On the eve of this election, there's something I need your help to understand

[Hippo_Tron]

135. I agree with some of what you said, but here's the problem

We're not going to achieve permanent majority status. The country generally elects one party for 8 years then they elect the other party. There's not much we can actually do about that no matter how we govern. It's the nature of the two party system. If we take baby steps while we're in power and they take giant steps while they're in power, we're losing the game.

Here's my counter point to your analogy. As someone who grew up in Louisiana, I'm a huge fan of Mary Landrieu. She's done an outstanding job as U.S. Senator and I think she gets way too much flack from people who don't know jack shit about Louisiana politics.

Now, here's the deal. Mary Landrieu is probably going to lose her re-election in December and she's probably going to lose it because she voted for Obamacare. This was a risk she knew she was taking when she voted for Obamacare, but commendably decided that it was a risk worth taking. The same goes for Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and all of the other red state Democrats who voted for Obamacare and lost (or likely will lose) their seats because of it.

So, here's what I don't get. If we have to face a huge public backlash at the polls to get a health care law passed, then why not pass a BETTER health care law? Wouldn't it be better if Mary Landrieu loses because she was the deciding vote for Single Payer (or at least a plan with a public option) rather than her losing because she was the deciding vote for the ACA?

After the honeymoon period, we're going to lose at the polls whether we implement change slowly or we implement it quickly. That's the nature of the beast. So I think we might as well implement it quickly.