What is the worst idea being debated in the 2020 Democratic circles?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Good idea:
Abolishing the EC
Green New Deal (though it really depends on the specifics)

Bad idea:
Eliminating the legislative filibuster (write-in)
Eliminating private insurance

Terrible idea:
Reparations
Expanding the Supreme Court

This, but move eliminating the legislative filibuster into neutral (since I'm really torn) and reparations to the single worst idea.

[Galeel]

It doesn't matter, because most likely not a single piece of relevant policy will be passed for the entire duration of the next Democratic presidency, if they win in 2020.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Electorally, reparations is a huge turn off to poor white voters. I wouldn't be surprised if 80 % of whites making under 50 K vote R.
But I'd argue Abolishing ICE will turn off suburban voters AND poor whites, because suburban whites want to be "secure" and "safe" and poor whites get incensed by racial rhetoric. So I'd argue that is the most unappealing

[Lambsbread]

None of these are bad ideas. But reparations is the one that will be the most net bad because, you know, white folks.

[RINO Tom]

Electorally, reparations is a huge turn off to poor white voters. I wouldn't be surprised if 80 % of whites making under 50 K vote R.
But I'd argue Abolishing ICE will turn off suburban voters AND poor whites, because suburban whites want to be "secure" and "safe" and poor whites get incensed by racial rhetoric. So I'd argue that is the most unappealing

LMAO, as if opposition to a completely insane idea like reparations is limited to your caricature of a Republican.

[Senator Incitatus]

Becoming the anti-Catholic party.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Electorally, reparations is a huge turn off to poor white voters. I wouldn't be surprised if 80 % of whites making under 50 K vote R.
But I'd argue Abolishing ICE will turn off suburban voters AND poor whites, because suburban whites want to be "secure" and "safe" and poor whites get incensed by racial rhetoric. So I'd argue that is the most unappealing

LMAO, as if opposition to a completely insane idea like reparations is limited to your caricature of a Republican.

I'm just saying that a rich white person, if forced to choose between a candidate who supported reparations for slavery or someone who wanted to take the EXISTING walls down(Beto), I think they'd bite their teeth and vote the former. Not that reparations is an appealing policy to anybody, but it's less toxic then abolishing ICE.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I would put Reparations at the top but note the following:

1. Current legislation around "Reparations" isn't to institute reparations, it's about to create a congressional committee to investigate the worthiness of reparations. That is, it is to create a concerted government effort to research historic and systematic discrimination against black people in this country. In a political vaccuum that isn't a bad thing (although one does have to wonder, in addition to resentment from most white voters, at what findings that black community would be willing to accept).

2. Reparations in the form of a check to voters is obviously a kinda laughable idea but there are plenty of reforms that could be introduced to purposefully, precisely, and explicitly counteract historic inequities. These would likely be in the form of transfer payments that disproportionately help black people, e.g., housing assistance or school improvement for neighborhoods where victims of redlining got packed. These could plausibly fit under the umbrella of "reparations" and the impetus for enacting these would be the type of reparations commission that candidates are debating right now.

The fact that the issue takes this much nuance to explain and can't be condensed into a sound bite, combined with the fact that 40% of the country probably doesn't think that black people are still affected by historic inequality, means this issue is a political loser. But there are reasons why it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Any "reparations"-type policies that do get passed must be centered around helping "old-school African-American" black communities through infrastructure, rather than simply mailing checks to black individuals and families because they're black. Investing in education and housing for deprived black communities would solve many of the social ills that race-based affirmative action was originally meant to address, if it's treated as a long-term alternative to that.

[RINO Tom]

Electorally, reparations is a huge turn off to poor white voters. I wouldn't be surprised if 80 % of whites making under 50 K vote R.
But I'd argue Abolishing ICE will turn off suburban voters AND poor whites, because suburban whites want to be "secure" and "safe" and poor whites get incensed by racial rhetoric. So I'd argue that is the most unappealing

LMAO, as if opposition to a completely insane idea like reparations is limited to your caricature of a Republican.

I'm just saying that a rich white person, if forced to choose between a candidate who supported reparations for slavery or someone who wanted to take the EXISTING walls down(Beto), I think they'd bite their teeth and vote the former. Not that reparations is an appealing policy to anybody, but it's less toxic then abolishing ICE.

Completely disagree.  “Rich Whites” - a group that is a REPUBLICAN voting bloc, even in the 2018 midterms - is more socially ambivalent than they are socially liberal.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The first three.

[brucejoel99]

In order from my favorite to my least favorite of these:

1. Abolishing the Electoral College
2. Single-payer healthcare
3. The Green New Deal
4. Reparations
5. Court-packing

[Senator Incitatus]

Becoming the anti-Catholic party.

That's an interesting candidate, but I have to disagree. The Democratic Party could hardly choose a better enemy than a shadowy international syndicate that makes the news, in turns, on account of its members' nasty predilection for abusing children and the subsequent coverups orchestrated at its highest levels.

For most Americans, the figure of the ordained clergyman has only two faces: One with which to lecture you about your way of life, and the other to indulge in unspeakably wicked perversions.

Even better for Democrats, this is an issue that would divide the Republican coalition more than theirs. We shouldn't allow the recent salience of issues such as abortion and gay marriage to let us forget that Evangelicals and Mormons are hardly the natural political allies of Catholics.

Anti-Catholicism has a long history as a potent force in US politics, but it's been a while since anyone tapped into it effectively at the national level. On the other hand, few Democratic politicians are sufficiently well-versed in these religious distinctions to pull this off, and they have become irrelevant even to many religious voters.

The obvious counter to this is that Catholic social teaching has been the greatest anti-poverty force in the history of this country and that Democratic victories at the national level are highly dependent on the Hispanic vote, which is almost exclusively Catholic. Republicans can get away with anti-Catholicism, but Democrats can not reject both history and good sense.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Becoming the anti-Catholic party.

As if calling yourself a Hamiltonian Federalist wasn’t proof enough that you’re living in the 18th century.

[Higgins]

If the Democratic nominee supports reparations, I will vote for Trump without hesitation, after having voted for Obama in 2012 and Hillary in 2016.
I support the Green New Deal. I support urban renewal for both Black and White poor. I do not support the packing of the court, nor the ending of the Electoral College.

I do not support being taxed for sins that neither I, nor my ancestors, committed.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

Policy: Eliminating private insurance Employer insurance is one of the most important safety nets in this country. It deserves to be treated as carefully as Social Security or SNAP benefits. The only responsible way to phase it out is to let it wither over decades.

How, exactly? It's a source of instability for people trying to change jobs or working several part time jobs, and a drain on employers making it difficult to employ more workers as well. I doubt private insurance would simply cease to exist overnight, but I don't see why a very gradual phasing out is necessary either. If a single-payer system is in place, it would benefit almost everyone involved to immediately drop out of private insurance, whether through their employer or otherwise.

[Koharu]

Court packing, followed closely by abolishing the EC

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Becoming the anti-Catholic party.

Alas, only Kamala Harris is notably anti-Catholic.

Beto was pretty anti-Catholic on the El Paso City Council, but hasn't been of note since then.

[Senator Incitatus]

Becoming the anti-Catholic party.

As if calling yourself a Hamiltonian Federalist wasn’t proof enough that you’re living in the 18th century.

I think romanticist was probably the bigger tip-off, but okay.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Beto was pretty anti-Catholic on the El Paso City Council, but hasn't been of note since then.

Wikipedia says he’s a lifelong catholic?

[SN2903]

All of there ideas suck besides Gabbard's to get out of regime change wars.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Beto was pretty anti-Catholic on the El Paso City Council, but hasn't been of note since then.

Wikipedia says he’s a lifelong catholic?