• throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sadly, even if Sanders were elected, it wouldn’t have made universal healthcare a reality.

    You need 218 progressives in the house and 50 progressives in the senate. So… not happening.

    • Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got.

    • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates.

      Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

        Of course not!

        They’re doing something far more critical and effective!

        They’re withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60.

      You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I’m pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has.

      • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        You can’t filibuster a rule change.

        Its literally been done before.

        First, filibuster was removed for normal court appointments during Obama Admin

        Then filibuster was removed for supreme court appointments during the first trump admin.

        Neither could be filibustered (otherwise the rules wouldn’t been changed, and we don’t have 3 trump appointees in SCOTUS)

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda?

      /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it’s apparently a real option)

    • That Weird Vegan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      The funny thing is, americans already kinda have universal healthcare… just with a middleman. Where do they think those insurance premiums are going?