The Threat of Socialism Is Dividing Miami Cubans Ahead of the Election

[Ferguson97]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

[Adam Griffin]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

Uh, given even the concept of a public option was shot down by Democrats when we had a filibuster-proof majority - along with the fact that it was Democrats who insisted (and seemingly still do!) on keeping the filibuster intact even when in the majority - and that even today it is the Democrats in positions of influence/power who maintain that Obamacare "needs to be improved" or "revised" rather than supporting universal coverage? Objectively, emphatically, unarguably yes.

There's this thing called majority government. No Republican is ever going to support universal coverage no matter what. Whether it is passed or not fundamentally comes down to what the Democratic Party is willing to do when it has control over the reins of power.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

Uh, given even the concept of a public option was shot down by Democrats when we had a filibuster-proof majority - along with the fact that it was Democrats who insisted (and seemingly still do!) on keeping the filibuster intact even when in the majority - and that even today it is the Democrats in positions of influence/power who maintain that Obamacare "needs to be improved" or "revised" rather than supporting universal coverage? Objectively, emphatically, unarguably yes.

There's this thing called majority government. No Republican is ever going to support universal coverage no matter what. Whether it is passed or not fundamentally comes down to what the Democratic Party is willing to do when it has control over the reins of power.

I agree with the rest of your post, but one might not actually actually need to dismantle the filibuster to get universal healthcare. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 could be done through budget reconciliation and should have been threatened as a response to filibustering a public option. Additionally, there are lots of executive actions a president could take to incentive lobbyists (and, by extension, their friends in Congress) to pass bills, if they were so inclined (but all too often, Congress is just an excuse for presidents to avoid taking such action anyway).

[Adam Griffin]

I agree with the rest of your post, but one might not actually actually need to dismantle the filibuster to get universal healthcare. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 could be done through budget reconciliation and should have been threatened as a response to filibustering a public option. Additionally, there are lots of executive actions a president could take to incentive lobbyists (and, by extension, their friends in Congress) to pass bills, if they were so inclined (but all too often, Congress is just an excuse for presidents to avoid taking such action anyway).

Tactically, perhaps - but you have to ask yourself why Democrats want to keep such a procedure (the filibuster) in the first place. Some might try to say that it's "to keep Republicans from doing whatever they want in the event they have unified control". Given the precedent of behavior from the GOP, that's an unreasonable assumption: if they decide they want to do such the next time they control government entirely, they'll get rid of it. Ultimately, keeping the filibuster intact is a plausible-deniability shield for those Senate Democrats who are either banking on comfy campaign contributions and post-office private sector/lobbying gigs, or don't believe in/don't have the political courage (as if anything other than national trends/midterm backlash to the in-party controls their fates now) to stand up for reforms that benefit most Americans.

Abolishing the filibuster and/or using reconciliation on such a matter would require a lot of "moderate" Senate Democrats to out themselves not as moderates, but as people who want literally nothing other than the status quo to be maintained in healthcare and insurance.

[Badger]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

Uh, given even the concept of a public option was shot down by Democrats when we had a filibuster-proof majority - along with the fact that it was Democrats who insisted (and seemingly still do!) on keeping the filibuster intact even when in the majority - and that even today it is the Democrats in positions of influence/power who maintain that Obamacare "needs to be improved" or "revised" rather than supporting universal coverage? Objectively, emphatically, unarguably yes.

There's this thing called majority government. No Republican is ever going to support universal coverage no matter what. Whether it is passed or not fundamentally comes down to what the Democratic Party is willing to do when it has control over the reins of power.

"Joe Lieberman" /=/ "Democrats"

[Alben Barkley]

The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

You may be wrong about this. It’s dumb, but it may have desensitized people somewhat to “socialism” as an effective attack. Looks especially dumb when applied to Joe Biden. The left railing against him just makes attacks branding him a socialist fall flat.

[Indy Texas]

I agree with the rest of your post, but one might not actually actually need to dismantle the filibuster to get universal healthcare. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 could be done through budget reconciliation and should have been threatened as a response to filibustering a public option. Additionally, there are lots of executive actions a president could take to incentive lobbyists (and, by extension, their friends in Congress) to pass bills, if they were so inclined (but all too often, Congress is just an excuse for presidents to avoid taking such action anyway).

Tactically, perhaps - but you have to ask yourself why Democrats want to keep such a procedure (the filibuster) in the first place. Some might try to say that it's "to keep Republicans from doing whatever they want in the event they have unified control". Given the precedent of behavior from the GOP, that's an unreasonable assumption: if they decide they want to do such the next time they control government entirely, they'll get rid of it. Ultimately, keeping the filibuster intact is a plausible-deniability shield for those Senate Democrats who are either banking on comfy campaign contributions and post-office private sector/lobbying gigs, or don't believe in/don't have the political courage (as if anything other than national trends/midterm backlash to the in-party controls their fates now) to stand up for reforms that benefit most Americans.

Abolishing the filibuster and/or using reconciliation on such a matter would require a lot of "moderate" Senate Democrats to out themselves not as moderates, but as people who want literally nothing other than the status quo to be maintained in healthcare and insurance.

The Democratic Party faces a lot of obstacles to being able to have a significant majority in the Senate for an extended period of time, particularly if present political realignment trends continue apace.

If you're going to be in a situation with a structural Republican majority, where the best you can hope for is that when a Democrat does get elected president, their coattails are long enough to end up with 51 or 52 Senate seats, you're not going to like what happens the rest of the time.

A Republican will get elected president, quite possibly without even winning the popular vote. And then a filibuster-less Senate will let them do all kinds of ghoulish stuff.

You seem to be going off the belief that if you axe the filibuster and pass a really generous healthcare plan, the public will be so grateful that they never elect another Republican again. And that's a very rosy view of how politics works. Universal healthcare and generous social safety nets haven't stopped conservative or right-wing governments from getting elected in Europe.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

I agree with the rest of your post, but one might not actually actually need to dismantle the filibuster to get universal healthcare. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 could be done through budget reconciliation and should have been threatened as a response to filibustering a public option. Additionally, there are lots of executive actions a president could take to incentive lobbyists (and, by extension, their friends in Congress) to pass bills, if they were so inclined (but all too often, Congress is just an excuse for presidents to avoid taking such action anyway).

Tactically, perhaps - but you have to ask yourself why Democrats want to keep such a procedure (the filibuster) in the first place. Some might try to say that it's "to keep Republicans from doing whatever they want in the event they have unified control". Given the precedent of behavior from the GOP, that's an unreasonable assumption: if they decide they want to do such the next time they control government entirely, they'll get rid of it. Ultimately, keeping the filibuster intact is a plausible-deniability shield for those Senate Democrats who are either banking on comfy campaign contributions and post-office private sector/lobbying gigs, or don't believe in/don't have the political courage (as if anything other than national trends/midterm backlash to the in-party controls their fates now) to stand up for reforms that benefit most Americans.

Abolishing the filibuster and/or using reconciliation on such a matter would require a lot of "moderate" Senate Democrats to out themselves not as moderates, but as people who want literally nothing other than the status quo to be maintained in healthcare and insurance.

The Democratic Party faces a lot of obstacles to being able to have a significant majority in the Senate for an extended period of time, particularly if present political realignment trends continue apace.

If you're going to be in a situation with a structural Republican majority, where the best you can hope for is that when a Democrat does get elected president, their coattails are long enough to end up with 51 or 52 Senate seats, you're not going to like what happens the rest of the time.

A Republican will get elected president, quite possibly without even winning the popular vote. And then a filibuster-less Senate will let them do all kinds of ghoulish stuff.

You seem to be going off the belief that if you axe the filibuster and pass a really generous healthcare plan, the public will be so grateful that they never elect another Republican again. And that's a very rosy view of how politics works. Universal healthcare and generous social safety nets haven't stopped conservative or right-wing governments from getting elected in Europe.

And how often are universal healthcare systems dismantled these days in Europe?

[Indy Texas]

I agree with the rest of your post, but one might not actually actually need to dismantle the filibuster to get universal healthcare. Lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 could be done through budget reconciliation and should have been threatened as a response to filibustering a public option. Additionally, there are lots of executive actions a president could take to incentive lobbyists (and, by extension, their friends in Congress) to pass bills, if they were so inclined (but all too often, Congress is just an excuse for presidents to avoid taking such action anyway).

Tactically, perhaps - but you have to ask yourself why Democrats want to keep such a procedure (the filibuster) in the first place. Some might try to say that it's "to keep Republicans from doing whatever they want in the event they have unified control". Given the precedent of behavior from the GOP, that's an unreasonable assumption: if they decide they want to do such the next time they control government entirely, they'll get rid of it. Ultimately, keeping the filibuster intact is a plausible-deniability shield for those Senate Democrats who are either banking on comfy campaign contributions and post-office private sector/lobbying gigs, or don't believe in/don't have the political courage (as if anything other than national trends/midterm backlash to the in-party controls their fates now) to stand up for reforms that benefit most Americans.

Abolishing the filibuster and/or using reconciliation on such a matter would require a lot of "moderate" Senate Democrats to out themselves not as moderates, but as people who want literally nothing other than the status quo to be maintained in healthcare and insurance.

The Democratic Party faces a lot of obstacles to being able to have a significant majority in the Senate for an extended period of time, particularly if present political realignment trends continue apace.

If you're going to be in a situation with a structural Republican majority, where the best you can hope for is that when a Democrat does get elected president, their coattails are long enough to end up with 51 or 52 Senate seats, you're not going to like what happens the rest of the time.

A Republican will get elected president, quite possibly without even winning the popular vote. And then a filibuster-less Senate will let them do all kinds of ghoulish stuff.

You seem to be going off the belief that if you axe the filibuster and pass a really generous healthcare plan, the public will be so grateful that they never elect another Republican again. And that's a very rosy view of how politics works. Universal healthcare and generous social safety nets haven't stopped conservative or right-wing governments from getting elected in Europe.

And how often are universal healthcare systems dismantled these days in Europe?

I'm not sure what your point is. There are other bad things a Republican POTUS and 51 Republican senators can do.

And let's be honest, would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump in charge of your health insurance and the hospitals and clinics you use? Do you not think some Louis DeJoy type would be coming in and screwing everything up? Or some nutjob saying from now on, hormone therapy for trans people won't be covered, or that all race-based health risk screenings are forbidden because that would be "affirmative action" or something?

The whole USPS situation is proof positive that even services literally everyone uses aren't exempt from their malignant neglect.

[BaldEagle1991]

Didn't the Cuban American community in Miami get hit hard by COVID-19?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, Biden does have socialist policies like single payer wars to help struggling military industrial complex CEOs out.

[pikachu]

Tbh ‘dividing Cubans in Miami’ is big progress from ‘alienating the vast majority’ of Cubans in Miami.

[Horus]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

Joe Lieberman.

[MARGINS6729]

This is basically the same story every time- Cuban voters are about 60% Republican-40% Democrat. Younger Cubans and those who came to Florida more recently are more Democratic/up for grabs while older Cubans who immigrated to Florida in the sixties, seventies, eighties, and their off spring who have the same political beliefs as they do are Republican. Cubans aren't monolithic and they are not the dominant Latino voting bloc in Miami-Dade and in Florida that they used to be because of an influx of other Latinos to the state and the younger generation/recent arrival Cubans that I mentioned above. Gillum and Nelson's underwhelming performance in the county in 2018 was not because of Cuban Republicans who voted for Hillary all coming home. It was because Cuban DEMs and non Cuban Hispanic DEMs didn't turn out enough at the polls thanks to lackluster outreach while the GOP's smear campaign against Gillum incited Cuban/Latino Republicans to come out in droves which resulted in close to presidential level turnout raw votes wise for the GOP in the county.

The rise of Bernie Sanders and  the "Democratic Socialist" label being used directly by people in or associated with the Democratic party has given Republicans more potency in their age old tactic and Trump's hardline Cuba policies have built up more enthusiasm and support with them than in 2016 where Obama's opening up of relations(and Hillary's support for them continuing) had already caused friction in the community even though enthusiasm was not that high for Trump. The problem for Florida Democrats isn't Cubans(they have been continuing to work on building inroads with them)- it's Venezuelans who have not been overwhelming in their support for either party. Trump and the GOP have gone after them hard by enacting sanctions and fervent opposition to Maduro which were and are popular amongst some of them. The new information regarding Trump's feelings about Juan Guaidó  and him saying he would be willing to sit down with Maduro as well as his opposition to TPS for Venezuelan refugees is enough to counter Trump's support with them if Biden keeps hammering away at it. FDP and Democrats have been doing this as well.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that

A) The Republicans desperately, desperately, desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders.

B) The left-wing folks who have taken standard Democratic Party policies and labeled them as "socialism" have done harm to the party.  The extent of that harm remains to be seen.

It's infuriating that after Biden spent the entire primary enduring withering attacks from Sanders/Warren over his refusal to adopt the policies they had labeled as "socialism", now many people believe that he's one of them and a socialist.  The entire point of the Biden candidacy was that he was a way for the party to reject the "socialism" of Bernie Sanders.

Stop calling universal health care "socialism."  You are playing right into Republicans' hands.

Here we go again, Democrats should let Republican behavior dictate what they say and do. This is why we have Trump and why this country is in the sh**tter because Republicans have been calling Dems communists and socialists for decades. And guess what the end result is? It's not driving people away from the Dems because MUH SOCIALISM (the perception of being too centrist, on the other hand) but increasing favorable views on socialism.

Stop the pearl clutching over this because this whining is exactly what's allowed the GOP to control the narrative.

Yeah, I mean...if he honestly thinks the reason we don't have UHC is because of Republicans...lol

You believe Democrats are the reason we don't have universal healthcare?

Joe Lieberman.

Who was not a Democrat, but party loyalty only matters when it's Bernie.

[PSOL]

Tbh ‘dividing Cubans in Miami’ is big progress from ‘alienating the vast majority’ of Cubans in Miami.

This observation is on point, improving at all with this demographic should be seen as a victory for the Democratic Party.

[ProudModerate2]

Imagine the stupidity of people who think that America could become anything remotely close to what Cuba used to be (politically or economically).
I'm certain that this "mentality" will slowly, but gradually, dissipate as the older generation(s) of Cubans die-off over time.

[ExSky]

Explains why Trump is ahead in Florida.

I did not know it was this wide. Polling Discourse seems to be around rust belt, AZ, GA, and even Texas more than Florida. This is a massive margin for Florida.