My guess this is a combination of the OP being more sheltered that he or she thinks and the phenomenon where people are in favor of abstract concept like “education” as long as there’s no discussion of what exactly that means, but actually disagree vehemently about the specifics.
I definitely don’t believe that they’ve personally spoken with tens of thousands of people about politics. Most politicians can’t even say that unless they count giving a speech in front of hundreds of people as talking to each one individually.
Sure, and that’s exactly the distinction I’m drawing. This person is presenting themselves as if they’ve conversed with that many people and there’s just no way that’s possible unless you use that term very loosely.
But that’s what I mean. Most people are in favor of the abstract concepts, but when it comes time to implement them there will be a Democrat plan and a Republican plan.
Who pays for the housing? Where is the housing built? Which groups are eligible for the housing? As soon as you have specific answers to questions like that, you’ll find whatever answers you have to be very divisive.
(I mean, look at San Francisco - it’s extremely hard to build housing for anyone there, even with a Democratic monopoly on local and state governments.)
But look what actually happened when Obama tried to implement a much more modest reform of the health insurance system - it would be an understatement to say many people were not happy.
It comes down to voters being against the policy, unlike what the OP claims. You think those voters were fooled, but they probably think you were fooled and they gave the Republicans 63 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate in 2010.
My guess this is a combination of the OP being more sheltered that he or she thinks and the phenomenon where people are in favor of abstract concept like “education” as long as there’s no discussion of what exactly that means, but actually disagree vehemently about the specifics.
I definitely don’t believe that they’ve personally spoken with tens of thousands of people about politics. Most politicians can’t even say that unless they count giving a speech in front of hundreds of people as talking to each one individually.
You can speak to tens of thousands easily enough if you have the platform for it.
But you can’t Iisten to tens of thousands. There is no real conversation going on there.
Sure, and that’s exactly the distinction I’m drawing. This person is presenting themselves as if they’ve conversed with that many people and there’s just no way that’s possible unless you use that term very loosely.
The polling backs up OP’s general idea. These are very popular opinions when disconnected from party talking points.
But that’s what I mean. Most people are in favor of the abstract concepts, but when it comes time to implement them there will be a Democrat plan and a Republican plan.
Well, which republican and/or democrat plan includes “give all people safe housing” or “make healthcare free at point of use”? Etc.
As far as I know, none of them.
Who pays for the housing? Where is the housing built? Which groups are eligible for the housing? As soon as you have specific answers to questions like that, you’ll find whatever answers you have to be very divisive.
(I mean, look at San Francisco - it’s extremely hard to build housing for anyone there, even with a Democratic monopoly on local and state governments.)
Still, “everybody should get Medicare” is a pretty straightforward concept, and that’s the level of specificity we’re talking.
But look what actually happened when Obama tried to implement a much more modest reform of the health insurance system - it would be an understatement to say many people were not happy.
That was the companies fighting back, firing up the propaganda machine, forming people’s beliefs on one side or the other. It wasn’t about the facts.
If it was, you would just build a public healthcare system.
It comes down to voters being against the policy, unlike what the OP claims. You think those voters were fooled, but they probably think you were fooled and they gave the Republicans 63 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate in 2010.