Home | About | Donate

Embracing Medicare for All and Refusing Corporate Cash, Abdul El-Sayed Touted as 'True Progressive' in Michigan Governor's Race


#1

Embracing Medicare for All and Refusing Corporate Cash, Abdul El-Sayed Touted as 'True Progressive' in Michigan Governor's Race

Julia Conley, staff writer

After Thursday night's final gubernatorial debate in Michigan's Democratic primary race, voters and political commentators alike pronounced progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed the clear winner, praising his universal healthcare plan and refusal to take corporate donations.


#2

I don’t care what their platform is.

I’m only voting for candidates that don’t take political bribes.

Direct Democracy


#3

Maybe you don’t care about Sayed’s Platform, but here it is:

  • Fight inequality in all forms
  • Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour
  • Implement state-level single-payer healthcare
  • Protect a woman’s right to choose and eliminate the gender pay gap
  • Never accept a dime of corporate money and get the money out of politics
  • Rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges
  • Make college tuition free for families earning under $150K & Reinvest in public education
  • End the profit motive in public education
  • Reform auto insurance to reduce costs while protecting people
  • Fund and implement universal Pre-Kindergarten
  • Amend civil rights legislation to enumerate protections for LGBTQ+ Michiganders
  • Reform our criminal justice system & tackle mass incarceration and police violence
  • Aggressive action on climate, environmental justice, and no new fossil fuel infrastructure
  • Legalize marijuana
  • Fight for clean water for all and shut down Enbridge’s Line 5
  • Tackle the opioid epidemic through comprehensive mental health reform
  • Stand with labor to end Right to Work and protect Prevailing Wage
  • Provide high-speed broadband internet to every community in Michigan and protect net neutrality
  • Support child and elderly care for Michiganders
  • End gerrymandering and legislative term limits and reinstate FOIA for public officials

#4

A real working class program, the kind we want…and need!


#5

Countdown to paranoia regarding Sharia law on Faux News in 3, 2, 1…


#6

He’s the progressive choice here in MI. Too bad he’s tainting his good name by running as a Dem.


#7

“Never accept a dime of corporate money and get the money out of politics”

I would vote for that.


#8

From my point of view, I’d say that those of us who didn’t vote for either Hillary or Trump did a hell of a lot for this nation in causing an uprising of democratic protests and actions and organization – !!

And in causing at least a few in the DP to move a bit to the left.
Not near enough – but I’d say the lack of support for DP might begin to open their minds. Meanwhile, I think we need to get rid of all of them –

and Damn “Our Founders” who didn’t give us the tools to be able to dislodge the Elites/wealthy controlling the nation – they betrayed us.

“I’ll see you some next November means nothing” – we need “No Confidence” votes that bring immediate removal of the leadership of an offending administration.


#9

Who gives a shit what he runs as if it achieves the same ends? More to the point, if running as a major party candidate increases the odds a progressive is elected, why not do it? That’s how conservatives gained control of the Republican Party in the 60s and 70s.


#10

Because in lending credence to the notion that the D-Party is a home for liberals, he’s misleading his constituency. The D-Party exists to squelch progressive policy in the cradle–I talked to Abdul’s campaign several times about that, including this week, and each of his representatives agreed with me. But they also admitted to not having the guts to work outside the 2-party system, thinking, like fools, that they can reform it from within. So hopelessly pragmatic.

Abdul will lose to Whitmer, or, even worse, to the half wit, Shri Thanedar, who considered running as a Repub.

And then the corporate tool, Whitmer, will continue running in the general as a centrist and lose to Schuette.

The stupidity of the nationwide D-Party strategy is on full display in my state. But I guess your hero, Bill Clinton, was right : ‘the era of big government is over.’ Keep fighting the Reagan Revolution…and it’ll never end.


#11

One last thing: Are you blind to the irony of your touting the rightwing strategy of the 60s/70s that took the long view of running ideologically consistent candidates focused on a very tight message?

Especially when your party has no message and ranges ideologically from Bernie to Manchin?


#12

The platform is great. One glaring problem that he must address:

“Make college tuition free for families earning under $150K & Reinvest in public education”

There are two problems.

  1. This is a clear violation of the number one item on his platform: “Fight inequality in all forms.” If public education is equally available, it must be equally available.

  2. This divides us between those who have $150,000 income and those who have less. We don’t need infighting. We need a united voice on the issue. In order for this to succeed the platform must be unquivocally crystal clear: Free public education through college.


#13

Perhaps you are right. However, these are very different times than the 60s and 70s. This year, all across the country, progressive candidates have been running on the issues and regardless to the odds being stacked against them in both special and primary elections, they have been winning.


#14

He never had the faux news minority vote so he has nothing to lose. What he is doing is motivating the majority to get out and vote by giving them something to vote for.


#15

Sorry to burst your bubble, but, although a notable progressive has won a seat here and there, the Dems have largely been winning the high-profile seats with right-of-center establishment types like Connor Lamb, Ralph Northam, and Doug Jones.

Thus, the party continues to splinter its message and remind voters that it has no consistent core ideology.


#16

[quote=“Greenwich, post:8, topic:53596, full:true”]
“From my point of view, I’d say that those of us who didn’t vote for either Hillary or Trump did a hell of a lot for this nation in causing an uprising of democratic protests and actions and organization – !!”

I share your point of view. If Ms. Clinton had been elected it is a pretty sure bet that the extreme radical right would have circled the wagons while the “liberals” would have gone back to sleep so Ms. Clinton, with pretty much a free reign, could have taken us blissfully on down the path to public/private partnerships; implementation of the TTP; environmental destruction; continuous wars for profit; a band-aid on a failing, fractured, and corrupt heal care system; continue the policies of chip-away at social security, and support for pretty much anything that puts property over people and planet.

That is just my opinion based on her record not her emails, not Benghazie, and not her personality.

Her personality is her personality. We all have one. Though not as charismatic as her husband and not as personable as Obama she always came across to me as pragmatic, solid, and steady.

Though different in personality from the other two she shared the same practice of having a public platform and a very different privatization agenda - in other words they spoke with forked tongue.

Benghazi and the emails seemed like miss judgement and trivial in comparison to issues that matter to policy, practice, and legislation. As a result, I never paid much attention to them one way or the other.


#17

What are you talking about? When did I tought rightwing strategy?


#18

"That’s how conservatives gained control of the Republican Party in the 60s and 70s.’


#19

Just watch what the Roberts court does if Kavanaugh is appointed. It ain’t going to be progressive and is going to hang like a wrecking ball on our necks.


#20

Yep, they did not take their toys and go home but took over one of the two major parties. Am I wrong?