2020 Dems backing federal jobs guarantee megathread

[Mr. Morden]

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-democrats-should-embrace-a-federal-jobs-guarantee/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[here2view]

I wonder if there's any chance Gillibrand tries to come off as more progressive than Warren, assuming they both run in 2020 and Sanders doesn't. She's obviously trying to move more toward the left.

[YE]

This is the Gillibrand that I like - redeeming herself after IL-03.

[junior chįmp]

Gillibrand moves up to be my second choice in 2020

[Hammy]

Be wary of anyone who starts changing their positions in preparation for a presidential run--it's all a show.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder if there's any chance Gillibrand tries to come off as more progressive than Warren, assuming they both run in 2020 and Sanders doesn't. She's obviously trying to move more toward the left.

Gillibrand voted against the $80 billion military increase that Warren voted for. However, Gillibrand has certainly flip flopped on a number of issues since she was a Blue Dog in the House, so I wouldn't trust her too much.

[YE]

FWIW I got an email from the Sanders camp the other day that say they're working on a specific federal jobs guarantee that I assume will be introduced in Congress shortly so don't expect Gillibrand to out-left Sanders on this issue.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I wonder if there's any chance Gillibrand tries to come off as more progressive than Warren, assuming they both run in 2020 and Sanders doesn't. She's obviously trying to move more toward the left.

Gillibrand voted against the $80 billion military increase that Warren voted for. However, Gillibrand has certainly flip flopped on a number of issues since she was a Blue Dog in the House, so I wouldn't trust her too much.

She was also representing a conservative district in the House so obviously she was going to be more conservative when representing that district than representing the most democratic state in the country.

[Pericles]

She'd be fine as President but I doubt she's principled, she's too much of a flip-flopper to be the first choice. Though the flip-side is she'd feel less able to break progressive orthodoxy for fear of angering the base-that's why they say 'only Nixon can go to China' after all, and why Theresa May can't do a soft Brexit. But still I'd prefer someone with stronger and more trustworthy credentials for the primary.

[LabourJersey]

TBH I don't think flip flopping to the mainstream opinions of the national party is that meaningful.

Presidents are always going to do whatever is popular with their partisan base. Sure Romney was apparently a moderate in the 90s, but he would have governed as a very conservative president.

Gillibrand's past as a Blue Dog is electorally useful, but it's really not going to matter too much if she is elected, because the pressure will be to enact progressive policies, which she would.

[Beet]

TBH I don't think flip flopping to the mainstream opinions of the national party is that meaningful.

Presidents are always going to do whatever is popular with their partisan base. Sure Romney was apparently a moderate in the 90s, but he would have governed as a very conservative president.

Gillibrand's past as a Blue Dog is electorally useful, but it's really not going to matter too much if she is elected, because the pressure will be to enact progressive policies, which she would.

Sure but Romney never made it to the presidency because he was seen as insincere. The same curse that decked Al Gore and John Kerry. And they were men.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

TBH I don't think flip flopping to the mainstream opinions of the national party is that meaningful.

Presidents are always going to do whatever is popular with their partisan base. Sure Romney was apparently a moderate in the 90s, but he would have governed as a very conservative president.

Gillibrand's past as a Blue Dog is electorally useful, but it's really not going to matter too much if she is elected, because the pressure will be to enact progressive policies, which she would.

Sure but Romney never made it to the presidency because he was seen as insincere. The same curse that decked Al Gore and John Kerry. And they were men.

Romney being seen as a plutocrat that didn't give a damn about regular people was what sunk him, not flip flops.

Trump has flipped & flopped more than any other person in history and no one really cares. Why would that matter for Romney?

[Beet]

The point is to be consistent on certain core things. Trump was consistent on his America First attitude since the 90's at least. He flip flopped on policy that was never core to his appeal. He has flip flopped somewhat on core beliefs since ascending to the presidency, and it hurts him when he does. I'll agree that Romney being seen as a plutocrat probably hurt him more though.

[YE]

The point is to be consistent on certain core things. Trump was consistent on his America First attitude since the 90's at least. He flip flopped on policy that was never core to his appeal. He has flip flopped somewhat on core beliefs since ascending to the presidency, and it hurts him when he does. I'll agree that Romney being seen as a plutocrat probably hurt him more though.

And Gillibrand has always been consistent on women's and economic issues, which pending on who runs, is likely her appeal. Honestly Gillibrand's flip flopping is somewhat overstated. It's not like she opposed Obamacare or single payer in the House per say; she just called herself a Blue Dog.

[Joey1996]

Trying too hard tbh, like you just endorsed Cuomo.

[Blue3]

Trying too hard tbh, like you just endorsed Cuomo.

Cuomo may be corrupt, but he did pass gay marriage and tough gun-control laws and free college, and they might pass single-payer healthcare

[JA]

Gillibrand changes positions more than a chameleon changes its color.

[henster]

This policy seems hollow especially considering the economy is basically at full employment. Dems need to run on lifting wages and expanding health care in 2020.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Now Booker has proposed legislation that would do this on a smaller scale to see how it works:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/20/17260578/cory-booker-job-guarantee-bill-full-employment-darity-hamilton

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MechaBambi]

FWIW I got an email from the Sanders camp the other day that say they're working on a specific federal jobs guarantee that I assume will be introduced in Congress shortly so don't expect Gillibrand to out-left Sanders on this issue.

And here it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/23/bernie-sanders-to-unveil-plan-to-guarantee-every-american-a-job/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.da5d128dbc65

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's more far-reaching than Booker's proposal but seems to be along the lines of what Gillibrand says she favors. Will be interesting to see which one(s) she signs on to, as well as where Harris stands on this.

[Politician]

Good. I don't see why people think she can't be a progressive because of her past, I mean Drumpf was once a Democrat.

[henster]

Seems like something to push when in a recession and not when the economy is basically at full employment. Also I think it'd be better to just push a huge apprenticeship/vocation program than just 'well the Gov't will give you a job!'

[GoTfan]

A program like this is what's needed.

[King L3ar]

Too bad that smutty US politician is full of campaign contributions. I expect his 2020 campaign to collapse when Donald trump asks him where he got all the money.

[Mr. Morden]

Retitled the thread, since it looks like everyone is jumping on the bandwagon now...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-guaranteeing-jobs-became-the-hot-new-policy-priority-for-2020-dems

You must be logged in to read this quote.