...or anyone the Dems have put in that position in decades.
Dems shouldn't be letting the GOP select their leaders. Particularly when the GOP's biggest problem with Pelosi is that she's damn good at advancing Dem priorities.
I'm pretty sure the GOP wants Pelosi as speaker; their slams against her aren't about making ground (already done), so much as pushing an advantage, and tying her terrible favourability to the party at large.
Unless you busted your tail to help flip GA-06 then you have absolutely no standing to make such a dismissive statement.
You seem to be a fan of facts so I cited some, and they are as follows: at the time of the midterms GA-06 was not a difficult race to win per the figures as they stood.
Then let me recopy the very words you wrote so that you may very clearly see them:
You. Said. That. Stop denying it.
I haven't denied a thing; what I've said is that those words in no way whatsoever establish that I don't look to winning as my main goal and objective, and they absolutely do not by any reading of any sane, rational person.
Stop layspaining. Heck, your entire barrage of emptiness has been nothing but laysplaining. Until you can show me a single progressive on the order of a Justice Democrat or a One Revolution candidate who actually flipped a seat, WHICH YOU CATEGORICALLY HAVE NOT DONE, then you have yet to establish any credibility in this discussion. You're holding nothing but a high ace in your trash poker hand, yet you have completely convinced yourself that you're holding a royal flush.
How is it at all 'layspaining' (sic) to ask for evidence that their gender was the primary factor or at the very least a more dominant one than their platform? You made the assertion, so let's see some evidence; after all, you're the facts guy right? Further, why does a JD or OR candidate specifically have to flip a seat for the progressive movement at large to have a victory? You are being absolutely and utterly ridiculous and disingenuous.
Here's a possible track to single-payer: First, let it get up and running in a couple of states. See what works and what doesn't...
Believe me, I would have loved to see it go up in California as a fore-running proof of concept; it's too bad Anthony Rendon, a notorious insurance shill of a Democrat on par with the likes of Joe Lieberman, had other ideas.
Further, we already have a wealth of existing experience the world over to draw from in drafting an SP/MFA system.
But going straight to a nationwide single-payer system is foolish...
Tackling campaign finance reform is probably the single most important element of all in terms of revivifying the democratic/representative nature of American governance, and dispelling the mounting, increasingly mundane corruption and pay to play that has this country on the cusp of plutocracy; if you convincingly deal with that, all else follows inevitably. The problem is it's a sort of catch 22, because you will undoubtedly need a constitutional amendment to deal with the asinine precedence of Buckley v Valeo 76 that prevents meaningful change, and thus you need to get a critical mass of the House representatives/state legislatures onside which are largely captured by money (and incidentally why small donations are so stringently emphasized in progressive circles). That is excruciating difficult stuff which is probably much further off than progress on any of these other issues unfortunately. There are groups such as WolfPAC that are working hard to broker a state convention approach, but they're still a ways off because, despite overwhelming public support for decoupling money for speech, it happens to speak much more loudly in just about every chamber of governance that matters.
That said, while we need absolutely need to make progress towards this issue, among others that you've mentioned, I do not feel that progress on SP/MFA is mutually exclusive with their own. Moreover, raising taxes in exchange for comprehensive healthcare may actually earn votes rather than cost them if the case is well presented and voters understand the value derived, particularly if translated into dollar terms of relative cost; for example if you can either pay an extra 6000 in taxes or 10000 out of pocket for roughly the same coverage, the choice becomes damned obvious, and that is essentially the decision the people residing in SP countries have made. Further, if Medicare for All were such a loser politically, it wouldn't have gathered nearly the popularity and momentum it obviously did, and continues to. In fact, SP/MFA may end up being one of the pillar approaches that gives us the electoral power we need to fulfill all other elements of our agenda.
