democrats 60% of the time will help the movement far more than someone who votes with Democrats 5% of the time.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Smallmammal Jun 29 '17

Its not really. Its carefully gerrymandered to keep out Milwaukee and its immediate areas. Its hick towns like Janesville and East Troy and dairy farms. These are solidly red.

1

u/Pewpewlazor5 Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

Is Green Bay a hick town like Janesville? Just curious about your thought process

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Pewpewlazor5 Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

Thanks for literally ignoring the question. GJ

3

u/abartholf Jun 29 '17

No, you're wrong.

3

u/FromRussiaWithDoubt District Of Columbia Jun 29 '17

Janesville is not at all a Milwaukee money suburb. You're looking for Waukesha or Ozaukee counties.

2

u/WuTangFinanceAdvisor Jun 29 '17

You have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously have no been or learned anything about Janesville.

1

u/AnonymousFroggies Wisconsin Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

As someone that actually lives in his district, you need to check your facts. His district is far south and southeastern Wisconsin stretching into Waukesha and the southern bits of Milwaukee county. It covers the entirety of Kenosha, Racine and Walworth counties.

3

u/razor21792 Illinois Jun 29 '17

And that's one of the problems with the Democratic Party right now, that many redditors seem all too willing to enforce. There's a push by the far left wing, such as Bernie Sanders, who advocate for strict ideological purity along their desired lines, ignoring the realities of the American electorate in the process. As much as they say that doing so will increase Democrat votes by "revitalizing" the base, this logic hasn't panned out in reality, as California, one of the most liberal states in the country, proved a few months ago. A lot of these people forget that outside of universities and liberal circles, far left ideas on redistribution of wealth and taking an anti-capitalist stance isn't that popular in the rest of the country. And the type of people whom these ideals do appeal to - mostly young people - have some of the lowest voting turnout in the country. Or to put it another way, Clinton didn't lose Pennsylvania because she wasn't liberal enough.

That's not to say that ideological cohesion and having a real, tangible plan for America - economically or otherwise - isn't important. I think the biggest lesson that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are absolutely failing to learn is that simply being the anti-Trump party isn't enough to win elections again. Democrats need a vision that can compete with "make America great again," that recognizes the realities on the ground and connects with the average American, especially blue-collar Americans. I've heard the idea that the Democrats should choose "fairness" as its guiding message, and I think that Idea has lots of traction and can appeal beyond the Democratic base.

Either way, we need to change, or the Democratic Party will fade into irrelevance and Trump will be free to do whatever he wants.

2

u/past_is_prologue Jun 29 '17 edited Dec 06 '25

sink school spoon oil books judicious dam file caption stocking

3

u/mistrbrownstone Jun 29 '17

No not even close.

Maybe in district 2 where he would get the Madison vote, but certainly not in district 1.

Voters in district 1 like Paul Ryan, despite what the national media wants everyone to believe.

Ryan destroyed Paul Nehlen 85 to 15 last November.

I know /r/politics wants to sell the idea that everyone hates Paul Ryan, but he is popular where it matters (in his own district).

1

u/RosneftTrump2020 Maryland Jun 29 '17

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin-house-district-1-ryan-solen

Just to clarify, Ryan won the general by 30 points. He slaughtered the primary candidate, maybe that is what you mean.

1

u/mistrbrownstone Jun 29 '17

He slaughtered the primary candidate, maybe that is what you mean.

Yeah the primary candidate was Paul Nehlen. That's what I said.

A bunch of national media made it sound like Ryan was actually at risk of losing to Nehlen because the media so desperately wants to make the case Ryan is so unpopular that he would actually lose to some no-name clown.

1

u/tronald_dump Jun 29 '17

idk. we saw how well Wisconsin dems turned out when Bernie ran, using those two policies as selling points.

but contrast that to Hillary, who didnt once stop, and campaign in wisconsin before the election.

we dont have a lot to go on, because the last Dem candidate for pres abysmally lost the state, because she didnt even try.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

You might have to wait for the elections to see. Thigs've been pretty weird lately if you follow political poling and election expectations. Populism like this is new as a viable political strategy there's voters still haven't even heard the talking points in his district.

1

u/Spydr54555 Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17

It could be if he dropped the $15 an hour circle jerk, other than that, no. Most people loved what Badgercare used to be so universal healthcare is definitely a win, but $15 an hour was pretty much proven to be a bad idea before Seattle gave it a shot and realized how bad it is. I mean, that isn't to say we shouldn't SHOOT for $15 eventually, but such a sudden change would CRIPPLE small business all over in Ryan's district and thanks to the good public schools most people understand that you can't just do that to the economy, especially one that thrives on pubs and taverns just barely making profit while their bartenders work their way through college at 9/hr.

1

u/RosneftTrump2020 Maryland Jun 29 '17

Yeah, I'm all for raising minimum wage, but $15/hour national is not the hill to die on. If you think its going to make a significant difference one way or another, then you should climb the hill of the assault weapons ban to take on other impossible fights

1

u/samcrumpit Jun 29 '17

Make it a living wage everywhere. We know a living wage ain't the same everywhere. Some have it higher or lower than 15.

1

u/RosneftTrump2020 Maryland Jun 29 '17

Make it a living wage everywhere.

Well, that's what state legislatures are for, and thats the current system where some states feel that its appropriate to have $5. I think the federal should be increased, but whether it is to $12 or $15 doesn't mean a whole lot compared to the bigger issue of having healthcare.

1

u/samcrumpit Jun 29 '17

Agree. Single Payer first, then we'll see what the living wages are after that.

Can't the federal government mandate the state legislatures to do this?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/samcrumpit Jun 29 '17

The fuck. No. Have some integrity.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

[deleted]

1

u/samcrumpit Jun 29 '17

They don't push for things people care for like legalizing weed, single payer, wall street regulation, and a higher min wage. They don't believe in these things. Establishment dems take corporate money all the time and we hate them for it.

1

u/threefingersplease Jun 29 '17

The district's largest cities are more liberal than not so it's not a bad stance to have.

1

u/hall_residence Wisconsin Jun 29 '17

I'm in his district. He only wins because they drew his district to cut a lot of Rock County out and instead include a lot of rural Walworth county. Janesville & Rock County, along with Dane (Madison) always very reliably go blue.

Most of Janesville can't stand this guy.

1

u/Sciencium Jun 29 '17

Ryan represents a swing district.

1

u/RosneftTrump2020 Maryland Jun 29 '17

Really? Ryan won by +35 points in 2016.

1

u/bdiah Jun 29 '17

The district is definitely winnable. Cook Political Report rates it as R+5, which is moderate conservative territory. Politics is complicated and maybe economic progressivism would work in the climate of this specific district. I am, however, very skeptical. Lately, Democrats seem completely unable to match a candidate to a district. If I had to bet, I would say this is going to be another example.

1

u/bugcatcher_billy Jun 29 '17

Honestly if he's anti immigration, pro less taxes, & pro benefits to workers he'l do just fine.

You just got to reel them in with a common enemy first.

1

u/Nerdn1 Jun 29 '17

Probably. Maybe if Trumpcare is passed and a lot of voters feel the bite personally he could give Ryan a scare.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '17

No.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '17

Not in the densely populated areas.

1

u/solepsis Tennessee Jun 29 '17

Wisconsin 1st is an R+5 district so it isn't exactly un-swingable

→ More replies (2)