|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||General Discussion|
|Topic subject||The OFFICIAL one year out Dem primary poll and election post|
13354635, The OFFICIAL one year out Dem primary poll and election post|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Wed Dec-31-69 07:00 PM
That other post is too damn long.
Have things changed?
Poll question: The OFFICIAL one year out Dem primary poll and election post
|Poll result (57 votes)|
|Joe Biden|| (1 votes)||Vote|
|Bernie Sanders|| (21 votes)||Vote|
|Elizabeth Warren|| (25 votes)||Vote|
|Kamala Harris|| (5 votes)||Vote|
|Pete Buttigieg|| (4 votes)||Vote|
|Other|| (1 votes)||Vote|
13354636, Battleground poll numbers: Trump pretty strong in states that matter|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Mon Nov-04-19 08:16 AM
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, NC.
Biden holding his own. Warren getting crushed.
13354637, this should be pretty sobering for democrats.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-04-19 08:33 AM
that 'progressive' agenda isnt winning the states that will most likely decide the election. its great for areas that are already bright blue.
2018 showed us the agenda that won dems much of the sun belt *and* the rust belt (and almost tx, ga, fl). its political malpractice for dems to ignore the will of those voters.
13354782, even if you accept this? Mayo Pete and Weekend at Bidens|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 01:07 PM
are just not good options in the general.
It is odd that these two are the best moderates the Dems can deliver.
Even when I get nervous and entertain the idea that a more moderate candidate would be a safer bet, I remember the candidates. No thank you.
I wonder if someone like Booker regrets not going more moderate, cuz no one is going to overtake Warren AND Bernie on the left. Biden being the Biden a lot of us knew he would be has left the door open...see: Pete being a thing.
13354833, This is why it will be Biden|
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Nov-06-19 03:21 PM
Y’all want it to be one way but I’m telling y’all.. the coast don’t pick the president.. the middle does.
Don’t get upset, get smart
13354667, Warren is looking weaker and weaker in a general v. Trump|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-04-19 02:53 PM
and I think her consultants/team are partially to blame. She has clearly tried to pivot more towards the Establishment than embracing her progressive, bold identity. I think that's a mistake in this political climate.
13354780, RE: Warren is looking weaker and weaker in a general v. Trump|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 12:58 PM
>and I think her consultants/team are partially to blame. She
>has clearly tried to pivot more towards the Establishment than
>embracing her progressive, bold identity. I think that's a
>mistake in this political climate.
What are you referring to?
As far as polls, as you yourself have pointed out a lot of this shit still varies.
13354642, im still warren but would definitely vote for bernie too|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-04-19 10:22 AM
everyone else im meh on but would obviously vote for over trump.
if i just voted with my heart it would be bernie 100% i think warren is the best shot to actually get everything that bernie is pushing for.
petes actual intentions are starting to show for me. i used to think he was 100% pro bernies policies but just wanted to frame the conversation differently so people would go for it. it definitely seems like he isnt really for it though.
i was considering making a poll of who your second choice would be but wasnt sure if theres a point to that.
i sure hope we get another 8 or so candidates to drop out this month.
last poll results
who would you vote for?:
Poll result (92 votes)
Joe Biden (6 votes) Vote
Bernie Sanders (19 votes) Vote
Elizabeth Warren (53 votes) Vote
Kamala Harris (4 votes) Vote
Pete Buttigieg (4 votes) Vote
Other (6 votes) Vote
first poll results
Who do you want to win the Dem nomination?:
Poll result (87 votes)
Kamala Harris (16 votes) Vote
Joe Biden (4 votes) Vote
Bernie Sanders (35 votes) Vote
Beto O'Rourke (11 votes) Vote
Elizabeth Warren (13 votes) Vote
Other (post below) (8 votes) Vote
Posted by Hitokiri, Mon Nov-04-19 11:52 AM
I had been leaning Warren earlier this year, but I'm back on team Bernie. Liz as the second choice.
I still like Warren/Castro as a ticket.
For Bernie it's a more difficult ticket for me to come up with. Ideally, I'd like Bernie and Stacey Abrams or maybe Nina Turner, but that may be a harder ticket to sell because... well you know... American hates Black women
13354656, Bernie or Kloubochar (even though they're not alike)|
Posted by Mynoriti, Mon Nov-04-19 12:46 PM
if i was choosing a president from the bunch it would still Warren, but I only care about who can win, and I think Bernie/Amy are the reps from their respective wings of the party that could pull enough of the "both sides suck" vote to win.
13354663, lol Guess we're just being nice by including Kamala on this?|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-04-19 02:47 PM
13354665, Pretend it's Tulsi and toss her a vote.|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-04-19 02:50 PM
13354666, Being that Tulsi has outperformed "top-tier" Kamala - why not.|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-04-19 02:52 PM
13354668, According to who ?|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-04-19 02:55 PM
And even if their positions were switched I wouldn't exactly be bragging about a 3-4% to 1-2% advantage on either side lol.
13354670, There have been recent polls (like the Suffolk poll)|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-04-19 03:01 PM
that show Tulsi outpacing Kamala. She's certainly outperforming her in NH - where Kamala has shut down her offices and laid off staff (never a good sign this far out).
But the reason I said Tulsi has outperformed Kamala is because where they started, respectively. Kamala was touted as a "top-tier" candidate - but she's essentially fighting with Yang, Klobuchar, Castro, Tulsi for 5th place - and her numbers get worse as time goes on, whereas Tulsi numbers have gotten better as time goes on.
13354671, Word fair enough - that makes sense.|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-04-19 03:17 PM
And just to be clear I am a fan of neither, so I wasn't caping for Kamala by any means.
>But the reason I said Tulsi has outperformed Kamala is because
>where they started, respectively. Kamala was touted as a
>"top-tier" candidate - but she's essentially fighting with
>Yang, Klobuchar, Castro, Tulsi for 5th place - and her numbers
>get worse as time goes on, whereas Tulsi numbers have gotten
>better as time goes on.
13354673, vex be on some trump white house lawn shit lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-04-19 03:20 PM
if the truth doesnt fit his narrative...he just abandons the truth. he doesnt abandon the narrative lol.
lol @ tulsi polling at 0% in some polls.
tulsi is outperforming kamala like bernie has a more diverse coalition than biden.
13354674, Hahah yea this was hilarious:|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-04-19 03:26 PM
>lol @ tulsi polling at 0% in some polls.
13354675, she got some pop in literally *1* poll after the clinton beef|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-04-19 03:35 PM
and her supporters sprinted with it.
now shes putting up donuts on a regular basis.
13354677, According to you Tulsi would've been ousted like a dozen others|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-04-19 04:02 PM
by now - including your golden boy Beto who you posited as the next big thing. He ain't even running anymore lol.
Let's also not forget the whole Biden/Kamala dream-team that you were pumping not so long ago.
Your predictions haven't aged well fam. Might want to sit this one out.
13354681, beto dropped out and is still polling higher than tulsi lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-04-19 04:18 PM
tulsi putting up john delaney numbers lmaooo.
good luck with that.
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-04-19 04:24 PM
>RE: beto dropped out and is still polling higher than tulsi lol.
>tulsi putting up john delaney numbers lmaooo.
>good luck with that.
13354692, I wont even type her name, non-factor|
Posted by isaaaa, Mon Nov-04-19 06:48 PM
Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
13354669, Just copied the last poll. But it real should just be 4 plus the others|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Mon Nov-04-19 02:59 PM
But Harris is the best of the rest according to most polls
13354676, might be the best bernie endorsement so far:|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-04-19 04:00 PM
13354781, Pressley endorses Warren|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 12:59 PM
That was expected - not just because they are both MA politicians - but because Pressley endorsed Clinton in the '16 primary.
Good endorsement for Warren, who really needs to rally more diverse support in the primary.
13354835, the most impressive member of the squad |
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 03:22 PM
in terms of retail politics.
she had to beat a popular incumbent who was just as progressive as her (if not more) and actually ran a real campaign to save his seat.
13354785, Warren will get the nod but lose the general. |
Posted by lightworks, Wed Nov-06-19 01:18 PM
I hope I’m wrong though and that we get that asshole out of the White House.
13354829, Listened to this yesterday and it made my wife change on Warren|
Posted by walihorse, Wed Nov-06-19 03:18 PM
Basically, uneducated whites are not going to vote for a woman. According to the polling they did, Biden would barely win and Sander is be in a very close race.
I'm still for Warren. That is not changing any time soon.
13354841, this poll from a while ago says it all:|
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 03:30 PM
Head-to-head @CNN 2020 poll among whites without a college degree:
Trump +13% over Biden
Trump +15% over Buttigieg
Trump +16% over O'Rourke
Trump +17% over Sanders
Trump +28% over Harris
Trump +34% over Warren
Trump +37% over Clinton '16
the media still wont acknowledge the blatant sexism tho.
13354844, Scary times. Like I been saying.. |
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Nov-06-19 03:34 PM
I don’t trust white America.
These people out here saying he is the best president ever just because he cusses and talks shit.
Lives are shit but they still see him and think it’s a win.
13354846, Damn 34 perecent|
Posted by Lurkmode, Wed Nov-06-19 03:38 PM
13354857, thats better than hrc. and she won the popular vote by 3 mil.|
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:04 PM
there prolly wouldnt be another mcgovern just because of how polarized/partisan many states are now.
13354847, Democrats used to be the party of working class/poor whites|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 03:40 PM
including whites with a h.s. diploma. That has obviously changed and Hillary was probably the most unpalatable candidate the Dems have ever run to that demographic. Part of it was because she was a woman - but part of it was also because of how she talked down to that group and was a Wall Street Limousine Liberal.
With Warren - it's definitely a lot about misogyny as she's a candidate who has advocated her whole life for working-class/poor people. I would expect her to do better than Clinton but we've still got a long way to go in this country.
13354853, youre leaving out a ton of historical context |
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:02 PM
that has nothing to do with hrc.
republicans specifically targeted this group for re-alignment with the southern strategy, contract with america, etc. thats what the racist dogwhistling and white identity politics is for. reagan democrats and trump rust belt converts are the same thing. this is not a new playbook (they even used the same exact maga slogan).
if it was just about 'limousine liberals' talking down to them...then why do dems draw expanding majorities with the working class of every other demo but whites without a college degree? exactly. theres something specific to this one particular group.
the biggest exoduses of non-college degree whites from the dem party happened after the signing of the civil rights act of 1964 (the majority of whites have never voted for a dem prez since then) and the election of the 1st black president. coincidence?
other than that...liberal activist stances on abortion, fossil fuels, and marriage equality have polarized many of ncd whites against the dem party as well. which is why repubs center entire campaigns around these issues to this day (liberals going 'too left').
13354862, rare instance of where we agree:|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 04:15 PM
>republicans specifically targeted this group for re-alignment
>with the southern strategy, contract with america, etc. thats
>what the racist dogwhistling and white identity politics is
>for. reagan democrats and trump rust belt converts are the
>same thing. this is not a new playbook (they even used the
>same exact maga slogan).
Absolutely - Republicans pivoted post civil rights to appeal to the "silent majority" with Nixon which set off this NeoCon movement that has its footing into the white nationalist segment of the electorate (which is larger than most thought it was).
>if it was just about 'limousine liberals' talking down to
>them...then why do dems draw expanding majorities with the
>working class of every other demo but whites without a college
>degree? exactly. theres something specific to this one
Well - it's definitely because the Republicans have dog whistled and played to the fears/racism of that electorate as you noted, but it's also because of a lack of competition: The Dems have been able to summon the POC vote simply because Republicans have committed political (and moral) malpractice by abandoning that demographic - which will put the nail in their coffin soon enough (already seeing signs of it with last night's wins in VA and KY).
>the biggest exoduses of non-college degree whites from the dem
>party happened after the signing of the civil rights act of
>1964 (the majority of whites have never voted for a dem prez
>since then) and the election of the 1st black president.
Yes - but also important to note that it was the Democratic party that was the epitome of racism, Jim Crow, and pro-slavery for over a century before the parties flipped identity during the Civil Rights movement. Why do I bring this up? Because the parties have proven to be malleable - such that we can't just oversimplify things and say the Democratic Party has always been the party of justice -- it most certainly hasn't -- but is our best bet right today in 2019.
13354872, i dont think anyone here is under this impression lol|
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:37 PM
>such that we can't just oversimplify things and say the
>Democratic Party has always been the party of justice
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:29 PM
Its kind of crazy to think that 'Murikkka is more scared of a woman academic than a socialist.
13354871, i never even thought about it in this way.|
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:34 PM
when you put it like that...it really says a lot.
13354873, well, this segment of the electorate considers Warren a socialist too|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 04:37 PM
let's not kid ourselves - they aren't looking at Warren as some capitalist.
13354878, Right, which further makes the point|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 05:03 PM
Why is Warren less liked than Bernie to these people?
only one real big difference between the two.
Oh, and Bernie actually calls himself a socialist.
If nothing else, take this and run with it. Maybe Bernie really is more electable- though I hate the idea of catering to this group.
13354891, RE: Right, which further makes the point|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 05:32 PM
>Why is Warren less liked than Bernie to these people?
>only one real big difference between the two.
You can look to my response above that calls out the misogyny associated with that.
>Oh, and Bernie actually calls himself a socialist.
Democratic Socialist - let's be accurate.
>If nothing else, take this and run with it. Maybe Bernie
>really is more electable- though I hate the idea of catering
>to this group.
I also don't think it's true to the point where we should just pick the guy to cater to these prejudiced segments of the electorate. If Warren is the candidate you believe in - you should run with that, period. She's qualified and the fact that she's a woman should be something celebrated, not something she's penalized for.
13354902, RE: Right, which further makes the point|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 06:56 PM
>>Why is Warren less liked than Bernie to these people?
>>only one real big difference between the two.
>You can look to my response above that calls out the misogyny
>associated with that.
I didn't say that you didn't.
>>Oh, and Bernie actually calls himself a socialist.
>Democratic Socialist - let's be accurate.
I'm talking in context of how this specific group of voters would view him.
To your point, they will both be labeled socialists. Only difference is that Bernie actually wears the label proudly. This group isn't going to care about the 'democratic' part of his label. He's a socialist to them.
You would think *that* would hurt him more than Warren's gender, but he is actually quite a bit more popular with this group.
It is...disappointing and a little surprising.
There is no reason to dislike Warren that much more than Bernie, other than the obvious.
>>If nothing else, take this and run with it. Maybe Bernie
>>really is more electable- though I hate the idea of catering
>>to this group.
>I also don't think it's true to the point where we should just
>pick the guy to cater to these prejudiced segments of the
>electorate. If Warren is the candidate you believe in - you
>should run with that, period. She's qualified and the fact
>that she's a woman should be something celebrated, not
>something she's penalized for.
Well, yeah. Okay. Not everything needs to be a big debate. Warren is still my preferred candidate, and we all obviously hate the sexism at play.
And I think there is still time to win some of those folks over, but that gap is a little disappointing to see in the context of winning the election. And Bernie's # might be inflated by comparison due to name recognition I suppose.
Just pointing out that, if anything, you should just take this poll as a plus for your guy.
Do you ever not argue? lol I didn't say anything bad about Tulsi, Lebron, and I even complimented Bernie's chances. lol nothing to debate man
13354870, who was it on here that said mayor pete might pull that upset in iowa?|
Posted by Reeq, Wed Nov-06-19 04:31 PM
New Quinnipiac poll among Iowa likely Democratic caucus-goers
MOE +/- 4.5
his recent surge in the state has been impressive. its pretty clear who those biden ship jumpers are mostly going to.
13354884, RE: who was it on here that said mayor pete might pull that upset in iowa?|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-06-19 05:08 PM
I think a few did, but I was one. I started getting the feeling he would win Iowa a few weeks ago. When Warren stumbled on M4A and Pete was in attack mode.
Still a long ways to go until what, Feb?
But...I think he probably pulls it out.
>New Quinnipiac poll among Iowa likely Democratic caucus-goers
>MOE +/- 4.5
>his recent surge in the state has been impressive. its pretty
>clear who those biden ship jumpers are mostly going to.
Yeah and I would guess he is chipping at Warren too. I think Warren probably lost some folks on the M4A if I had to bet.
I wish I didn't dislike/distrust him, and I wish I felt better about his chances in the general.
Kind of crazy how far Harris has fallen. She is an afterthought at this point.
13354890, Meh SC will take care of him|
Posted by Lurkmode, Wed Nov-06-19 05:22 PM
13354888, Gabbard & Klobuchar meet thresholds for November debates|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 05:14 PM
Posted by Lurkmode, Wed Nov-06-19 05:21 PM
Hopefully she will not make Dec
13354910, LOL right. Just saw a headline in my iPhone news aggregate ...|
Posted by Brew, Wed Nov-06-19 08:31 PM
>Hopefully she will not make Dec
... from Faux "News" praising Tulsi, again. Don't even remember what it said and can't find it but ... it shouldn't need to be said over and over but if they love her we shouldn't.
13354911, Jennifer Rubin loves Kamala - praised her again recently.|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 08:36 PM
and therefore we shouldn't praise Kamala!
13354974, I generally don't.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:48 AM
>and therefore we shouldn't praise Kamala!
Posted by Lurkmode, Wed Nov-06-19 08:51 PM
>... from Faux "News" praising Tulsi, again. Don't even
>remember what it said and can't find it but ... it shouldn't
>need to be said over and over but if they love her we
Just watched some of her Tucker Carlson interview. He was pushing the usual Faux talking points about the impeachment with no counter from her. She didn't challenge anything.
13354976, Yes it's bad.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:52 AM
>Just watched some of her Tucker Carlson interview. He was
>pushing the usual Faux talking points about the impeachment
>with no counter from her. She didn't challenge anything.
But ask Vex and she's not giving credence to bogus fascist party conspiracy theories and helping to spread lies to the benefit of our fascist, criminal president, no no no ! She's just making herself more accessible to a wider range of voters ! What's so wrong with that ?!
13355116, RE: Yes it's bad.|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-07-19 06:47 PM
>>Just watched some of her Tucker Carlson interview. He was
>>pushing the usual Faux talking points about the impeachment
>>with no counter from her. She didn't challenge anything.
>But ask Vex and she's not giving credence to bogus fascist
>party conspiracy theories and helping to spread lies to the
>benefit of our fascist, criminal president, no no no ! She's
>just making herself more accessible to a wider range of voters
>! What's so wrong with that ?!
LOL right. These complete strangers (Tulsi, Bernie, Bron)become like family to him. Unconditional love.
Find someone who looks at you like Vex looks at his famous idols.
13354892, klobuchar had already qualified for nov, she now qualified for dec|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Nov-06-19 05:46 PM
just to clarify.
13354899, Why is there a monthly debate?|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Wed Nov-06-19 06:27 PM
13355086, smh people will complain about anything.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 04:33 PM
in 2016 people said there were too few debates.
now theres too many.
we done had like a 12 hour climate town hall marathon for multiple candidates. something completely unprecedented where everybody got to address their climate position uninterrupted for like an hour.
and people are still bitching about not having some climate debate with 10 candidates squeezing in 1 minute answers to chuck todd questions about greta thunbergs twitter profile.
13355153, That was me, and kfine set me straight lol.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:05 PM
>and people are still bitching about not having some climate
>debate with 10 candidates squeezing in 1 minute answers to
>chuck todd questions about greta thunbergs twitter profile.
13355188, lol i aint even see that.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 09:16 AM
but its a common theme on 'progressive' social media.
13355201, Yea it was. And I fell into the trap.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 09:44 AM
I had actually totally forgotten about the climate town halls so that was 100% on me. I deleted all my retweets hahah.
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:20 AM
13355210, You ain’t gotta lie (c)|
Posted by bentagain, Fri Nov-08-19 10:01 AM
The complaint IRT climate change and the subsequent debates is it’s omission as a topic
i.e. it’s not being brought up or discussed
Compared to health care, which is equally as important
I think you can see the disparity in how the issues are being debated.
13354896, 29 votes and ain't nann votes for Biden? Who are these pollsters calling?|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Wed Nov-06-19 06:11 PM
I know Okp are a bunch of extremists, but Biden can't get 3% in the okp poll?
13354900, based on previous results he will get 2 votes in this poll|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Nov-06-19 06:28 PM
only 29 people have voted, previous ones had around 90. give it time.
i am surprised how much is bernie/warren at this point. so far it looks like bernie might gain compared to the last poll.
13354913, Haha.. I will vote for Warren or Bernie in the primary |
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Nov-06-19 08:57 PM
but I’m voting for Biden in the general because he is going to win the nomination
13354914, Interesting that Bernie is doing a lot better in this poll than the first one|
Posted by Vex_id, Wed Nov-06-19 09:03 PM
Also runs parallel with BErnie's actual poll numbers which are on the rise. His campaign is aging well.
13355070, i think Warren would be a more effective president than Bernie|
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu Nov-07-19 03:55 PM
but I think Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump
i'd also love for him to prove me wrong. but i imagine a Bernie presidency as pure resistance across the board, and not much actually getting done.
13355085, bernie is running on stuff a lot of dems would lose their seat over.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 04:26 PM
dems lost 60+ seats in the midterms following the passage of obamacare. obama knew that was a possibility and convinced many dems to support it because it was the right thing to do. but 2010 was an absolute disaster for dems (and america) and the consequences are still being felt today with gerrymandered districts, voter suppression via repub legislatures/govs/sos that won in those midterms, etc.
dont expect dems to stick their necks out like that again any time soon.
not to mention...dems needed a virtual supermajority in the senate to get that past the finish line. theyd be fortunate to get a simple majority this time around. especially when you consider the fact that bernie winning would leave a senate seat open for the republican vt gov to appoint a replacement to for about a year (and a repub might win that seat later).
plus...in 30 years of work in congress...bernie hasnt really built a coalition/network among the majority of democrats. he hadnt really been a big campaigner/fundraiser for dem allies like biden/warren/harris. he has no real ties to the congressional black/hispanic caucus. and he has a pretty bad record on primary endorsements (no coattails).
13355092, medicare4all has been taking a beating now that its getting scrutinized.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 04:47 PM
Among MI, WI, MN, PA swing voters:
support for Green New Deal: 67/31;
ban on assault weapons 54/45.
Med. For All 36/62.
Ban on fracking 40/54
border crossing not illegal: 27/71
m4a underwater with rust belt swing voters by almost -30 points. its the 2nd worst position only to decriminalizing border crossings. that should tell you a lot.
the poll also highlights the tricky dichotomy that has lost support for dems in the rust belt. green new deal and environmental issues are popular. but when it comes to affecting local jobs like the gas/fracking industry...its a no go for most people.
13355094, so they support infrastructure investment?|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-07-19 04:58 PM
13355100, everybody supports infrastructure investment.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 05:10 PM
unspecific to the green new deal.
its one of the most popular proposals at all levels of government on a bipartisan basis (but repub politicians hate it).
honestly trump could have cruised to a second term if he did it (and every dem would have gone along cuz they dont play cutthroat politics like repubs).
renewable energy is also very popular. so people love that part too.
but when you start talking about phasing out gas/oil/coal...then things can go south quick depending on region and local economy.
13355097, btw i think warren releasing her plan for m4a might have been|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 05:04 PM
one of the worst things that happened to it.
bernie is just like fuck it we are gonna raise your taxes but hypothetically decrease out of pocket medical expenses.
warren...who usually has clear concise sensible plans for everything...put out a convoluted mess just to stick to the 'no tax raises for the middle class' script. it relies on stuff like immigration reform passing...which we know wont happen.
it makes some smooth palatable form of medicare for all seem like a pipe dream to many people now.
earlier in the campaign...it felt like she was doing the right thing imo...and leaving room to pivot to something transitional like a public option (she stated medicare for all was simply a 'framework'). but then she doubled down after she was put under pressure during/following the last debate.
i think her doubling down on m4a as it falls in popularity is the main reason for her leveling off or falling in polls. bernie already has m4a baked into his cake. no matter how (un)favorable the general public views it...those who support him are riding with him on everything regardless. but liz is kinda live with the plan/policy die by the plan/policy.
13355120, she must really believe strongly in M4A|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-07-19 06:54 PM
Yeah man I was surprised myself.
When you look at even just through the lens of winning the primary, it was an odd move.
I really doubt Bernie is going to lose a significant amount of support and he clearly isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In other words, I don't think Liz dropping a detailed plan was ever going to win over Sanders supporters- and thats understandable.
Seems like she could have picked off some Biden supporters, etc by just not being as 'radical' as Bernie. Had she left some wiggle room, she probably could have won over more moderate Dems- especially given the terrible options there.
But she left the door open for someone like Pete, and I imagine it probably contributed at least a little to the Billionaire Mayor jumping in late.
Only thing I can come up with? She must really, really believe in M4A cuz she risked a lot by doubling down.
13355194, maybe but she was clearly waffling during the campaign.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 09:28 AM
either way...like you said...her and bernie are leaving a clear lane for someone like pete to come right up the middle and snatch the healthcare vote.
13355145, She was damned if she did damned if she didn't tho.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-07-19 08:34 PM
>one of the worst things that happened to it.
>bernie is just like fuck it we are gonna raise your taxes but
>hypothetically decrease out of pocket medical expenses.
>warren...who usually has clear concise sensible plans for
>everything...put out a convoluted mess just to stick to the
>'no tax raises for the middle class' script. it relies on
>stuff like immigration reform passing...which we know wont
Oddly enough, her plan made me respect her even more. Like, she did what I assumed was impossible... I'm one of the most vocal M4A-skeptics ever and now I'm only mildly anti (lol) and support America at least trying her M4A plan out. Do I think it could pass into law? ehh. Do I think it could be sustained? Repubs would gut that shit the moment they took back power (leaving everyone with an underfunded overstrained system and no alternatives since the Dems would have killed private health insurance). But she's badass for putting out an M4A plan that might actually work if it was law, though not without issues. Like.. EVEN IF she and Bernie are both overestimating the extent of their plans' cost savings, and underestimating the extent utilization will increase once all of America is covered, and underestimating the number of doctors that would elect out of practicing within the system due to such drastic paycuts... her financing proposal is still stronger in my eyes bc the inevitable ballooning costs would fall mostly on corporations and the super wealthy as opposed to lower/middle income taxpayers.
But ya, there's hella risk in relying on CIR for revenue as you said. Not to mention a massive defense cut which has been talked about for years with no traction and what are likely to be deeply unpopular corporate taxation reforms. Oh ya and the problem with funding a staple program by relying on sticking billionaires with a multi-billion dollar tax bill each year is that there's relatvely few of them and eventually M4A will eat up all their billions and slow the formation of more so... lol. Especially considering her proposed capital gains tax changes too. I feel like people really underestimate how much of a black hole M4A would be.
leaving room to pivot to something
>transitional like a public option (she stated medicare for all
>was simply a 'framework'). but then she doubled down after
>she was put under pressure during/following the last debate.
Personally? I think she is still capable of pivoting once it comes time to actually govern. But she needed to cost this plan. Not only due to growing pressure from less progressive opponents/pundits/the public, but also to differentiate herself from Bernie. A lot of the punditry around M4A is starting to focus more on her now, as opposed to Bernie, because she actually cut the bullshit and put out hard numbers. I respect her effort to turn M4A from a series of talking points into substantive policy.
>i think her doubling down on m4a as it falls in popularity is
>the main reason for her leveling off or falling in polls. >bernie already has m4a baked into his cake. no matter how
>(un)favorable the general public views it...those who support
>him are riding with him on everything regardless. but liz is
>kinda live with the plan/policy die by the plan/policy.
I guess we'll see. But it looks like her M4A proposal is becoming the "referent" now, for lack of a better term. Yes Bernie can say he "wrote the damn bill" but he didn't feel the need to show his work so *shrug* too bad. Furthermore, now the costing question can be set up like "If America chooses M4A who should pay: the middle class taxpayers? or corporations, ultra-millionaires and billionaires?" If M4A has any shot at all... Warren is now the better-equipped salesperson and she kinda out-manouvered Bernie a bit too.
13355213, I wouldn't be mad, heck I even hope, she pivots to public option at convention|
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Fri Nov-08-19 10:08 AM
If her general additude is you have to run on bold ideas of what's possible, I think alot of her proposals make a lot of sense.
I think we learned from Obama that running on what you think you can achieve means you end up, after it's negotiated, even less than that.
If after the convention she pivots to a public option an a much higher income tax rate for the wealthy (instead a wealth tax on assets), then I think that's okay and increases her odds to win in a general.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13355104, michael bloomberg is running.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 05:31 PM
13355114, Lol oh lord. What's your guess on the strategy here? Why Alabama??|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-07-19 06:37 PM
I mean it's looking pretty clear he's trying to run as a spoiler.. but for whom lol...
The consensus online seems to converge on him aiming to be an alternative (replacement??) to Biden... He's far wealthier than Biden and can self-fund in contrast to Biden's fundraising issues... so is he filing in a southern state to start trying to compete against Biden's stronghold in the south?
Or is he moreso after Warren (or someone else "unpalatable"... i.e. Sanders, Buttigieg etc), and starting in Alabama because it's a Super Tuesday state which would allow him to watch for who sweeps the early states before pouncing..? Perhaps he'll be focusing more on securing superdelegate support, since the race is likely headed towards a brokered convention anyway?? Superdelegates is probably where he has an advantage over the field.
Or both?? Having trouble understanding billionarese lol.
Oh and the quote floating aroung about his concern that the top polling candidates aren't well-positioned to beat 45 is silly, given recent matchups all have them beating him and the margins have been growing throught the year.
Also, some folks online wishing that he'd run as a republican or independent instead and pull Repub votes from 45 lol
Whatever the case, Dem politics right now is... interesting.
13355117, i would guess albama is just because of the deadline|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-07-19 06:48 PM
i am so glad we will now how an old white man that thinks we need to appease republican voters.
13355127, right. These egos man...|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-07-19 07:13 PM
>i am so glad we will now how an old white man that thinks we
>need to appease republican voters.
If Bloomberg and/or Seyer really gave a fuck, they could spend money to torch Trump/the GOP in a few swing states and have money left over to win the senate.
Hell, they could probably spend less on those two things than what they are about to spend to poll at 2-4%.
But, by all means, I hope there are more OkayPlayer threads that derail into defending billionaires and their charitable hearts.
13355129, LOL! Your pettiness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-07-19 07:22 PM
>But, by all means, I hope there are more OkayPlayer threads
>that derail into defending billionaires and their charitable
13355130, Ah. Good point lol. Don't know why I didn't check that|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-07-19 07:24 PM
I'm thinking there's still a little strategy in there too tho. And Boomer psychology lol ("I always wanted to run for Pres dammit")
13355118, i really have no idea what he is doing.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 06:49 PM
i think we are just seeing the billionaire dem donor class overwhelmingly out of touch with dem voters and just panicking because biden is fading and elizabeth warren wants them to pay a little bit more.
13355131, lol, right. a little Boomer psychology sprinkled in there too, I'm sure|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-07-19 07:26 PM
13355185, you and this boomer psychology lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 09:13 AM
13355281, tin foil hat time? He's prepping a 3rd party run just in case|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-08-19 12:54 PM
I think he knows he won't win the nom.
But if he runs as a 3rd party out of the gate he'll get labelled a spoiler, etc.
What if he's running in the primary to a)look like a good democrat and b) get on debate stages, in polls, etc to build at least some support within the party.
Then, if its Bernie or Liz, he'll run 3rd party. Maybe even get a never-trumper GOP VEEP or something.
13355115, I literally said|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-07-19 06:45 PM
"what the fuck" out loud, when I saw this on Twitter.
13355155, I went with "Oh fuck off." on the e-mail chain I'm on|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:11 PM
w/my college friends when someone sent the headline.
13355278, lol yep|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-08-19 12:49 PM
13355191, someone has to look out for the rich!|
Posted by navajo joe, Fri Nov-08-19 09:20 AM
13355105, tom steyer aide caught offering paid endorsement scheme.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 05:33 PM
BREAKING: A top aide to Tom Steyer in Iowa offered campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsing the Democrat's White House bid, AP sources say.
oddly enough this was only the 2nd dumbest headline involving a billionaire presidential candidate today.
13355111, and this was after another steyer aide was caught stealing data|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 06:06 PM
from the kamala harris campaign
JUST IN: A South Carolina aide for 2020 candidate Tom Steyer’s campaign allegedly stole "valuable volunteer data" from the campaign of his Democratic presidential rival Kamala Harris, the Charleston Post Courier reports
tom steyer out here playing for keeps lol.
13355156, LOL I'm dying.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:13 PM
>oddly enough this was only the 2nd dumbest headline involving
>a billionaire presidential candidate today.
13355162, tulsi gabbard does new interview with progressive outlet breitbart.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-07-19 09:37 PM
13355164, VEXXXXX come get your girl.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-07-19 09:45 PM
Nah nevermind I know - she's just trying to expand her reach.
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-08-19 09:15 AM
Building a consensus with the alt right crowd.
13355190, "Hillary made her do it" - Captain Clown Shoes|
Posted by navajo joe, Fri Nov-08-19 09:19 AM
you know what the deal is when someone capes for that monster more than your auntie ever did for Obama
13355199, We gonna do this every time?|
Posted by Vex_id, Fri Nov-08-19 09:42 AM
She's appeared on every radio show from the political spectrum - from left-wing fringe greens to Conservative Libertarians - and everywhere in between.
If you want to run for President - it's wise to speak to all Americans (who you will be representing should you succeed). Her media strategy has worked pretty well for her thus far.
What's both interesting and sad is that some right-wing shows have treated her more fairly than centrist programming on cnn and msnbc - where they essentially read off of a script and ask her questions she's already answered 175 times before.
But yea - I guess she just only go on the Rachel Maddow show and speak to ~17% of the electorate? Makes sense.
13355203, Damn you are straight up shameless.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 09:46 AM
Constantly sidestepping the point.
13355206, RE: Damn you are straight up shameless.|
Posted by Vex_id, Fri Nov-08-19 09:49 AM
>Constantly sidestepping the point.
I keep asking you what the point is - and you don't seem to have one. So what's the point?
13355212, Multiple people, including myself, have tried to help you.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:03 AM
I refuse to keep repeating myself.
13355244, Lol y’all ok?|
Posted by Vex_id, Fri Nov-08-19 11:06 AM
Out here really upset when somebody has a different point of view.
“Vex me and some other guys who think just like me disagree - respond to us and explain!!!”
Everything’s gonna be ok.
13355245, That was adorable.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 11:08 AM
13355219, this is pretty pathetic. no punchline.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:19 AM
alt right following. david duke endorsement. tucker carlson regular guest. breitbart interviews.
apparently 'reaching out' to racists is perfectly cool with you.
13355223, And worse - she's not challenging them on *anything*.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:22 AM
She's going on these shows, and doing all these interviews, with the glaring *purpose* of parroting their talking points, perpetuating their lies, whataboutisms, and misdirections ... being all cordial and agreeable (<-- there Vex, I repeated myself again).
*That's* the offensive part and the context (<-- VEX) making these appearances inexcusable and disqualifying.
13355228, according to vex its all part of a brilliant campaign strategy|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:26 AM
to keep her polling at 0-2%.
13355234, Hahaha exactly. That may be the most hilarious argument he made ...|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:31 AM
... on her behalf.
"She's beating Kamala in the polls !" lololol
13355230, When people tell you who they are, believe them|
Posted by navajo joe, Fri Nov-08-19 10:27 AM
13355246, Actually - you make a good point |
Posted by Vex_id, Fri Nov-08-19 11:08 AM
If there’s one thing we know white nationalists and the alt-right love - it’s definitely a progressive Democratic woman of color who is a member of a religious minority.
13355189, Eric Holder might get in|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-08-19 09:18 AM
It gets even more interesting. I hear from a good source that Eric Holder has been consulting strategists about possibly jumping into the Dem presidential race
13355211, turning into a royal rumble|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-08-19 10:02 AM
i bet kirsten really went under the ropes. shes gonna come back in and stun folks.
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-08-19 10:10 AM
yeah it's too much
13355276, jesus I thought those articles were bullshit|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-08-19 12:48 PM
Waiting on the Hillary announcement at this point.
13355205, Kamala's numbers tumble as she calls for longer school days|
Posted by Vex_id, Fri Nov-08-19 09:47 AM
Who is advising Kamala? Oh right, she inherited Hillary Clinton's genius inner strategist circle.
REEEEEEQ what happened to Biden/Kamala for America?
13355214, It's interesting that you keep calling him out for this ...|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:09 AM
>REEEEEEQ what happened to Biden/Kamala for America?
... considering he's already adjusted his stance on both candidates. Cause that's what people do when they're presented with context and evidence suggesting that their candidates are trash.
13355216, He caped the hardest for HRC |
Posted by bentagain, Fri Nov-08-19 10:15 AM
and still is as you can see from an exchange in this post and the constant Bernie bashing j
Posted Biden and Beto 2020 posts
Dude is just wrong...that is the context.
13355220, ^ the only person on OKP worse than Vex at talking in circles.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:20 AM
>and still is as you can see from an exchange in this post
>Posted Biden and Beto 2020 posts
>Dude is just wrong...that is the context.
13355224, i just be standing to the side watching dude argue with himself lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:23 AM
13355226, Hahah smart move.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:25 AM
13355229, dude *still* tryna get my attention like a sidechick scorned lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:27 AM
13355232, LOLOL I'm dying.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 10:29 AM
I've said this before in response to an exchange he was having w/Lurkmode but like 85% of responses to bentagain are some variation of "what?!?" lolol.
13355235, lol poor kid.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:31 AM
13355227, ^^^ endorses Taylor Swift as a political strategist |
Posted by bentagain, Fri Nov-08-19 10:25 AM
You the ops.
13355225, Didn’t think you’d address the content of my post |
Posted by bentagain, Fri Nov-08-19 10:23 AM
13355406, Let them cook w/ the #NeverBernie posturing|
Posted by Vex_id, Sat Nov-09-19 02:15 PM
"Beto is the one! no wait Kamala! no wait Biden/Kamala! no wait Warren!"
They might stan for Bloomberg next if it comes down to it.
13355414, RE: Let them cook w/ the #NeverBernie posturing|
Posted by Brew, Sun Nov-10-19 01:16 AM
>"Beto is the one! no wait Kamala! no wait Biden/Kamala! no
>They might stan for Bloomberg next if it comes down to it.
13355217, vex keeps bringing up kamala like im supposed to be hurt lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-08-19 10:16 AM
he cant imagine someone not stanning for a failed candidate like he stans for tulsi lmao.
13355275, RE: vex keeps bringing up kamala like im supposed to be hurt lol.|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-08-19 12:46 PM
>he cant imagine someone not stanning for a failed candidate
>like he stans for tulsi lmao.
I'm curious how old dude is. Like, has he not been let down by a politician before? How has he not learned that lesson?
13355280, Kamala the strongest candidate in the field|
Posted by Tw3nty, Fri Nov-08-19 12:53 PM
Her plan is brilliant and much needed, much like her other plans.
13355461, how'd you vote five times though, man?|
Posted by Mynoriti, Mon Nov-11-19 03:08 PM
13355274, ah okay. You think everything is an agenda|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-08-19 12:44 PM
That's why everything is an argument with you. Its also why you don't leave room to admit the weaknesses of your heroes. Got it.
>REEEEEEQ what happened to Biden/Kamala for America?
He changed his mind, man. People are allowed to do that. Especially as time goes on, more information comes out, etc.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he straight up admitted he was wrong on Biden specifically.
Again, not only are people allowed to do that- but it is a pretty good sign of maturity.
And this is my point- eventually, I hope you grow out of your hero worship/ agenda style politics.
You calling Reeq out for being 'wrong' on this only further highlights your foolish stannery of your heroes. Seriously man, these famous people you worship are not saints. Leave yourself room to change your mind and allow grey areas, etc.
13355282, Typical negative confirmation bias, why didnt you share this?|
Posted by Tw3nty, Fri Nov-08-19 12:58 PM
13355457, The pushback on this was kinda wild|
Posted by Doc Catalyst, Mon Nov-11-19 02:37 PM
It's pretty much "more money for more after-school programs" but because of how certain tweets described it, folks were thinking Kamala wants to trap kids at school all day. And....how would that make ANY sense?!
Kamala's not my top candidate but damn...people wanted to dunk on this pretty hard.
13355595, The author of the vice version is Anti Black AF|
Posted by Tw3nty, Tue Nov-12-19 07:14 PM
He says our community doesnt need special attention in areas of need.
People only concerned about demonizing tho.
13355596, Stormfront is all-in on Gabbard.|
Posted by Tw3nty, Tue Nov-12-19 07:15 PM
13355283, Real talk: I would not be surprised to see Clinton jump into the race|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Fri Nov-08-19 01:11 PM
Right now I see three tracks.
The "radical" track: Sanders and Warren leading this pack. I guess Kamala can be in here, maybe Booker (don't know where to put him, and honestly it doesn't matter)
The "wild card" track: Toss Yang in here. Also Gabbard (I see you Vex)
The "moderate" track: Biden leading this pack. Buttigieg a bit behind. Also throw in Klobuchar.
If Biden has to drop out for whatever reason, investigation, competence, etc., that moderate track is looking pretty weak. That's why I think we're seeing Bloomberg jump in. And rumblings of Holder.
Clinton would be squarely in the moderate track. And she's got the built in support to win that track if the heavy hitter Biden is out.
Then it's just a face off with the "radical" with the winner taking on a weak Trump.
13355289, Bloomberg is|
Posted by fontgangsta, Fri Nov-08-19 01:34 PM
Hill should stay out
but Bloomy should go ahead and put his foot in it
liberals love him, hes pragmatic af, and he can appeal to all the people who liked trump because he was "a businessman" - well Bloomy is way better at, he's way richer, and way more stable.
13355295, The Stop and Frisk campaign what could go wrong?|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-08-19 01:48 PM
Bloom needs to go sit down.
13355299, Bloomberg will get CRUSHED... |
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Nov-08-19 01:50 PM
>Hill should stay out
>but Bloomy should go ahead and put his foot in it
>liberals love him, hes pragmatic af, and he can appeal to all
>the people who liked trump because he was "a businessman" -
>well Bloomy is way better at, he's way richer, and way more
it's scary if people actually believe this. Thankfully they don't.
Bring him in though.. I would love to see these shitty billionaires crumble as Bernie & Warren rip them apart in front of the american people.
13355306, I'm not super confident this'll happen either tho lol.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-08-19 01:57 PM
>I would love to see these shitty
>billionaires crumble as Bernie & Warren rip them apart in
>front of the american people.
They may be a little shook but like I said in the other post, ultimately they'll be fine cause they always are.
13355291, lol she wont|
Posted by Mynoriti, Fri Nov-08-19 01:35 PM
HRC is a lot of things, but shes not an idiot
I think it keeps coming because people legit miss hating her.
13355292, Lmao.. that ain’t happening. |
Posted by legsdiamond, Fri Nov-08-19 01:42 PM
13355314, Her betting odds are increasing lol. Never say never|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Fri Nov-08-19 02:51 PM
2% chance back in September, got up to about 10% in October
13355416, I think she is tired of being embarrassed |
Posted by legsdiamond, Sun Nov-10-19 07:57 AM
13355405, Bernie & AOC host largest Iowa rally of the primary season|
Posted by Vex_id, Sat Nov-09-19 02:13 PM
Naomi Klein also came out to endorse Bernie and is speaking with him today.
Dude's campaign just keeps getting better and better as the primary season heats up.
13355420, WATCH: 2019 Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice|
Posted by bentagain, Sun Nov-10-19 10:55 AM
Apparently, climate change is a big deal to voters in SC...go figure.
The first-ever Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice was held on Friday night in South Carolina. Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman and former EPA official Mustafa Ali co-moderated the event.
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, John Delaney and Joe Sestak took part in the forum at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg.
The forum — hosted by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators and leaders from frontline and tribal communities, civil rights, youth and environmental organizations — included discussion on how presidential hopefuls intend to manage the impacts of the climate crisis on the communities most affected.
13355422, A specter is haunting, uh, the Americas?|
Posted by Walleye, Sun Nov-10-19 12:56 PM
Lulu out. Bernie's gonna win. We're gonna win.
Brazil’s Former Left-Wing President ‘Lula’ Is Freed From Prison, Hailed By Bernie Sanders
By Mary Papenfuss
A ruling by Brazil’s Supreme Court allowed former leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to walk free from prison Friday, surrounded by throngs of cheering supporters.
The court ruled late Thursday in a landmark decision that defendants may remain free while they exhaust appeals in their cases. The former head of state, popularly known as Lula, has suddenly reemerged as a possible contender against his political opposite: controversial far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. But da Silva, 74, cannot run unless his corruption conviction is overturned.
Da Silva was mobbed by supporters as he left the federal police headquarters building in the southern city of Curitiba on Friday. He already looked like he was campaigning as he raised his fist and embraced well-wishers. “They tried to criminalize the left,” he said in an address to the crowd, The New York Times reported. “They didn’t lock up a man, they tried to kill an idea. But an idea can’t be destroyed.”
Da Silva announced that he would hold a gathering of supporters at a metalworkers union in São Paulo on Saturday before launching a national tour.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) linked to a story on da Silva’s release on Twitter and said he was “delighted.” Sanders said his incarceration “never should have happened in the first place.”
Da Silva responded to Sanders in a tweet, thanking him for his “solidarity” and adding that Sanders has “always been my candidate for the U.S. presidency.”
Da Silva began serving a 12-year sentence (later reduced to less than nine years) in 2018 for corruption and money laundering linked to charges that he and his wife illegally received about $1.1 million from a construction company tied to a beachfront apartment. In exchange, the construction operation was granted contracts from the state-controlled Petrobas oil company, according to prosecutors.
Critics contend the charges were politically motivated at a time when da Silva had been favored to win the 2018 presidential election. Bolsonaro won instead.
Others in the corruption case that ensnared da Silva are also being freed, along with thousands of other inmates appealing their sentences. Until the new ruling, people convicted could be ordered to prison to begin their sentences before their appeals were exhausted.
The former union leader and head of the Workers Party was in charge during a run of economic growth from 2003 to 2010 that boosted the nation’s middle class. Da Silva’s massive welfare program also helped lift millions from poverty, and he left office with an approval rating of more than 80%.
13355444, Warren: "I'm just a player in the game"|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-11-19 11:59 AM
This is a really bad look for Warren:
Krystal Ball's analysis is excellent, per usual.
13355448, ^^^ seen|
Posted by bentagain, Mon Nov-11-19 12:38 PM
As a CA resident, I have the same sentiment
Who gives AF about Iowa?
CA is the world’s 5th largest economy
and we’re relegated to onlooker every cycle
Warren had a chance to speak on it...and whiffed
In SC, where I’m ASSuming she’s looking to garner support
from black voters
Really a wtf moment
I won’t go full on...she’s a fraud...just yet
But Harry Reid reminding us she’ll pivot to the center in
the general is ringing in my ears
13355451, eh.. those clips are something for people who want them to be something|
Posted by Mynoriti, Mon Nov-11-19 01:23 PM
i'm concerned about Warren as an effective candidate against Trump but none of those clips were the "..Wow" she wants them to be, and all I really got out of that 9 minutes is the feeling that Krystal Ball is kind of a hack.
13355453, Cool - doesn't have to be a "thing" for you necessarily. |
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-11-19 01:38 PM
But I think there are plenty of voters who do care that she calculates with these questions instead of just giving honest, straight-forward answers.
13355446, Great interview with activist Philip Agnew on the Bernie movement|
Posted by reaction, Mon Nov-11-19 12:29 PM
13355455, thanks for posting! my homie is a poc surrogate for sanders too. |
Posted by rawsouthpaw, Mon Nov-11-19 02:35 PM
and hopes to publish in jacobin as well.
great passage here:
By contrast, Bernie is all about it. It’s right there in his slogan, “Not Me, Us.” And he doesn’t just mean a mobilizing to get him elected. He says all the time that this movement needs to fight for its demands while he’s in office.
To that end, he has made an effort to build relationships with movements that he doesn’t already have strong ties with. For example, he’s been extremely open to taking up the demands that have been put forward by Black Lives Matter activists, specifically around criminal justice, right?
I’m going to tell you a true story. I had just joined the Bernie Sanders campaign as a surrogate, and I was sent his criminal justice platform when it was already 98 percent complete. So I looked at it, and as I read the Google Doc, I began putting comments in the sidebar for things that I didn’t see reflected. As I read the document, I had to click resolve on all of the comments because they were all referenced later in the Doc.
And as I kept reading, I got emotional. I started calling people who I couldn’t show the platform to yet, and telling them, “You’re going to almost cry when you see it.” There were things on there that we’ve been talking about for years. There were things on there that I hadn’t even thought of.
I have it in front of me. Let’s look at what we have here. Banning for-profit prisons. You know, 100 percent of the juvenile facilities in the state of Florida are private. Making phone calls and other communications free. Unless you’re doing prison work and going inside prisons, you don’t even know how important this is. Ending cash bail. How long has the movement been cobbling together dollars to bail mothers out on Black Mama’s Bail Out Day? A non–law enforcement response system. Abolishing the death penalty. Ending the war on drugs. I could go on.
When we’re talking about the criminal justice system, we’re talking about a system by which capital is able to hide labor that is not being able to be used. Plantation owners at least had a small amount of reason to preserve the life or the ability of a slave to do work. It didn’t mean that they weren’t heinous and brutal, but if a person is a piece of equipment for you, then you have some interest in preserving that equipment. The prison system has no such considerations, and is one of the most evil and inhumane systems that we’ve ever seen in the history of humanity. And Bernie’s talking about tearing it up by the roots.
So to answer your question directly, yes, Bernie’s criminal justice platform responds to the demands of a movement that has been in the streets for the last five years, and also the demands of people who have been working for the last forty or fifty years to end solitary confinement or making sure that kids under eighteen don’t go to jail. His criminal justice platform is an amazing example of a campaign that is responsive to a movement, in a way that Sanders rarely gets credit for.
I am an abolitionist. Bernie’s platform goes farther than any other candidate’s on this issue and, while it is not abolition, it seriously diminishes the power of police and prisons in the lives of our people.
13355456, this is a good read|
Posted by Stadiq, Mon Nov-11-19 02:36 PM
He makes some good points.
13355463, Great read. Bernard's support base is truly intersectional|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-11-19 03:44 PM
and is legitimately the largest, most dynamic political movement at play.
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Nov-12-19 08:42 AM
That was not great.
13355478, Another moderate seeing an opening. Deval Patrick considering|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Mon Nov-11-19 08:58 PM
13355555, new iowa poll: buttigieg: 22% | biden: 19% | warren: 18% | sanders: 13%|
Posted by Reeq, Tue Nov-12-19 04:30 PM
New Monmouth poll of Iowa, trend since August:
Buttigieg: 22% (+14)
Biden: 19% (-7)
Warren: 18% (-2)
Sanders: 13% (+5)
Klobuchar: 5% (+2)
Harris: 3% (-9)
Steyer: 3% (-)
Yang: 3% (+2)
Booker: 2% (+1)
Gabbard: 2% (+1)
Bullock: 1% (-)
Castro: 1% (+1)
Klobuchar closer to Dec debate
huge gains for p booty. bernie and liz left an opening on healthcare and he took advantage. cant even hate on him.
13355557, 14 point jump??|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Nov-12-19 04:33 PM
it looks like mostly from kamala and joe. bernie stays consistent.
who is getting more excited for klobuchar?
13355582, I don't know about that|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-12-19 05:45 PM
>huge gains for p booty. bernie and liz left an opening on
>healthcare and he took advantage. cant even hate on him.
I am going to have no problem hating on him lol
Even though I called his rise in Iowa, I fucking hate it.
How much of a boost is he getting from white male priv? Plus Biden being Biden?
I mean, I'm sure there is some 'outsider' appeal which we shouldn't underestimate. People of all kinds like an outsider.
Just seems like moderates don't have any exciting choices.
Pete is on fire. Even fucking Klobuchar is gaining. Honestly? Deval Patrick probably should jump in.
Let Pete get some actual arrows now that he is in the lead, make some noise in NH, and build some momentum for SC and beyond.
He'd probably eat Pete and Biden's lunch. And I would probably feel better about his chances in a general versus those two also.
I'm not happy about it, though. I'm frustrated that Warren has stumbled, and the amount of sexism she has already ran into is pretty disheartening.
But, yeah...if DP has presidential aspirations of any kind now is the time.
13355562, medicare for all likely dead. 3 dems wont nuke the filibuster.|
Posted by Reeq, Tue Nov-12-19 04:46 PM
theres prolly a lot more who wouldnt nuke it but havent come out in vocal opposition.
Joe Manchin (WV), Jon Tester (MT) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) say they won't vote to nuke the legislative filibuster.
That's probably enough to block major pieces of any 2020 candidate's agenda—Sanders, Warren and (yes) Biden—if Democrats win the tri-fecta.
that puts to rest all of the 'big bold structural change' talk from warren and bernie. i wonder if theyll be forced to modify the message or if theyll keep running on an agenda thats logistically/realistically impossible now.
outside of stuff like voting rights and tax cut repeal (which i believe only requires a simple majority under budget reconciliation process)...theres almost a nonexistent chance of passing any progressive legislation when one party will completely obstruct any proposals that benefit the american people and still get people to vote for them en masse.
and this is all assuming dems get a majority of senate seats in 2020.
13355584, at the very least it is going to be a question|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-12-19 05:50 PM
in debates, etc...and they better have something.
I admire the energy, but "I'll hold rallies in Manchin's backyard" probably isn't the way to make allies.
13355844, ah yes|
Posted by Dr Claw, Thu Nov-14-19 09:42 AM
>Joe Manchin (WV), Jon Tester (MT) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) say
>they won't vote to nuke the legislative filibuster.
The Hall of Bitchniggas, with Chief Bitchnigga Manchin leading the charge.
In my ideal world, he and his daughter would occupy a gulag for the remainder of their living days.
13355961, would you rather them hand over their 3 senate seats to repubs|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:40 PM
by doing something unpopular among their own voters just to try to pass something that would get dismantled by republicans 2-4 years later with those new senate seats?
im not sure why we would expect any dems to do something their own voters (and a popular majority) dont support.
13355638, Clinton: "never say never"|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Wed Nov-13-19 08:06 AM
“I, as I say, never, never, never say never,” the former secretary of State said on BBC Radio 5 Live. “I will certainly tell you, I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.”
13355849, It's ridicuolous how they make big stories out of everything she says. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Thu Nov-14-19 10:02 AM
Woman says she isn't running. That should be the end of the headline.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13355841, the Democrats are expending more resources not to go further left|
Posted by Dr Claw, Thu Nov-14-19 09:34 AM
than they are fighting the state-by-state voting cheats that denied them the White House in 2016 and governorships like the one Stacy Abrams rightfully owns. fuck that Russia shit. it was Americans, time and time again.
Cory Booker ain't good enough for the centrist establishment that believes that we are living in 2008 before Obama made them all mad and they brought back the poll tax?
Deval Patrick and Bloomberg talking about running. man, if you don't get the fuck. HILLARY talking about running. If you don't get the ENTIRE fuck.
Just be GONE. The politics of the billionaire-appeasing middle is OVER.
Back Warren and brace yourself for Sanders, Democrats. Fuck all these imaginary swing voters in Ohio. these niggas ain't gonna back off dangling whiteness carrots. make sure people can VOTE without much restriction first.
13355858, It's maddening.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-14-19 10:14 AM
>than they are fighting the state-by-state voting cheats that
>denied them the White House in 2016 and governorships like the
>one Stacy Abrams rightfully owns. fuck that Russia shit. it
>was Americans, time and time again.
>Cory Booker ain't good enough for the centrist establishment
>that believes that we are living in 2008 before Obama made
>them all mad and they brought back the poll tax?
>Deval Patrick and Bloomberg talking about running. man, if you
>don't get the fuck. HILLARY talking about running. If you
>don't get the ENTIRE fuck.
>Just be GONE. The politics of the billionaire-appeasing middle
>Back Warren and brace yourself for Sanders, Democrats. Fuck
>all these imaginary swing voters in Ohio. these niggas ain't
>gonna back off dangling whiteness carrots. make sure people
>can VOTE without much restriction first.
13355941, It really is infuriating. Dems, man|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-14-19 02:41 PM
On one hand, I get the fear of losing to Trump. I do.
And I can't really pretend to get in the mind of a moderate, but I gotta think they aren't too excited with their leading choices. Though, for the life of me, I don't get why Booker isn't doing better.
Like, how in the fuck is Pete that much more popular than Booker?
And if I'm a moderate, I see all the excitement over Warren and Sanders, I'm probably a little disappointed that I got Weekend at Biden's telling me Cornpop stories and shit.
But a part of me thinks that some Dems aren't afraid Bernie or Warren would lose to Trump. I think they are afraid one of them would win.
As Doc said, the party seems to be more worried about becoming the party of Warren or Bernie than elections being stolen, etc.
And, as usual, much more worried about convincing one R to vote D than getting 3 new voters to the polls.
To your point, Obama isn't walking through that door. But even at that, I think a lot of folks have forgotten some of the progressive/populist shit Obama was saying/promising in his primary. Yes, he talked about unity. But he talked a lot about workers rights, bad trade deals, joining picket lines, etc.
13355942, Yea it's wild. To steal a sports cliche they're playing not to lose.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-14-19 02:48 PM
Not playing to win.
13355943, Most Dems are moderate|
Posted by legsdiamond, Thu Nov-14-19 02:50 PM
and real talk.
Super progressives are kind of annoying. The average person isn’t trying to go THAT far left.
Booker isn’t doing better because he’s Black. We aren’t getting another Black President for a loooooong time. Like not in our lifetime long time.
13355950, Yea, progress is stupid.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-14-19 03:15 PM
>Super progressives are kind of annoying. The average person
>isn’t trying to go THAT far left.
13355969, RE: Most Dems are moderate|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-14-19 04:06 PM
>Booker isn’t doing better because he’s Black. We aren’t
>getting another Black President for a loooooong time. Like not
>in our lifetime long time.
I was *kind of* being tongue in cheek with the Booker vs Pete comparison for this reason. Even considering that, the huge separation between the two doesn't really add up to me.
I'd say its a combo of racism, folks not trusting white america again (fair), people liking an outsider, and I'm guessing Booker's campaign isn't very well run or something.
If there really are dem voters out there who don't like Warren's 'anger' (lol) etc...Booker is all positivity every time I hear him speak.
13355953, BINGO. I think this is it:|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-14-19 03:18 PM
>But a part of me thinks that some Dems aren't afraid Bernie or
>Warren would lose to Trump. I think they are afraid one of
>them would win.
Exactly. It's easy to forget sometimes there's more than one Dem nomination process happening too.
I mean Bloomberg, Patrick.. and whoever else might jump in from the shadows?? No way these guys are throwing their name in this late to actually build coalitions, sweep states, etc lol. Though it might help their cause. I think the filings might just be a formality at this point bc what they're really competing for is the delegate game behind-the-scenes.
Like, most regular folks probably still think their support could help determine the nominee. Their focus is on hoping their fave will win the state caucuses/primaries, purity-testing their fave's opponents' policies and donors, etc. The cute stuff. Meanwhile, the actual donor class/Dem establishment already anticipated a brokered convention a long time ago and has probably been putting plans in play for that all along.
I'm still game-theorizing (lol), but so far I think party insiders had a "(Instead Of) Bernie Plan" and a "(Just In Case We Can't Rely On) Biden Plan". I think both plans (initially) favored Warren, and that they completely underestimated Buttigieg's ability to appeal to both moderates and progressives (he's pulling secondary supporters from all over.. Biden, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, etc).
But they seem to be scrambling now, because they didn't anticipate Warren doubling-down as strongly as she has to her progressive leanings/inner tax maniac (eg. with her M4A plan) and there appears to be some latent ageism and homophobia when it comes to Buttigieg (who else could some obviously-not-progressive donor types be talking about when they say they're not confident about the field?? He's the only other high-polling moderate) despite his emergence as a 'unifying' candidate (at least in ideological coalition).
Basically: Warren was probably the "insider approved" emergency backup for both Sanders and Biden but she stopped moving as expected and they realized they have no backup-plan-for-the-backup-plan. And their weird electability calculus won't let them give Buttigieg a chance. So now it appears their plan is to pump more moderates in the field that insiders and all their Never45 friends can "get behind", who can replace Warren as the emergency backup nominee and peel away Buttigieg delegates if he keeps outperforming Biden.
Only wealthy insiders could even MEET the criteria TO BE such late candidates, because who else would have the resources and connections to stand-up even a pretend campaign a few months before votes start being cast? lol. I really don't thin these late entries have anything to do with the people/electorate. They're gonna pick who it'll be at the convention and move on.
13355976, all great points|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-14-19 04:21 PM
>>But a part of me thinks that some Dems aren't afraid Bernie
>>Warren would lose to Trump. I think they are afraid one of
>>them would win.
>Exactly. It's easy to forget sometimes there's more than one
>Dem nomination process happening too.
Good point. Hell, I don't even get how it works to be honest.
>I mean Bloomberg, Patrick.. and whoever else might jump in
>from the shadows?? No way these guys are throwing their name
>in this late to actually build coalitions, sweep states, etc
>lol. Though it might help their cause. I think the filings
>might just be a formality at this point bc what they're really
>competing for is the delegate game behind-the-scenes.
Again, I'm not sure how the delegate game works.
I did read that Clinton (Bill) jumped in in October of 91. So, in the ere of social media, etc...I think it is theoretically possible for a candidate to get in now and make some noise. I mean, hell, Donald Trump is president. Anything is possible.
It would have to be the right candidate though. I honestly spaced the Patrick Bain connection.
>Like, most regular folks probably still think their support
>could help determine the nominee. Their focus is on hoping
>their fave will win the state caucuses/primaries,
>purity-testing their fave's opponents' policies and donors,
>etc. The cute stuff. Meanwhile, the actual donor class/Dem
>establishment already anticipated a brokered convention a long
>time ago and has probably been putting plans in play for that
>I'm still game-theorizing (lol), but so far I think party
>insiders had a "(Instead Of) Bernie Plan" and a "(Just In Case
>We Can't Rely On) Biden Plan". I think both plans (initially)
>favored Warren, and that they completely underestimated
>Buttigieg's ability to appeal to both moderates and
>progressives (he's pulling secondary supporters from all
>over.. Biden, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, etc).
I could definitely see this.
>But they seem to be scrambling now, because they didn't
>anticipate Warren doubling-down as strongly as she has to her
>progressive leanings/inner tax maniac (eg. with her M4A plan)
Yep. I think this will be looked back on as a huge misstep, unfortunately. I think she was all set to be the 'more favorable' option to Bernie. Then she tripled down.
>and there appears to be some latent ageism and homophobia when
>it comes to Buttigieg (who else could some
>obviously-not-progressive donor types be talking about when
>they say they're not confident about the field?? He's the only
>other high-polling moderate) despite his emergence as a
>'unifying' candidate (at least in ideological coalition).
I could see that, but I think there is also a fear of his inability to connect with black voters.
>Basically: Warren was probably the "insider approved"
>emergency backup for both Sanders and Biden but she stopped
>moving as expected and they realized they have no
>backup-plan-for-the-backup-plan. And their weird electability
>calculus won't let them give Buttigieg a chance. So now it
>appears their plan is to pump more moderates in the field that
>insiders and all their Never45 friends can "get behind", who
>can replace Warren as the emergency backup nominee and peel
>away Buttigieg delegates if he keeps outperforming Biden.
Right. It just seems like for it to work, others would have to drop out.
>Only wealthy insiders could even MEET the criteria TO BE such
>late candidates, because who else would have the resources and
>connections to stand-up even a pretend campaign a few months
>before votes start being cast? lol. I really don't thin these
>late entries have anything to do with the people/electorate.
>They're gonna pick who it'll be at the convention and move
I mean maybe. Which would add fuel to the fire of the Dem party would rather lose with Biden or Patrick than win with Warren or Bernie. Unreal.
13355993, RE:to work others would need to dropout -not as a delegate strategy tho.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-14-19 06:11 PM
If the dems end up having a brokered convention then it switches to a delegate vote, and delegates can switch to whomever from their initial candidate. Have to google the exact number delegates a candidate needs to win but I want to say ~2000?? Maybe more?
I forget the article I read recently where an insider opened up about how greasy the delegate securing process can get. A lot of pledges exchanged for admin posts/political favors and stuff. Real backroom deal shit.
So it seems, to avoid having insiders install whoever it is they want, "one" candidate would have to sweep the caucuses/primaries to negate the possibility of a brokered convention in the first place. Things are pretty polarized tho. Not to mention... the highest polling candidate who's attracting across the ideological spectrum and raising a shit-ton of money can't seem to win folks' trust/confidence he could bring it home in a GE (despite multiple matchup polls suggesting otherwise).
Really not sure what to expect next year tbh, lol
>>Basically: Warren was probably the "insider approved"
>>emergency backup for both Sanders and Biden but she stopped
>>moving as expected and they realized they have no
>>backup-plan-for-the-backup-plan. And their weird
>>calculus won't let them give Buttigieg a chance. So now it
>>appears their plan is to pump more moderates in the field
>>insiders and all their Never45 friends can "get behind", who
>>can replace Warren as the emergency backup nominee and peel
>>away Buttigieg delegates if he keeps outperforming Biden.
>Right. It just seems like for it to work, others would have
>to drop out.
13355978, billionaires eager to put in their two-cents |
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-14-19 04:23 PM
but not willing to pay two-cents in taxes
13355845, Bernie/Warren Ticket would win the election...I just don't see it occurring|
Posted by ChampD1012, Thu Nov-14-19 09:47 AM
13355902, could be Warren/Bernie.. either way, it's a LOCK to win...|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Thu Nov-14-19 12:26 PM
13355884, who could come in that would actually excite people?|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-14-19 11:10 AM
get the undecideds behind them and possibly bring along voters that are already leaning towards someone?
if this had already leaned down to around 5 people i could maybe understand these people trying to jump in but were back to what 18 candidates????
13355891, Obama isn't walking through that door. 2016 Bernie isn't walking ...|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-14-19 11:34 AM
... through that door.
There's enough to like about Bernie and Warren to get behind them. We need to stop thinking another Obama is on the way. He was special in 2008 and the leadup to it. Very rare.
13355913, for a lot of people its hard to get excited about a 70 y/o white person|
Posted by ThaTruth, Thu Nov-14-19 01:00 PM
Posted by Crash Bandacoot, Thu Nov-14-19 03:44 PM
13355956, Only Michelle or Oprah (not being funny - that's the correct answer)|
Posted by Teknontheou, Thu Nov-14-19 03:24 PM
13355958, this is true.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:29 PM
itd have to be a broadly likeable candidate with big name recognition who was extremely favorable to black voters and college educated white people.
13355982, Michelle is not running and I wouldn't want her to, that family has been...|
Posted by ThaTruth, Thu Nov-14-19 04:42 PM
through enough, let them enjoy their retirement and book tours unlike these white folks who are going to go to the grave trying to run the world.
Same for Oprah, she doesn't want or need that mess.
45 was an egomaniac who ran for the hell of of it and when he saw people actually believed his BS he kept it going.
13356058, The question was who would excite people, not who ought to run.|
Posted by Teknontheou, Fri Nov-15-19 11:03 AM
Those two would excite people.
In general, though, the poplace seems to look strictly to clebrities now - there appears to be less of a serious appetite for professional politicians to run for national office.
My theory is that capable, talented people, the types who used to be drawn to politics, are making way more money in finance and the private sector and don't have as much interest in political power, as in previous eras. So all the people in serious contention for the last two cycles are old, as a result.
13356098, I agree with some of what you said....|
Posted by ThaTruth, Fri Nov-15-19 12:12 PM
>Those two would excite people.
>In general, though, the poplace seems to look strictly to
>clebrities now - there appears to be less of a serious
>appetite for professional politicians to run for national
Not necessarily celebrities but they are looking for another "Obama" and he was a once in a lifetime candidate.
>My theory is that capable, talented people, the types who used
>to be drawn to politics, are making way more money in finance
>and the private sector and don't have as much interest in
>political power, as in previous eras. So all the people in
>serious contention for the last two cycles are old, as a
^^^I think this is very true.
13355952, candidates in 2018 who ran on medicare for all performed 5 points less|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:16 PM
than candidates who didnt.
Candidates in 2018 supporting M4A ran five points worse than candidates who didn’t after controlling for district partisanship.
something ive really been tryna hammer home on here. its generally bad politics to run a presidential campaign centered on a policy that has no history of winning consequential elections (and is actually rejected by many voters in states/districts necessary to win a majority).
13355954, warren/sanders running 10 points behind clinton with black voters|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:19 PM
Big thing in @Nate_Cohn’s polls that I don’t see people paying enough attention to is all three Democrats are running slightly ahead of Clinton with white voters but behind with black & hispanic ones.
if the eventual nominee does even worse with black voters than clinton...its goodnight irene for dems.
13355957, when people talk about the dangers of dems going 'too far left'|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:26 PM
the 2 tweets above are why.
we can complain all we want on here in our insulated left of center online community.
but we arent a progressive nation. and the electorate (the people who actually cast votes) is even less left than that.
the dem path to victory is pretty clear. in va 2017/2019, ky/pa 2019 and nationwide 2018 (especially tx/ga/az)...college educated voters in the suburbs swung big towards dems. those folks could likely abandon the party in the event of a further left nominee.
warren is my horse. but we gotta acknowledge the potential for disaster in nominating a candidate like that (mcgovern 1984). theres a reason why she is barely above water in her own (solid blue) state while the *moderate* republican governor is above 70% approval.
13355959, Not to mention, Patrick entering to compete against Warren is telling af.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-14-19 03:38 PM
>warren is my horse. but we gotta acknowledge the potential
>for disaster in nominating a candidate like that (mcgovern
>1984). theres a reason why she is barely above water in her
>own (solid blue) state while the *moderate* republican
>governor is above 70% approval.
He's always been a major donor to her and there's even a recent clip of her naming Patrick specifically as a must-have in her cabinet if she won lol.
Them 1%ers got in his ear big time. STOP HER!!!! lol
13355965, hes prolly more likely to stop biden lol.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 03:51 PM
im not sure what these folks are thinking with bloomberg and patrick...but if they wanted a closer-to-moderate candidate that might actually win (other than biden...who they obviously lost confidence in)...theyd be better served to get behind the only other viable candidate mayor pete.
honestly this is why repubs win way more than they should. if these democratic billionaires were any good at politics...they wouldnt be blowing their money on these quixotic hail mary campaigns (either them or their preferred candidate). they would be buying out state legislatures and governorships and instituting policy there that blunts the impact of any federal policy regardless of who the president is.
13355967, EXACTLY. I mean I had to laugh.. a billionaire and Bain Capital exec?|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-14-19 03:56 PM
In an era where Sanders, Warren, and a dude under 40 are leading the polls/getting all the non-45 energy. Really? Lol.
It's such a staggering misread of what people obviously want. I think they can't even help themselves at this point.
>im not sure what these folks are thinking with bloomberg and
>patrick...but if they wanted a closer-to-moderate candidate
>that might actually win (other than biden...who they obviously
>lost confidence in)...theyd be better served to get behind the
>only other viable candidate mayor pete.
>honestly this is why repubs win way more than they should. if
>these democratic billionaires were any good at politics...they
>wouldnt be blowing their money on these quixotic hail mary
>campaigns (either them or their preferred candidate). they
>would be buying out state legislatures and governorships and
>instituting policy there that blunts the impact of any federal
>policy regardless of who the president is.
13355973, it really comes off as complete panic.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 04:09 PM
i think they figure they can just co-opt the biden moderate/conservative base like its one big ideological bloc. but that base is made up of culturally moderate/conservative black/latino voters and working class whites who aint feeling a billionaire technocrat from ny or some vulture capitalist from ma.
if anything theyre just peeling away more of bidens and mayor petes rich white support. just as theyre rebounding in states like iowa. its really stupid.
13355979, RE: it really comes off as complete panic.|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-14-19 04:28 PM
Those articles must have been true.
If Hillary announces I’m tapping out.
To your other point, it does make you wonder
why they aren’t throwing more help to Pete or
someone currently in the race.
Is Pete even trying in South Carolina?
13355983, thats the confusing part.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-14-19 04:51 PM
>To your other point, it does make you wonder
>why they aren’t throwing more help to Pete or
>someone currently in the race.
it seemed like 'they' were getting behind pete and dragging him more in a moderate direction. and its a successful play. his standing has increased and he is raising a shit ton of money. that was the best gameplan imo. its not like pete was falling flat. dude is making good gains.
i think when all else fails...they just resort to propping up somebody who they know is unconditionally on their side (even if that person is them...in the case of bloomberg lol).
as far as sc...he just put in a big ad buy there.
and clinton...nothing would surprise me now lol. folks are obviously losing their minds.
13355992, Pete is not a serious candidate.|
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Nov-14-19 05:56 PM
Or at least, I fucking hope he doesn't become one.
The man is younger than most of us. And his only electoral experience is running a city of 100,000 people. The man would get DESTROYED in a general election, and I would definitely not want him to be the president and shape the future of the Democratic party.
13355996, You're usually so much more fact-based than this,Strav. I'm disappointed|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-14-19 06:26 PM
>The man is younger than most of us.
Buttigieg's age is such a ridiculous non-factor. Especially in comparison to Boomer politicians who can barely understand/keep up with the systems they're supposed to be regulating. Not to mention, a lot of people may actually feel MORE comfortable with a younger more energetic candidate as opposed to an elderly candidate (INCLUDING elderly voters, who Buttigieg polls even better with than Sanders and Warren)
The last 2 Democratic presidents were in their 40s when first elected. The youngest ever Democratic presidents (JFK, Teddy Roosevelt) were only a few years older than Buttigieg would be if he assumed office. America's Founding Fathers were all like Buttigieg's age. And there's Heads of State/Government RIGHT NOW (France, NZ, Ireland, Ukraine) who assumed their post in their late 30s.
I really hate to see this trash age argument.
And his only electoral
>experience is running a city of 100,000 people. The man would
>get DESTROYED in a general election,
and I would definitely
>not want him to be the president and shape the future of the
Have you ever even looked at his platform??
13356000, Ugh. |
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Nov-14-19 07:21 PM
>>The man is younger than most of us.
>Buttigieg's age is such a ridiculous non-factor. Especially in
>comparison to Boomer politicians who can barely
>understand/keep up with the systems they're supposed to be
>regulating. Not to mention, a lot of people may actually feel
>MORE comfortable with a younger more energetic candidate as
>opposed to an elderly candidate (INCLUDING elderly voters, who
>Buttigieg polls even better with than Sanders and Warren)
Yeah, give me a 50-year-old, or a 60-year-old. Not a man who, if he were two years younger, would be constitutionally ineligible to run for this office.
>The last 2 Democratic presidents were in their 40s when first
Both were about a decade older than Pete. One had been a 2-term governor, the other a US Senator for a large and diverse state. Mayor Pete has consulted at McKinsey, and been mayor of fucking South Bend Indiana.
By the way, people are justifiably rolling their eyes at Deval Patrick in large part because he worked at Bain. Is McKinsey really that much different than Bain?
>The youngest ever Democratic presidents (JFK, Teddy
(Minor point, but TR was a Republican, though admittedly a progressive by the standards of the time.)
>were only a few years older than Buttigieg would be
>if he assumed office.
Again, Kennedy was a sitting US Senator. Roosevelt was the Vice President. He was also running 119 years ago, when the average life expectancy was in the upper 40's.
>America's Founding Fathers were all like
Yeah, so again, by the standards of the time, they were quite old.
>And there's Heads of State/Government RIGHT
>NOW (France, NZ, Ireland, Ukraine) who assumed their post in
>their late 30s.
This is not France, NZ, Ireland, or Ukraine.
>I really hate to see this trash age argument.
And I hate to see wishful thinking creeping into political discussions when fucking Donald Trump is in office.
>And his only electoral
>>experience is running a city of 100,000 people. The man
>>get DESTROYED in a general election,
God, I've had this argument so many times around here. These are the numbers NOW, when the vast majority of respondents don't know anything about him other than that he has a funny name and looks pretty on camera. He has not run a race. He has never been hit by a political attack in his life. There was a time not so long ago when Beto O'Rourke looked like the taste of the new generation.
> and I would definitely
>>not want him to be the president and shape the future of the
>Have you ever even looked at his platform??
Standard Democratic party stuff. I don't have a problem with it at all. But I don't know what you think a platform signifies. No significant laws will be passed for the foreseeable future, by any President. Platforms matter only as talking points during campaigns. Yeah, Pete's platform would do him more good in a general election than Bernie's would, or Warren's. But the same could be said for Biden, Harris, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, or even fucking Deval Patrick. Each one of them would fare better in a general election than Pete.
13356010, Damn.You really have me in here going to bat for dude. Alright let's go lol|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 12:49 AM
>Yeah, give me a 50-year-old, or a 60-year-old. Not a man who,
>if he were two years younger, would be constitutionally
>ineligible to run for this office.
But you DO have 50- and 60-year olds to choose from. They simply HAVENT RESONATED. I'm sorry that more people from your preferred age corridor aren't connecting well with voters. Take your pick: Bullock, Bennet, Harris, Delaney, Klobuchar, Steyer, Patrick, Williamson, Sestak. <-- lol
I mean, gee.. by your logic 45 being the oldest elected Pres in history must make him the best to have ever done it right? Since age is this super-reliable measure of competence and all.
>Both were about a decade older than Pete. One had been a
>2-term governor, the other a US Senator for a large and
>diverse state. Mayor Pete has consulted at McKinsey, and been
>mayor of fucking South Bend Indiana.
That's right. He tried the whole coastal elite thing but ultimately moved back West to lead his small hometown in a conservative Middle America state. I'm sorry to inform you but some of the electorate seems to find it endearing that he hasn't been marinating in DC for decades. Shocking in the era of 45, I know.
Not to mention, according to his wiki he hasn't just worked at McKinsey... he worked at another international consulting firm (Cohen Group) started by a former Secretary of Defense and multiple political campaigns:
-2 Democratic Congressional campaigns (Jill Long Thompson-2000, Joe Donnelly-2006)
-1 Democratic Presidential campaign (John Kerry-2004 *After turning DOWN a job offer from Obama's Senate Campaign)
-1 Democratic Gubernatorial campaign (Jill Long Thompson-2008)
Plus started training with Navy intelligence in 2007 and deployed in 2014, after winning elected office in South Bend in 2011.
So that's 2 private sector jobs, 4 political operative jobs spanning district-level, state-wide, and presidential politics, 1 elected office (2 successful elections), and a tour of duty in a war zone. All by the time he was in his mid-30s, and he went away for grad school in that time too. That's not exactly nothing. Plus, it's relevant experience. If people are going to gravitate to someone "outside Washington"... what's the downside of an outsider who at least still "understands" it and values its institutions? (in contrast to someone like, say, 45).
>By the way, people are justifiably rolling their eyes at Deval
>Patrick in large part because he worked at Bain. Is McKinsey
>really that much different than Bain?
Um, being an analyst is so categorically different from being a Managing Director at such firms but hey, make your point lol.
Furthermore, Patrick's record has numerous other issues.. including the role he played at a subprime mortgage lender and the rapist BIL issue discussed below. If anything, Pete running financial models at McKinsey all day indicates he's data literate and omg how nice would data literacy be in a 21st century leader. Evidence-based decision-making could be a thing.
was also running 119 years ago, when the
>average life expectancy was in the upper 40's.
Lol so?? Did people age faster back then just because they died younger or something? Late 30s is late 30s and they did fine.
>And I hate to see wishful thinking creeping into political
>discussions when fucking Donald Trump is in office.
Who's thinking wishfully?? The man polls unexpectedly high for someone who started his campaign with virtually zero name recognition, a 3-person staff that included his best friend, and the (somewhat) embarassing honor of being the brokest person running in the field. Folks wanna call it privilege but how when even with his numbers people still question his ability to compete bc he's gay?? Meanwhile there's polls out there suggesting stronger public support for an openly gay president than M4A. Lol
>>>get DESTROYED in a general election,
>God, I've had this argument so many times around here. These
>are the numbers NOW, when the vast majority of respondents
>don't know anything about him other than that he has a funny
>name and looks pretty on camera.
This is bizarre logic. He polls strongly with higher favorability and less notoriety compared to other more established candidates. This indicates that as people actually get to know him, they like him. So given this phenomenon, why would more people becoming familiar with him negatively impact his polling?? lol.
>He has not run a race. He has
>never been hit by a political attack in his life.
There was a
>time not so long ago when Beto O'Rourke looked like the taste
>of the new generation.
Never been hit by a political attack?? Again, you're exposing how little you've bothered to learn about the guy lol:
-TYT has like altered their business model to become the official anti-Pete channel or something,
-45's already come up with a nickname for him and used it to make fun of him at multiple rallies,
-MSM livestreamed a super-embarassing city TH of him getting an earful from his residents about police brutality in the community,
-Oh and he gets all kinds of booty jokes because of his sexual orientation and his last name,
-NYT just ran a story about how half his competitors (eg. Beto, Klobuchar, Castro) are jealous bitter haters who'd rather bitch and moan about him all day than focus on their own sinking ships and compete.
It's actually NOT been a cake walk for him, like at all. But he's said in multiple interviews he's ready for it, and I kinda believe him because not only does he remain literally the most composed calming candidate ever in the face of all the bs, but one never really encounters similar vitriol from him/his supporters (his campaign rules of the road may influence this https://peteforamerica.com/rules-of-the-road/)
But you brought up Beto and I'm glad you did because he's a perfect comparison: Generated excitement in TX, shut down his presidential campaign in debt and polling in the low single-digits. Clearly, his buzz comprised more anti-Cruz energy (which couldn't even propel him enough to defeat Cruz) than an ability to inspire people. This was confirmed when he ran for an office "not" currently occupied by Ted Cruz.
In contrast, nobody outside of South Bend knew wtf Pete was except for maybe some political nerds who remember him from the race for DNC chair. And yet, he does "one" CNN town hall (the LAST SLOT on a night preceded by Tulsi and Delaney no less) and people can't shut up about the guy, his polling and fundraising have been increasing ever since, all while the field multiplied in size and produced no other rising stars. People just like the guy, man.
>Standard Democratic party stuff. I don't have a problem with
>it at all. But I don't know what you think a platform
>signifies. No significant laws will be passed for the
>foreseeable future, by any President. Platforms matter only as
>talking points during campaigns. Yeah, Pete's platform would
>do him more good in a general election than Bernie's would, or
>Warren's. But the same could be said for Biden, Harris,
>Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, or even fucking Deval Patrick. Each
>one of them would fare better in a general election than Pete.
And yet "none" of the candidates you listed are resonating strongly with people. What do you think would happen in a GE, that people who FAIL to inspire within their own party would suddenly encounter immeasurable love and support from the general electorate? And if they're such GE juggernauts why can't they outperform little inexperienced Mayor Pete??
Furthermore, he just has some super strong hires working for his campaign, man. His digital is run by a PhD that helped build out Facebooks entire ad ecosystem. His first and only hire was Lis Smith who apparently is this reknowned Dem comms guru, and his comms are what's catapulted him to top tier so he was smart to secure her first. And he's attributed his knack for retail politics to being fresh out of local government which depends heavily on that kind of connection-building.
Behold the advantage of running an aggressive, youthful, tech- and data-savvy campaign with a candidate who connects. Sanders, Warren and 45/Parscale are doing the same. Don't hate the players hate the game :) Also note the absence of reports that Buttigieg abuses or throws things at his staff, unlike Klobuchar.
I think there "is" something to this level of politics that's intangible. It can't be calculated, triangulated, or manufactured. It's just a natural synergy between the person, the people, and the moment. Repubs recognize this in 45, which is why they're clinging for life to his uncouth ass. But there are very, very, few on the Dem side who resonate this way, and unfortunately even fewer of them have compatible coalitions. I mean, anything's possible and I guess we'll just have to see how things unfold next year. But something tells me the folks you mentioned aren't gonna have a late break. lol
13356027, Good Christ, his father translated Gramsci |
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 09:37 AM
And was chair of Notre Dame's English department. This small town (South Bend isn't small, either) comes home to honor his roots thing is laughably dishonest.
>That's right. He tried the whole coastal elite thing but
>ultimately moved back West to lead his small hometown in a
>conservative Middle America state.
13356055, And Harris's father was a prominent Marxist economist @ Stanford who|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 10:56 AM
wrote extensively on wages and capital accumulation lol, including titles such as "Capitalist Exploitation and Black Labor: Some Conceptual Issues" and "The Black Ghetto as Colony: A Theoretical Critique" :
Strangely, she is not the democratic socialist running for pres lol.
I don't know. I try not to blend candidates' personal/family stuff with their politics unless laws are being broken/resources being misused. They're decoupled often enough.
But re: Buttigieg's move home, I mean.. he wrote a book and literally called it 'Shortest Way Home' lol. Haven't read it, but *shrug* Maybe he wanted to be closer to his family?? I've made a similar move before so can kind of relate I guess. lol
13356059, Yeah, I'd vote for either Harris/Buttigieg dad|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 11:07 AM
Regrettable their children turned out to be unprincipled and power hungry. Maybe they should have thrown a bit more Dorothy Day and Gustav Landauer into bedtime reading.
Either way, you're being sly. I don't care about his dad's politics except with respect to your characterization of Buttigieg as some kind of "aww shucks" small town guy (again, nothing small about South Bend) who got a taste for urban cosmopolitanism and decided to reject that life and come home. It's not true.
13356071, Lol.I'll leave this alone only because I don't actually know why he moved|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 11:28 AM
You could be right. Or I could be right. Or we could both be wrong. And I don't actually care too much lol
But tbh I'm inclined to believe there's a bit of aw shucks in there lol. He definitely defaults to an aw shucks persona in his interviews, podcasts, etc
>Either way, you're being sly. I don't care about his dad's
>politics except with respect to your characterization of
>Buttigieg as some kind of "aww shucks" small town guy (again,
>nothing small about South Bend) who got a taste for urban
>cosmopolitanism and decided to reject that life and come home.
>It's not true.
13356072, I can clear that right up|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 11:30 AM
I'm right. Don't be a sucker on the aww shucks thing. He's a dead-eyed resume padding hall monitor. Fuck him and his shitty politics.
13356073, LOL always a pleasure, Walleye. |
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 11:32 AM
13356077, *points and nods*|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 11:35 AM
13356046, You are going hard for Pete|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-15-19 10:37 AM
>-TYT has like altered their business model to become the official anti->Pete channel or something
TYT did a good job exposing Pete
It's more to working at Mckinsey
13356048, Mayor Pete to surprised endorsers: You didn't opt out|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 10:42 AM
I'm trying to bring myself to be annoyed about this, but it's mostly hilarious.
13356064, Damn lol|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-15-19 11:19 AM
The more I read about Pete the worse it gets.
13356079, ok I did literally LOL at this. oh well tho. its not like they didn't|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 11:40 AM
sign off originally lol
13356083, Yeah, it's mostly goofy campaign ineptitude|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 11:49 AM
Some real Veep shit.
Though if you already don't like him, as I don't, it confirms the idea that his view of politics is that if you push the right combination of buttons then people will be obliged to support you. He doesn't seem to sense any need to appeal to people's material conditions when the option of just raising a technocratic eyebrow at an issue exists.
13356117, He should drop out right now.. What an asshole move..|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Nov-15-19 01:29 PM
13356067, "Exposing" is an interesting word to use. Wouldnt be my choice lol|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 11:22 AM
It was interesting watching them hyperventilate over news items that those who had been following Pete's rise already knew about with greater nuance than they bothered to attempt. I can tolerate Cenk in small doses but for the most part, I find TYT super annoying and barely journalism. They remind me of like Tucker Carlson but far left instead of far right and if he held panels instead of interviewing guests solo.
I still to this day think that whole SB police chief story is such a non-factor and, quite frankly, am not convinced I wouldn't have handled it differently if I were the executive in his situation lol.
I tried to pose to a friend once what if a similar situation happened but with a data breach instead of a recording.
Like, imagine you're a newly hired director for some garden variety government agency. You've barely made it a year in your position when it comes to your attention that one of your employees has been under investigation by federal law enforcement for hacking into a classified hr database system bc he believed some of his fellow employees were racist and he was trying to find dirt on them. The deperment's inspector general and the fbi had been monitoring him since way before you even became this dude's boss, and you're being informed because if you or your division either accidentally or intentionally view, process, or do anything with this data he's been compiling you could be held criminally liable under federal law.
I'd be like *WTF* and dude could NOT stop doing what he's doing/leave the agency quickly enough. Whether his racism hunch was true or not, im not jeopardizing my or any of my employees freedom or livelihood bc this dude wants to be on some paranoid vigilante shit. There's a whole other mechanism to file racial discrimination complaints and he could have fucking did that. foh lol
13356116, "Exposing" is the correct choice, unless you see Pete through rose colored glasses|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-15-19 01:11 PM
>It was interesting watching them hyperventilate over news
>items that those who had been following Pete's rise already
>knew about with greater nuance than they bothered to attempt.
>I can tolerate Cenk in small doses but for the most part, I
>find TYT super annoying and barely journalism.
You can read the stories on the site instead of watching them. Those following Pete's rise knew about documents that were just released ?
"New Documents Raise Questions About Buttigieg's Ouster of Black Police Chief
By: Jonathan LarsenSep 30, 2019"
They remind me
>of like Tucker Carlson but far left instead of far right and
>if he held panels instead of interviewing guests solo.
They are nothing like Carlson. Now if they said white supremacy is hoax then you could say they are similar to Carlson, and use the both sides thing.
>I still to this day think that whole SB police chief story is
>such a non-factor and, quite frankly, am not convinced I
>wouldn't have handled it differently if I were the executive
>in his situation lol.
WOW you gotta be kidding.
"Mike Schmuhl, Buttigieg’s presidential campaign manager who served as his mayoral chief of staff during the Boykins matter."
"Buttigieg has said he does not know what is on the tapes, but Duerring told TYT, “They knew exactly what was on those tapes,” because legal documents detailing the tapes’ contents were sent to the city.
The woman who heard the tapes, Karen DePaepe, also shared details with local media at the time. Her tort claim against the city, in June 2012, said, “a ranking police officer of the South Bend Police Department, as well as others within the Police Department, were engaged in serious acts of misconduct.”
>I tried to pose to a friend once what if a similar situation
>happened but with a data breach instead of a recording.
You mislead that friend.
"It all began with an alarm from the SBPD’s Dynamics Instruments Reliant Recording System.
The system was supposed to back up digital audio recordings of SBPD phone lines automatically. When the system froze, DePaepe began checking the recordings. On February 4, 2011, noticing that the voice on one call didn’t match the officer assigned to that line, DePaepe listened to more calls, to determine whether the recording system had malfunctioned.
DePaepe didn’t realize it, but Captain Brian Young had gotten a new phone line from another officer who had just been promoted. And Young didn’t know that he had just inherited a phone line that was being automatically recorded. (In the Jan. 2012 Officer’s Report, DePaepe writes that a previous chief ordered numerous lines be recorded to capture calls alleging officer misconduct.)
Over the next several months, the recordings, according to the documents, tell a story involving some of the most powerful players in South Bend politics. But the trail started with a single ticket for a seat-belt violation: A ticket that Captain Young tried to fix."
>Like, imagine you're a newly hired director for some garden
>variety government agency. You've barely made it a year in
>your position when it comes to your attention that one of your
>employees has been under investigation by federal law
>enforcement for hacking into a classified hr database system
>bc he believed some of his fellow employees were racist and he
>was trying to find dirt on them. The deperment's inspector
>general and the fbi had been monitoring him since way before
>you even became this dude's boss, and you're being informed
>because if you or your division either accidentally or
>intentionally view, process, or do anything with this data
>he's been compiling you could be held criminally liable under
This is what your friend should see, instead of what you created.
>I'd be like *WTF* and dude could NOT stop doing what he's
>doing/leave the agency quickly enough. Whether his racism
>hunch was true or not, im not jeopardizing my or any of my
>employees freedom or livelihood bc this dude wants to be on
>some paranoid vigilante shit. There's a whole other mechanism
>to file racial discrimination complaints and he could have
>fucking did that. foh lol
Your WTF should be directed at Pete.
13356125, LOL @ linking a bunch of TYT anti-Pete tabloid junk after I said miss me|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-15-19 02:16 PM
I think what it is... is they don't produce news to inform. Just massive info turds for people who already hate the same people they hate or like the same people they like. Tbh I just dislike aggressive opinion journalism in general, regardless of format. So ya.
Anyway. I have no idea why they're so obsessed with him. Or what tectonic shift in US democracy yall think will be caused by the minute contextual details of "why" the illegall eavesdropping on those calls began. But there's not really anything new I could read about the case that could change my position. I think racism in any police force is a problem and should be dealt with accordingly. I also think the way those officers went about trying to expose racism in their police force was a problem to be dealt with accordingly. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.
What would yall have had a mayor do instead anyway? Knowingly violate a federal statute to settle a personnel issue? Join members of his police force in illegal activity being investigated by the FBI? Exacerbate unrest in the city that recently elected him based on the unsubstantiated claims of police personnel under federal investigation?? Smh come on
13356138, The whole SB police chief story is such a non-factor, speaks for itself.|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Nov-15-19 03:22 PM
>I think what it is... is they don't produce news to inform.
>Just massive info turds for people who already hate the same
>people they hate or like the same people they like. Tbh I just
>dislike aggressive opinion journalism in general, regardless
>of format. So ya.
You do know that you can click on the links they use in their stories and read from a different source.
Do you hate local news
Do you hate city officials confirmed redacted Officer Reports ?
Do you hate campaign finance reports ?
>Anyway. I have no idea why they're so obsessed with him. Or
>what tectonic shift in US democracy yall think will be caused
>by the minute contextual details of "why" the illegall
>eavesdropping on those calls began.
So misleading your friend with information that was wrong is just a "minute contextual detail" ?
But there's not really
>anything new I could read about the case that could change my
Oh see no evil, hear no evil, your mind is made up already.
I think racism in any police force is a problem and
>should be dealt with accordingly. I also think the way those
>officers went about trying to expose racism in their police
>force was a problem to be dealt with accordingly. These are
>not mutually exclusive ideas.
Wait you think racism is a problem even though you just said "The whole SB police chief story is such a non-factor" ?
>What would yall have had a mayor do instead anyway? Knowingly
>violate a federal statute to settle a personnel issue? Join
>members of his police force in illegal activity being
>investigated by the FBI? Exacerbate unrest in the city that
>recently elected him based on the unsubstantiated claims of
>police personnel under federal investigation?? Smh come on
A mayor could investigate the racist police or tell his donors not to help the racist police. It's possible to do that without "knowingly violating a federal statute. The mayor doesn't have to join illegal activity to investigate racist cops. A cover up for racist cops is not the only solution that will keep the city peaceful. Seriously doing more to fight racism is not a stretch or wtf moment.
13356347, you sound just like Trump... "FAKE NEWS!!!!"|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Mon Nov-18-19 02:17 PM
...you'd benefit from reading those reports..pretending everything you don't like is fake news isn't going to make you very informed.
13356383, LOL!nah.I just like my facts with as little commentary and spin possible|
Posted by kfine, Mon Nov-18-19 04:15 PM
And that's not really TYTs vibe. Its cool tho
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Nov-19-19 08:43 AM
13356132, When do you think he'll flame out?|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-15-19 03:10 PM
I don't like or get that he has become a serious candidate, but he seems to be at least at this point.
I'm eagerly waiting to see how he handles being in folks scopes now. Should be fun.
13355991, Been awhile since a legitimate scandal - Deval Patrick|
Posted by Walleye, Thu Nov-14-19 05:39 PM
Patrick's brother-in-law was convicted in 1993 of raping his wife. In 2014, Patrick used his authority as governor to fire two state employees who insisted that he go on the sex offender registry. He did it again in 2017 and was convicted in 2019.
That's absolutely disqualifying, from pretty much any political office.
Deval Patrick’s brother-in-law found guilty in kidnapping, rape case
Marie Szaniszlo 6/13/2019
A Norfolk Superior Court jury on Thursday convicted former Gov. Deval Patrick’s brother-in-law of rape, stalking, kidnapping, witness intimidation and other offenses, Norfolk District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey said.
The jury deliberated for just under one day before finding Bernard Sigh, 67, of Milton guilty in connection with a Dec. 9, 2017, assault on his estranged wife during an hours-long episode at her Milton apartment.
“Despite the added pressure surrounding this case, among other barriers, this victim demonstrated great courage and resolve in pushing through to today’s resolution,” Morrissey said in a statement. “Not every sexual assault or domestic violence victim is positioned to endure the burdens our system places on them. This victim deserves our support and gratitude.”
Sigh’s attorney, Ethan Yankowitz, could not immediately be reached for comment.
After what prosecutors described as a “planned, prepared attack” on his wife, Sigh was arrested and initially released with GPS monitoring, but he was jailed in February 2018 after he violated a restraining order by emailing her.
Trial Judge Robert C. Cosgrove has set sentencing for June 24. Sigh faces up to 20 years in state prison for the rape conviction and a minimum mandatory sentence of one year for his conviction on stalking in violation of the restraining order.
The case threw a spotlight on Sigh’s criminal history — he was convicted in 1993 in California of raping his wife, Patrick’s sister — and his ties to the governor, who was accused of retaliating against state employees who later sought to have Sigh register as a sex offender.
The Dec. 9 attack was “very similar,” police said, to the circumstances surrounding his 1993 conviction, a longtime source of controversy that re-emerged in 2014, when Patrick fired the head of the Sex Offender Registry Board after she pushed to classify Sigh as a sex offender.
13355995, Pass on Deval Patrick|
Posted by Lurkmode, Thu Nov-14-19 06:21 PM
13356082, Damn that's awful. Worst skeleton in the closet we've heard. He done. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Fri Nov-15-19 11:48 AM
And I hope he wished he had sat this one out.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13356085, Right? Rare to see a genuine disqualifier these days|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Nov-15-19 11:54 AM
Part of that is Trump making it clear that just refusing to apologize or back down is a viable response to scandal. But while I'm perfectly happy to use pretty much any minor scandal or misstep as a blunt weapon on a candidate I don't like, it's increasingly uncommon for me to read about a scandal and genuinely think "I can't vote for a human who would do that."
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-15-19 11:56 AM
Posted by ThaTruth, Fri Nov-15-19 12:21 PM
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-15-19 03:08 PM
Grand opening...grand closing.
Did the Obama folks hyping this guy up do any kind of oppo research?
13356195, deval patrick defends intervening in brother in laws sex offender case.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-15-19 09:30 PM
man get this negro outta here.
NEW: Presidential candidate Deval Patrick says he acted appropriately as governor when he pushed out officials who wanted to put his brother-in-law on the sex offender registry. By @PostKranish
full article text:
Deval Patrick pushed out officials who wanted to put his brother-in-law on sex offender registry
Deval Patrick’s entry into the Democratic presidential contest has focused new attention on his 2014 decision as governor to push out two members of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board who had sought to put his brother-in-law on the registry due to a rape conviction.
The case has been in the news even before Patrick’s announcement because his brother-in-law earlier this year was convicted of raping Patrick’s sister for a second time. The first rape conviction occurred in 1993.
In explaining why he pushed out the two Sex Offender Registry officials, Patrick asserted at the time that the officials had acted inappropriately when they sought to overturn a hearing officer’s decision not to place his brother-in-law on the registry. He acknowledged inserting himself into the case instead of recusing himself.
“That hearing did involve my brother-in-law, that is true. We’ve never made a secret of that, but it’s still inappropriate, and that’s the reason why I asked for her resignation,” Patrick said, referring to his decision to oust the chairwoman of the registry board.
Patrick, in a statement Friday to The Washington Post, defended his action in the case of his brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh. Patrick said he acted as governor to hold a public official accountable.
“Bernie Sigh’s impact on my family has been complex and painful for all of us,” Patrick said. “I love my sister and her children, and believe their chance to heal is best if left out of the public eye. But because of issues raised in a lawsuit filed against me as Governor, her experience is now part of the public record and it is important that the facts are clear.”
Attorneys for Patrick’s sister and brother-in-law did not respond to request for comment.
The matter has its origins in 1993, when Bernard Sigh was convicted of raping Patrick’s sister, Rhonda Sigh, in California, while they were married. Sigh pleaded guilty to a state charge of spousal rape and served four months in a California prison and received five years of probation, according to news reports. The couple reconciled and moved to Massachusetts.
The rape conviction was not widely known in Massachusetts until it came up in the closing days of Patrick’s 2006 campaign for governor, when he won the first of two terms. Patrick said at the time that release of the information was an invasion of privacy and that even his sister’s children were unaware of the conviction. He blamed the Republican Party for pushing the story about his brother-in-law and sister, which he said “nearly destroyed their lives.”
A spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party declined to comment.
The following year, a hearing officer of the Sex Offenders Registry Board determined Sigh did not have to put his name on the registry.
Other officials at the board sought to overturn the hearing officer’s decision, but they were unsuccessful. That prompted the hearing officer, Attilio Paglia, to file a whistleblower suit against the board, alleging officials there had improperly tried to overturn his decision. The office of the Massachusetts attorney general in July 2014 settled Paglia’s suit, paying him $60,000.
Paglia, now the chief of staff to the Massachusetts Senate Republican leader, did not respond to a request for comment. His lawyer, John G. Swomley, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The settlement in the Paglia case prompted Patrick to voice his long-standing frustration with board officials. In September 2014, Patrick pushed out two of the officials who had sought to put his brother-in-law on the registry seven years earlier, including board chairwoman Saundra Edwards, who was appointed by Patrick. Edwards did not respond to a request for comment, and her lawyer, Thomas J. Flannagan, declined to comment.
Edwards said in a lawsuit that she was initially told in 2014 that Patrick wanted her resignation, and she provided it only after being assured she had done nothing wrong.
But shortly after she resigned, Patrick said he acted against Edwards because of what he called her “inappropriate, at least, maybe unlawful pressuring” to “change the outcome of a case. The hearing officer ultimately did not do that. It turns out that the case is the case that arose out of my brother-in-law’s experience.”
Edwards then sued Patrick and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging she was defamed and wrongfully fired in what her suit said was a “retaliatory” action. She filed a second defamation claim, saying Patrick had “falsely and maliciously misinformed the press that Edwards had inappropriately interfered with the independence of a quasi-judicial official.”
In her suit, Edwards said Bernard Sigh had sought to avoid registering on grounds that “spousal rape is not rape” in Massachusetts. The suit said the hearing officer in the Massachusetts case determined spousal rape in California is not equivalent “to the Massachusetts crime of rape” and was instead similar to simple indecent assault and battery.
Edwards disagreed. She and other officials at the registry sought to overturn the decision and have Sigh placed on the registry, but the effort was unsuccessful.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2017 dismissed Edwards’s case against Patrick. The court said that while Patrick might have harbored ill will toward Edwards for “nearly destroy the lives of some members of his family,” that does not constitute actual malice. Edwards’s complaint against the state is pending.
Patrick, in his statement to The Post, said Edwards’s “interference” had “threatened the integrity of the work of the agency and resulted in the Commonwealth having to pay a settlement to a hearing officer who was retaliated against. That demanded accountability.”
As Sigh and his wife prepared to end their marriage in 2017, the Boston Globe reported, they agreed to share their apartment, with each occupying it individually for certain periods of time. On Dec. 10, 2017, Sigh was hiding in a closet when his wife was in the home, and he grabbed her and raped her, according to the prosecution. Sigh’s attorney told the court the sex was consensual.
Sigh was convicted in June of raping his estranged wife and violating a restraining order that prohibited contact with her. He was sentenced to serve up to eight years in prison. Prosecutors had sought up to 15 years.
Sigh’s wife, Rhonda, told the court she wanted a longer sentence. “I am terrified at the thought of him being released,” she said, according to the Boston Herald. “I would have to leave everything. … I would always be looking over my shoulder.” Rhonda Sigh did not return a call seeking comment.
Bernard Sigh told the court he was “selfish and thoughtless” and asked for forgiveness, the Herald reported. Sigh’s public defender, Ethan Yankowitz, declined to comment. Sigh is serving his sentence in a Massachusetts prison. The couple’s divorce was finalized earlier this year.
Patrick, in initially deciding a year ago that he would not seek the presidency, said “knowing that the cruelty of our elections process would ultimately splash back on people whom Diane and I love, but who hadn’t signed up for the journey, was more than I could ask.” He did not cite a specific reason.
A Patrick aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation, said the case involving his brother-in-law was not the reason Patrick forewent an initial campaign announcement, but said Patrick had told aides to prepare to face questions about it and other family matters.
13356197, mind you...this is his *sister* being raped.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-15-19 10:04 PM
13356081, warren endorses public option as transition into medicare for all.|
Posted by Reeq, Fri Nov-15-19 11:48 AM
this was the right move and im glad she read the tea leaves.
public option itself was designed to be a transition to universal healthcare (like m4a).
if dems just holler the words 'public option' and 'choice' the entire campaign...and just present it as a trial offering you can test and compare to your private insurance (like a netflix membership lol but serious) then its unstoppable. theres really no holes in that approach and its appealing/digestible to the public.
i believe all of the top dems are endorsing public option except for bernie at this point. their pollsters/consultants are obviously earning their paycheck.
13356100, there would always be a transition|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-15-19 12:17 PM
she is definitely crafty. this has the potential to negate petes argument against m4a.
i honestly would like to see more details on the plans that pete, biden and anyone else is proposing. how much would people pay for coverage under their proposals? what would be covered?
next weeks debate should be interesting.
13356110, RE: there would always be a transition|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 12:44 PM
Yes, the original Medicare for All bill already has a public option transition in it https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129/text#toc-idD70BBE26B3BB4C33B4B2511E72BE03C1
13356119, Warren's plan would destroy the fight for single payer |
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 01:50 PM
13356121, Who the fuck is Carl Beijer and why should we listen to them|
Posted by MEAT, Fri Nov-15-19 02:05 PM
Your link does nothing that nobody in here isn’t doing.
13356130, you guys are going to get Pete or Biden nominated|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-15-19 03:06 PM
I'm not saying you should switch to Liz- by all means, like who you like.
But you guys spend more time and energy attacking the next best option than you do Biden and Pete combined.
On top of it, many of your attacks are tin-foil hat type stuff like this link. Her plan is designed to divide? LOL
She is trying to win the fucking nomination, then the election.
You simply cannot tell 'Murikkka that you are going to take away their health insurance.
What's funny, is that in one of our interactions you basically said that M4A might take years of fighting to get done- which is optimistic at best.
Yet, you dismiss a plan that could help more people (than current system) much sooner, and has more chance to pass.
These purity tests have to stop.
13356149, Do you reply with macros? It's always the same thing :)|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 04:11 PM
>On top of it, many of your attacks are tin-foil hat type stuff
>like this link. Her plan is designed to divide? LOL
One of the things that really irks me about the discussions on here is that no idea is discussed on its merits, it's always who is the messenger. An idea is an idea and I would gladly entertain an argument about some of the ideas laid out in Carl's piece. Sorry "credentialed Jacobin contributor and activist."
>She is trying to win the fucking nomination, then the
Even one of her fiercest defenders Ryan Grim conceded on Twitter that it is her pivoting to the center already which is something I may have warned about a time or two...
>Yet, you dismiss a plan that could help more people (than
>current system) much sooner, and has more chance to pass.
It might help if she could beat Trump (doubtful) and she would actually do it (doubtful) and it would pass without a movement behind it (doubtful). Again my biggest gripe is the co-opting of our movement that almost EVERY candidate has done before pivoting away. Hide behind Bernie and then slowly triangulate away. I respect people with true intentions even if I disagree, but it's the obfuscating which undermines and divides the movements that activists like Bernie have been fighting for for decades and just damages the end goal by muddying the waters.
13356187, Haha! Not a bad idea but I have yet to read/hear|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Nov-15-19 06:43 PM
A good reason to not point it out consistently.
Warren is taking arrows from billionaires, Dems,
the media, etc.
In most cases, it’s arrows Bernie would be taking
if he wasn’t just being ignored.
So, in addition to it not making sense that Bernie
supporters are piling on their next best choice,
it’s also a bad strategy.
If Warren drops out, Bernie is going to get a lot
more scrutiny than you guys want.
>>On top of it, many of your attacks are tin-foil hat type
>>like this link. Her plan is designed to divide? LOL
>One of the things that really irks me about the discussions on
>here is that no idea is discussed on its merits, it's always
>who is the messenger. An idea is an idea and I would gladly
>entertain an argument about some of the ideas laid out in
>Carl's piece. Sorry "credentialed Jacobin contributor and
I just did. I read his piece. It’s tin foil hat shit man.
I’m not that guy. I gave props to the last Jacobin link
That said, your reply here lacks some self awareness.
You guys are ready to declare Warren hillary 2.0 because
she is only say 90% similar to Bernie.
In other words, her main downside is that she simply
And there are plenty of bad/disappointing plans from
Biden and Pete.
Why no posts about those?
>>She is trying to win the fucking nomination, then the
>Even one of her fiercest defenders Ryan Grim conceded on
>Twitter that it is her pivoting to the center already which is
>something I may have warned about a time or two...
But you didn’t like her plan prior to this.
And as others have pointed out, her transition
plan isn’t terribly different than Bernie’s.
What could she do to earn your support?
Nothing. So at the end of the day, you’re just
piling on to other attacks,
And why are you more focused on Warren pivoting
to the “center” than Pete or Biden living there??
Again, why no posts about them?
>>Yet, you dismiss a plan that could help more people (than
>>current system) much sooner, and has more chance to pass.
>It might help if she could beat Trump (doubtful) and she would
>actually do it (doubtful) and it would pass without a movement
>behind it (doubtful).
If you want to say Bernie is more electable, okay.
I could see some arguments there.
But she’s still beating trump in heads to heads
There are definitely concerns with her demos.
But Bernie is less likely to get major legislation
passed - or at least just as likely.
By your own admission, M4A would take years
So her plan is to get partially there why we wait.
Not sure why that deserves more attacks than
Biden’s “universal access”
But, you guys are hyper focused on the next
Bernie holding rallies in Manchins back yard
isn’t going to work, hell it isn’t even going
And, why would your movement go away in
a Warren pres?
So sanders supporters are only going to fight
if he’s pres?
Which takes us back to...is it about wthe movement,
or is it about Bernie?
Are you guys going to take your ball and go home?
What about him? He wouldn’t help Warren?
Again my biggest gripe is the co-opting
>of our movement that almost EVERY candidate has done before
So it really is about Bernie then?
Cuz you didn’t like her M4A before either,
Are you saying it’s his turn?
Hide behind Bernie and then slowly triangulate
Uh Bernie is the one who has benefitted tremendously
from Warren taking the heat on M4A.
He hasn’t gotten this much scrutiny.
That’s the opposite of Warren hiding.
The media hasn’t taken Bernie seriously. It’s odd.
But you can’t deny there aren’t benefits from that.
I respect people with true intentions even if I
>disagree, but it's the obfuscating which undermines and
>divides the movements that activists like Bernie have been
>fighting for for decades and just damages the end goal by
>muddying the waters.
That waters aren’t muddy because of Warren.
They are muddy because people don’t want to be
kicked off their insurance.
They are muddy because achieving single payer is
very highly unlikely.
A fellow progressive presenting a different way to
get there doesn’t undermine shit.
It’s just a different way.
And, if she just went to fully co-signing Bernie’s plan,
y’all would accuse her of co-opting blah blah.
And, she is trying to win the nom.
Again, it is insanely disappointing to see guys like
you quiet as a church mouse when it comes to
Biden and Pete...but will vilify Warren for being
slightly to Bernie’s right.
You’re going to regret it if you guys help
bring Warren down and have to watch a lot of
her support flock to Pete or Biden.
Cuz there’s a reason folks prefer Warren to
Bernie. Making her a villain isn’t endearing
to anyone, PLUS chances are a lot of people
we’re looking for someone more pragmatic
You could be spending your time educating
people on the problems with Biden and Pete
to help ensure Dems don’t miss their chance.
But no, you guys are determined to take down
Warren, which you have to admit at least risks
propping up a guy like Pete.
How is that not undermining your movement??
13356189, RE: Haha! Not a bad idea but I have yet to read/hear|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 08:05 PM
>Warren is taking arrows from billionaires, Dems,
>the media, etc.
Warren has had it very easy with the media http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html I am very skeptical of all the billionaire talk as during the summer there were multiple articles about Wall Street warming up to Warren.
>If Warren drops out, Bernie is going to get a lot
>more scrutiny than you guys want.
Bring it on! When you don't flip flop, triangulate etc. it is easy to defend against anything.
>I just did. I read his piece. It’s tin foil hat shit man.
What part of it? Please cite a specific.
>You guys are ready to declare Warren hillary 2.0 because
>she is only say 90% similar to Bernie.
I'm not calling her Hillary, if this was a normal election and Bernie never existed then she would easily be better than the rest who have a shot but why have the copy when you can have the original. Here's a thought experiment, if Bernie never ran in 2016 what would Warren's platform be today? Would she have the support she does now?
And the point is she isn't 90% Bernie, I think she's maybe 50% at best. That's what is so upsetting, the media and her campaign have worked hard to make her indistinguishable from Bernie but just younger and a woman so why not vote for her and it has obviously worked. Where is her response on Bolivia, on Lula on the killing of Palestinian children this week? We don't expect these kind of things from Pete and Joe because they don't act like they are the same as Bernie but for someone supposedly 90% his doppelganger the absence of a stand on leftist issues is glaring.
>And there are plenty of bad/disappointing plans from
>Biden and Pete.
>Why no posts about those?
Biden is not trying to co-opt and is so glaringly bad that if people fall for him there's no hope anyways. Pete did try to co-opt a bit at the beginning but is now Biden Jr. At least he has the respect to call his plan something else and not constantly say on the debate stage "I'm with Bernie" and then become Pete Jr. :) Kamala tried to be super progressive at the beginning and her flip flopping killed her campaign. I'm curious about the response to Warren's about face, she seems to be getting a lot of pushback even from some of her devotees which I haven't seen before so this next week leading up to and including the debate will be very interesting.
>And as others have pointed out, her transition
>plan isn’t terribly different than Bernie’s.
Manufactured consent, they are the same, they are the same. They are not the same because WE DO NOT TRUST HER and have no reason to, she took none of the arrows that he's taken for decades on these issues and she gets to reap the spoils? How can we know she won't pivot even more, it's only Nov. of primary season for goodness sake. Why are we even discussing her and what she might or might not do when there is someone right there who no one doubts will fight from day one because that's who he's proven to be time and time again.
>But Bernie is less likely to get major legislation
>passed - or at least just as likely.
Nope. Movement politics.
>By your own admission, M4A would take years
I never said that, I said Bernie might not be successful, and he might not but two things are guaranteed. He will surround himself with people who actually want it and he will try.
>Bernie holding rallies in Manchins back yard
>isn’t going to work, hell it isn’t even going
Just because you've never seen it before doesn't mean it can't happen.
>And, why would your movement go away in
>a Warren pres?
>So sanders supporters are only going to fight
>if he’s pres?
>Which takes us back to...is it about wthe movement,
>or is it about Bernie?
>Are you guys going to take your ball and go home?
>What about him? He wouldn’t help Warren?
He would and so would the people but the same excitement wouldn't be there. I don't think anybody would deny that there is more excitement and passion behind Bernie than any other candidate. One of the reasons for that is because the activists are with him. The energy and excitement would dissipate after the convention with her as leader. I read a lot of Warren supporters and many of them just don't care about the policies, not all but a lot just want to see Trump out, things back to normal and head to brunch :)
>The media hasn’t taken Bernie seriously. It’s odd.
They are hoping he goes away and we're not going anywhere.
>And, if she just went to fully co-signing Bernie’s plan,
>y’all would accuse her of co-opting blah blah.
No, just stick with your convictions. Bernie put a drug plan out with Booker and Kamala today, I expect him to stick with it. M4A had 16 cosponsors, funnily enough most of them all ran for President and slowly but surely we're down to 1 person who truly wants the bill as written to happen.
>But no, you guys are determined to take down
>Warren, which you have to admit at least risks
>propping up a guy like Pete.
We dealt with bringing the truth out about Pete back in the spring and now it looks like we'll have to remind everyone about all that again.
13356158, do we care about the fight or getting the victory?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-15-19 04:49 PM
this reads as if bernies fight is one of communism. communism would be to disregard/tear down the current system and not try to use it for change. yet bernie is trying to get elected in the system so he can change it but his supporters are complaining about someone else trying to get elected in the system to bring about the same change in a more detailed way.
if you are going to use the system then do it in the way that has the highest chance of success to achieve your goals.
13356161, RE: do we care about the fight or getting the victory?|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 05:08 PM
I think you misread it. My argument is that victory is only possible and actually desired by the Bernie movement. I don't think it's a coincidence that the National Nurses Union just endorsed him.
13356154, can you help me understand the transition path in bernies plan?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-15-19 04:38 PM
my understanding is he would bring medicare eligibility age down to 55 in 2022, 45 in 2023, 35 in 2024 then complete the transition in 2025. under 18 will have medicare starting in 2022 as well.
my question is what his transition plan is for those over 18 and under 55/45/35 so they have an option for affordable care during the transition period.
also, private insurance would remain until 2025 under bernies plan right?
i have read some concerns about warrens plan and i wont say they are all without merit. i do think the plan is sensible. i do have some concerns but it is the most detailed plan i have read and it seems logical. she knows she wont be able to turn on a switch and have private insurance gone over night. she takes actions to improve and expand existing medicare within 100 days, in 2021. she really answers a lot of doubts i have about petes all who want it slogan. she actually lays out an option for people that are not happy with their current insurance that would be affordable until medicare is expanded to all. i see it as a way to insure that we do get rid of private insurance as people really would prefer the medicare option.
13356162, RE: can you help me understand the transition path in bernies plan?|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 05:16 PM
Here's a cut and paste:
This is an informative post for anybody who has questions about the 4-year transition, who think that the transition period isn't clearly defined, who may not have clearly or fully read the transition part of bill.
There are two forms of transition embedded into the Medicare for All Act of 2019 introduced by Bernie Sanders in April of this year:
1. Medicare Buy-In Program
This is the one usually discussed when we talk about Bernie's bill. Benefits under Medicare will be increased to match those offered under Medicare for All. This improved Medicare will be offered as a buy-in plan by lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare as follows:
Lower to 55 and for people under 19 in year 1
Lower to 45 in year 2
Lower to 35 in year 3
Cover everyone in year 4
This is clear and concise. The annual premiums for this will be decided based on the annual per capita costs of providing the services.
2. Medicare Public Option Plan
This is something I haven't seen anybody mention at all. Bernie’s bill also offers a complex (as is the case with ACA and anything related to it) public health plan (called Medicare Transition plan) as an option through the Exchanges (ACA markets, in plain words). In other words, improved Medicare will be offered as a public option to everybody through the Exchanges, as the public option enthusiasts and Pete want but with a clear 4-year end to it.
Absolutely anybody can enroll in this public option, including employers who wish to make it available to their employees.
There is plenty of text in regards to this (covering prescription drugs, premiums and assistance, tax credits, etc.) that is very specific. Premiums would be decided based on dependents, age, tobacco use, etc., but not location.
Based on the federal poverty line (about $12.5k for an individual and $25.7k for a family of four), the percent of income charged as premium shall be determined as follows:
Up to 100% of the federal poverty line: 2% of your income
150% and above: 4.08-5%
This second part (public option) of the transition which is essentially what many people say that they prefer is extremely important in convincing people to vote for Bernie and support Medicare for All. It's still a 4-year transition period.
And lastly, the premiums/taxes under these transition plans would be higher than what they would be under Medicare for All since Medicare for All will have a much larger risk pool and can therefore bring the prices further down.
I hope this information was helpful to many of you. DO NOT FORGET THE PUBLIC OPTION PART OF THE TRANSITION PLAN UNDER BERNIE’S BILL.
And here is a great argument for why a permanent public option is a bad idea.
The best argument for Medicare For All? You get more for less. It's your health, vision, and dental for less money than we currently spend on health insurance alone. That is truly the "Art of the Deal"! How much more? The Mercatus Center, which is a libertarian think tank at George Mason University, projects Medicare for All will cost $33 trillion over 10 years. That's $3.3 trillion a year. We already spend more than that. At current spending, we'd spend at least $34 trillion with our current system and likely much more than that. Why? Because healthcare is a giant price fixing scheme. Medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies gouge hospitals. Hospitals then gouge patients. Insurance companies then raise premiums on patients.
You'd think insurance companies have an incentive to prevent this. However, they don't. Why? Shareholder capitalism. Shareholders always want an increasing return quarter over quarter. That puts pressure on market (i.e. publicly traded) traded insurance companies to deliver.
Now, consider how health insurance companies make money. They essentially have four ways of doing this.
Cut costs, i.e. deny more claims, taking price gougers to the mat, get more people on high and higher deductible plans, become more efficient, etc.
Invest better,, i.e. own a better asset portfolio that yields a greater return on investment
Make more sales, i.e. sell more policies and get more people covered
Raise prices, i.e. increase premiums
Cutting costs is hard. Investing can be hard, too. Making more sales is also hard and we see this in a relatively constant rate of people who are uninsured (Its been about 30 million, or 10%, since the implementation of the ACA). But you know what isn't hard? Charging higher premiums. Think about how this works. As the insurance company's costs rise, so do an insurance company's profits! Imagine profits are fixed at roughly 5%. At $1,000 of revenue, your profit is $50. At $10,000, now you're making $500. At $100,000, now you're making $5,000. In other words, 5% of a big number is still a big number. So long as the insurance companies have a similar number of people insured year over year, this can only work in their favor.
Medicare for All will put a stop to this crap. How? Collective bargaining power. By banding everyone together under one system - WITHOUT PRIVATE INSURANCE AS AN ALTERNATIVE - everyone becomes invested in making our public insurance system the best it can possibly be. This is the dynamic that will keep the middle classes invested politically, too. They're the group most susceptible to the siren song of privatization...because everyone finds the concept of more for less alluring even if it's a lie. Hence, we have to keep them in and private insurance out. That's solidarity.
What does this mean for a public option? It means it's a bad idea. Medicare for All Who Want It will be a boondoggle. Why? Because underwriting. Underwriting, for those who don't know, is risk assessment. In the past, health insurance underwrote customers by having them document their health history and charging rates (or not offering coverage) accordingly (and by excluding pre-existing conditions, too). The ACA got rid of that in favor of community rating. In other words, everyone in an area is underwritten as a whole. How do you underwrite everyone as a whole in order to fuck poor people, minorities, and unhealthy people? You don't sell coverage in those areas. You only sell it in areas where people are relatively healthy. Hence, you force the unhealthy onto a public option.
Where does this leave a public option? As a cost sink. By putting all the bad risks (i.e. unhealthy people - and we use minority status, income, and other factors to make a guess at which areas have the most unhealthy people), on a public option - you drive up the costs of the public option while minimizing your own. Hence, you undermine the system and doom it to failure, repeal, and privatization. And then the whole cycle begins again.
This, brothers and sisters, is what we call anti-selection. Remember that word. That is what Medicare for All Who Want It encourages.
13356170, so the concern with warrens plan compared to bernies is?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-15-19 05:35 PM
they both offer a public option that improves the coverage and reduces the cost.
they both have private insurance during the transition.
13356175, RE: so the concern with warrens plan compared to bernies is?|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-15-19 05:52 PM
>they both offer a public option that improves the coverage
>and reduces the cost.
>they both have private insurance during the transition.
It is mainly the points brought up in reply #225 plus not trusting Warren's lack of history on the issue, negotiating away too much in advance, muddying the meaning of M4A and knowing that if private insurance isn't fought back with the 1st and only bill that the insurers will work six ways from Sunday to undermine it and its momentum.
13356139, not sure if the tweet has a link to her plan (cant see twitter)|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-15-19 03:41 PM
theres so much detail and thought put into it. it addresses so many things.
a small except on the option she proposes:
A True Medicare for All Option. There are many proposals that call themselves a Medicare for All “public option” – but most of them lack the financing to actually allow everyone in America to choose true Medicare for All coverage. As a result, these proposals create the illusion of choice, when in reality they offer tens of millions of Americans the decision between unaffordable private insurance and unaffordable public insurance. A choice between two bad options isn’t a choice at all.
My approach is different.
Because I have identified trillions in revenue to finance a fully functioning Medicare for All system – without raising taxes on the middle class by one penny – I can also fund a true Medicare for All option. The plan will be administered by Medicare and offered on ACA exchanges. Here are its key features:
Benefits. Unlike public option plans, the benefits of the true Medicare for All option will match those in the Medicare for All Act. This includes truly comprehensive coverage for primary and preventive services, pediatric care, emergency services and transportation, vision, dental, audio, long-term care, mental health and substance use, and physical therapy.
Immediate Free Coverage for Millions. This plan will immediately offer coverage at no cost to every kid under the age of 18 and anybody making at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for a family of four) – including individuals who would currently be on Medicaid, but live in states that refused to expand their programs.
Free, Identical Coverage for Medicaid Beneficiaries. States will be encouraged to begin paying a maintenance-of-effort to the Medicare for All option in exchange for moving their Medicaid populations into this plan and getting out of the business of administering health insurance. For states that elect to maintain their Medicaid programs, Medicaid premiums and cost sharing will be eliminated, and we will provide wraparound benefits for any Medicare for All option benefits not covered by a state’s program to ensure that these individuals have the same free coverage as Medicaid-eligible people in the Medicare for All option.
Eventual Free Coverage for Everyone. This plan will begin as high-quality public insurance that covers 90% of costs and allows people to utilize improved ACA subsidies to purchase coverage and reduce cost sharing. There will be no premiums for kids under 18 and people at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. For individuals above 200% FPL, premiums will gradually scale as a percentage of income and are capped at 5.0% of their income. Starting in year one, the plan will not have a deductible -- meaning everyone gets first dollar coverage, and cost sharing will be zero for people at or below 200% FPL. Cost sharing will scale modestly for individuals at or above that level, with caps on out-of-pocket costs. In subsequent years, premiums and cost sharing for all participants in this plan will gradually decrease to zero.
Reducing Drug Prices. The Medicare for All option will have the ability to negotiate for prescription drugs using the mechanisms I’ve previously outlined, helping to drive down costs for patients.
Automatic Enrollment. Anyone who is uninsured or eligible for free insurance on day one, excluding individuals who are over 50 and eligible for expanded coverage under existing Medicare, will be automatically enrolled in the Medicare for All option. Individuals who prefer other coverage can decline enrollment.
Employee Choice. Workers with employer coverage can opt into the Medicare for All option, at which point their employer will pay an appropriate fee to the government to maintain their responsibility for providing employee coverage. In addition, unions can negotiate to include a move to the Medicare for All option via collective bargaining during the transition period, with unionized employers paying a discounted contribution to the extent that they pass the savings on to workers in the form of increased wages, pensions, or other collectively-bargained benefits. This will support unions and ensure that the savings from Medicare for All are passed on to workers in full, not pocketed by the employer.
Provider Reimbursement and Cost Control. I have identified cost reforms that would save our health system trillions of dollars when implemented in a full Medicare for All system. The more limited leverage of a Medicare for All option plan will accordingly limit its ability to achieve these savings – but as more individuals join, this leverage will increase and costs will go down. Provider reimbursement for this plan will start above current Medicare rates for all providers, and be reduced every year as providers’ administrative and delivery costs decrease until they begin to approach the targets in my Medicare for All plan. The size of these adjustments will be governed by overall plan size and the progress of provider adjustment to new, lower rates.
13356152, The idea of going to M4A in 4 years was ludicrous, stupid and bad. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Fri Nov-15-19 04:23 PM
And its not that 149M people love their current private insurance, it's that close to 149M will find moving to a public source of insurance disruptive and inferior compared to their current insurance option. Actually it will only take a quater of that number to not like the change for it to get politician voted out of office over it.
The right idea has always been to give people a choice and if the public provided option is so superior to private insurance as you socialist think it is, then people would gladly move over on their own volition and private insurance will die a slow natural death.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13356324, Chart comparing Warren's transition plan with Pete & Biden's plans|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-18-19 01:33 PM
13356220, Obama: Average Americans aren't with all that CHANGE|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Sat Nov-16-19 11:44 AM
Former President Barack Obama urged Democrats to offer proposals for progress on health care and inequality Friday evening in rare remarks on the 2020 presidential campaign — but he cautioned that most voters aren’t the same as “left-leaning Twitter feeds” and “don’t want to see crazy stuff” from Democratic presidential candidates.
The former president encouraged Democrats to think practically about policies that will appeal to regular voters. “I think it is very important for all the candidates who are running at every level to pay some attention to where voters actually are and how they can actually think about their lives,” Obama said.
“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it,” Obama said. “They just don't want to see crazy stuff.”
Obama urged Democrats to not stick too closely to his work while in office, saying the Affordable Care Act was “a good starter home,” but “historically the way social programs get built in our country just like Social Security and Medicare, they start modestly and then you build.”
“I want proposals that are bolder with respect to reducing inequality and giving people more opportunity and allowing us to make more investments in our infrastructure and our education systems and others,” Obama continued, to applause from the group.
But he also offered a note of caution: “We also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds. Or the activist wing of our party,” Obama said.
13356240, fam these new p booty iowa numbers:|
Posted by Reeq, Sun Nov-17-19 09:37 AM
NEW CNN/Des Moines Register poll finds Pete Buttigieg holds a clear lead in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
Booker, Harris, Gabbard, Steyer & Yang at 3%. Bloomberg at 2%. All other candidates at 1% or less.
dude is starting to put up those early biden margins in the state. and he isnt getting the national attention that biden/warren/sanders get. he must be running one hell of a local campaign.
13356244, Reuters/Ipsos: Sanders 19%; Biden 19%; Warren 13%; Pete 6%|
Posted by Vex_id, Sun Nov-17-19 03:46 PM
13356264, Tulsi ... ?|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-18-19 10:20 AM
13356313, character limit on subject lines|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-18-19 12:55 PM
shes in 16/20 with .03%
just jokes, dont really know.
Posted by isaaaa, Mon Nov-18-19 01:09 PM
Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
13356333, doing way better than most thought she'd be doing at this stage|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-18-19 01:47 PM
Just hit 9% nationally in the latest YouGov poll - and is one of just 10 to qualify for this week's debate (of a field that originally had ~30 candidates).
Tulsi's doing her thing.
13356348, shes at 9% when you include *all parties*.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 02:17 PM
shes boosted by over 20% of trump voters.
when they poll democrats (aka the people who will vote in the primary)...she is under 3% like usual.
important details you should have included.
13356349, *massive smile emoji*|
Posted by Brew, Mon Nov-18-19 02:20 PM
13356358, Maybe you’re unaware of how an open primary works |
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-18-19 02:59 PM
But I’ll let you cook.
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 03:36 PM
a national open democratic primary where repubs/indies are equally represented to the point tulsi boosts her standing by 300+%.
13356380, VS closed Primary where only D's can vote?? FOH|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Mon Nov-18-19 04:03 PM
13356391, silly of democrats to pick the leader of the democratic party.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 04:57 PM
do you pay attention to politics?
question: how many repubs/indies do you think vote in open dem primaries?
answer: just enough to possibly ratfuck the progressive in the race and hand the election over to the most conservative democrat in the race.
lipinski is more conservative than joe manchin. yet he won a true blue district that clinton won by 15 pts in true blue illinois over a heavily-funded progressive challenger because repubs and right leaning indies voted for the democrat that was most like them.
there were 2 other high profile races with that same outcome.
the bad political instincts of the current ‘progressive’ movement in this country want to roll that same plan out nationwide lol. ‘hey lets stack the deck against ourselves because it sounds like we are sticking it to the establishment!’.
you think having open primaries is gonna flood the system with a wave of progressive college students and activists who propel a bernie-backed candidate to victory. in reality...it just allows old white republican retirees (the people who actually turn out to vote in primaries) to pick the democrat most likely to cut their taxes and maintain their socially regressive worldview.
if ’progressives’ wanna spend the rest of their life shooting themselves in the foot and making concession speeches to blue dog democrats even in liberal districts then have at it.
13356395, You mean DNC officials and super delegates - but that’s ok. |
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-18-19 05:16 PM
Keep caping for the Establishment. Hope that works out for you.
13356398, the same superdelegates bernie wanted to overturn an election|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 05:36 PM
and hand the nomination to him over the choice of the majority of primary voters?
that was a long cry from when bernie was telling superdelegates that they must go along with the popular vote and not 'thwart the will of the people' (back in the beginning of the year when he still thought he could win lol).
isnt it weird that bernie allegedly hated superdelegates (even tho he is one lol) but somehow transformed into the only dem primary candidate in modern history who *shamelessly* pushed for superdelegates to be completely anti-democratic and pick a nominee the majority of the party didnt want for the 1st time ever?
the narrative gets a lil awkward when you look at the actual facts and the supposed principles/rhetoric dont match up right? i hate when that happens.
its almost like a politician takes stances...even blatantly hypocritical ones...according to what would benefit them politically. weird.
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 01:40 AM
13356432, So u think independents shouldn't have a say in elections?|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Tue Nov-19-19 09:06 AM
...i can pretty much dismiss anything else you have to say about politics if that's your stance, and it looks like that's exactly your stance ...pathetic
13356566, youre really bad at this.|
Posted by Reeq, Tue Nov-19-19 09:21 PM
13356568, Vex and My SP's responses remind me of the hearings LOL|
Posted by Brew, Tue Nov-19-19 09:43 PM
13356570, lol perfect.|
Posted by Reeq, Tue Nov-19-19 09:56 PM
13356250, I don't believe this Pete shit|
Posted by Dr Claw, Sun Nov-17-19 08:54 PM
I really don't. But we'll see
13356252, its almost exclusively in ia and nh right now.|
Posted by Reeq, Sun Nov-17-19 10:10 PM
13356253, and you shouldn't.|
Posted by Vex_id, Sun Nov-17-19 10:47 PM
Iowa is the ideal state for Pete. While he's made some gains in NH - he hasn't and won't crack the top slot there. He'll lose NH. He'll lose SC - and will likely take a big hit when Super Tuesday comes around.
Pete ain't winning, period.
13356256, He doesn't need to "win" SC tho.As long as candidates get more than 15%|
Posted by kfine, Mon Nov-18-19 01:41 AM
in a state their delegates count and could increase as delegates for other candidates that failed to meet the threshold are redistributed:
Considering Buttigieg is one of the top fundraisers in SC, behind only Biden (who, tbf, demolishes everyone lol) and Sanders:
things aren't actually looking that bad for him to at least meet the threshold. NH too since it's an open primary and he polls well with independents, moderates, etc. And that's all he needs to remain competitive since its highly likely the primaries will result in a brokered convention anyway.
Maybe worth pointing out/reminding that a brokered convention is where Bernie seems most vulnerable too.. lol. Like more than any other front-runner.
Like, aside from representing the polar left minority of the dem electorate, the Bernieverse has probably been THE MOST aggressive in attacking, insulting, and undermining other candidates and their supporters over the course of the primary (eg. all the Warren attacks, Pete attacks, etc). Why would other candidates' delegates rush to switch to Bernie after such relentless animosity from his coalition??? Especially considering his platform is so far to the left of everyone else in the field which limits its compatibility/transferability to what other delegates' constituents would have voted for. Then ON TOP of that, the superdelegates cast the deciding votes in a brokered scenario and they're not fucking with the socialist shit at all lol (It's probably safe to take Obama's comments this past weekend as an average temperature read of the SDs.)
So umm, ya. Math and logic suggest Bernie's not necessarily in good shape to win the nom either lol. I guess we'll see tho.
>Iowa is the ideal state for Pete. While he's made some gains
>in NH - he hasn't and won't crack the top slot there. He'll
>lose NH. He'll lose SC - and will likely take a big hit when
>Super Tuesday comes around.
>Pete ain't winning, period.
13356334, For sure. He's a great story, but he won't succeed in the long run.|
Posted by Vex_id, Mon Nov-18-19 01:50 PM
>Maybe worth pointing out/reminding that a brokered convention
>is where Bernie seems most vulnerable too.. lol. Like more
>than any other front-runner.
I agree - but a brokered convention would not just be bad for Bernie - it'd be disastrous for the party. Most (erroneously) thought that the superdelegate problem was solved in 2016 - but that's incorrect. They come into play at the end and the superdelegates could very well decide the nominee in a brokered convention. This would be a horrible look and would greatly undermine the Dems ability to coalesce under a big tent to beat Trump in 2020.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
13356311, is biden trying to tank now?|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-18-19 12:53 PM
13356327, Could be either one of two things|
Posted by Numba_33, Mon Nov-18-19 01:35 PM
1) He's old and washed or 2) those big pharma dollar donations are speaking loud and clear.
Pretty wild to take this stance in the democratic primary in 2019. I could see this being a logical stance to take after winning the democratic nomination to try and snag Republican votes, but not before winning the Democratic nod.
Perhaps Biden knows something I don't know.
13356572, Maybe he thinks Cornpop and the rest of the jets|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-19-19 10:16 PM
Would have lived cleaner lives if not for the Mary
Jane and devil music??
This dude is legit running in the wrong primary.
13356338, How would US voters vote in a parliamentary system|
Posted by reaction, Mon Nov-18-19 01:57 PM
Interesting thread https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1196495465732284418
13356354, parliamentary system would be an absolute disaster in the u.s.|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 02:45 PM
just look at canada.
the electorate is damn near 65%-35% liberal-conservative yet conservatives are still a viable party (and won a plurality of seats in 2019) and still have the potential to form governments in a country where their politics are largely rejected by the majority of people.
because of vote splitting on the left (3 liberal parties).
you have some ridings (districts) where almost 65% of people vote for left leaning parties and conservatives still win that riding because liberal parties get a substantial share of the vote and end up splitting.
(cpc is the conservative party and the next three parties listed are all liberal).
thats the equivalent here of 65% of people in an urban district voting for democrats and them being represented in congress by a republican. or a district where the people overwhelming support climate change policies being represented by a climate denier (happens in places like ontario).
now imagine the same thing also happening in all of those american elections where the liberal majority isnt even that overwhelming.
it also greatly diminishes the chances of the 2nd and 3rd leading liberal parties getting representation. we saw this in the underperformance of the new democratic party in canadas last election compared to their original projections (they would be the equivalent of bernie progressives here).
theres a great deal of strategic voting that goes on in countries like canada (they have whole websites dedicated to it) that americans just arent smart/informed enough to pull off.
shit we cant even stop fucking up elections when 3rd party candidates only get like 2% of the vote lol.
a parliamentary system here would just ensure that a solidified homogenized conservative party maintains unbridled power over a fractured/split liberal coalition. its an idea that sounds good on paper like term limits...but in real life it would actually do the opposite of what people think it would do.
the 2 party system...under our current/historical conditions...actually saves us from being some minority-party run authoritarian state like saddam husseins iraq or something like that.
13356376, Right. Plus.. I view the 2 party thing in the US as more "cultural" than|
Posted by kfine, Mon Nov-18-19 03:43 PM
a system. Is it even codified by statute??? I only ever hear this parliamentary government = multi-party system thing from Americans, and its just not true lol. Or at least: there are plenty of examples of presidential republics (or, in the case of Israel, semi-presidential republics) with a multi-party system/culture... and parliamentary systems that converge around a 2 party majority (eg. as you mention, Canada) or even 1 party (eg. Assads Baath party in Syria). And besides, US Congress is empowered enough that a fair number of Congressional functions mimic that of a parliament anyway (eg. parallels between a non-confidence vote and impeachment). Probably the most notable distinction at first-glance is that a cabinet is more accountable to and often interwoven with the legislative branch in most parliamentary systems, whereas in the US cabinet posts are usually filled by external candidates and the Pres has more control.
Tbh it seems the barriers to a flourishing multi-party system/culture in the US are things like ballot access, state political dynamics, legitimacy in the media, voter apathy etc. not that multiple-parties don't exist (eg. Green party). And like you said, third party candidates occasionally get a notable (albeit small) proportion of votes in general elections anyway. I even posed the question here before of why Sanders/a democratic socialist would choose to partner with the Dems when the Greens have ubiquitous ballot access in the US and are much more aligned with his politics. lol. (I have my theory about why but I'm trying to be more civil in our little okp political discussions).
Either way, I find multi-party electoral politics over-rated personally lol. Not just due to some of the risks you excellently pointed out... but for the simple fact that in most countries focus tends to converge around 2-3 parties at most anyway.
Nigeria had an election earlier this year and I was (somewhat unwillingly) subjected to its round-the-clock coverage on foreign tv. It was so tedious watching them tab through <100 vote results for all these non-factor parties when everybody knew the real contest was between the PDP and the APC.
Americans aint bout that multi-party life lol.
>the 2 party system...under our current/historical
>conditions...actually saves us from being some minority-party
>run authoritarian state like saddam husseins iraq or something
13356386, and if americans have a problem with the power/influence|
Posted by Reeq, Mon Nov-18-19 04:22 PM
of the establishment and party bosses in this country...wait until they see how candidates/leaders are chosen in a parliamentary system.
good luck having your democratic presidential candidate pre-chosen by schumer/pelosi and the gang.
13356407, the hill: Biden 30%, Sanders 18%, Warren 15%, Unsure 10%, Pete 7%|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-18-19 06:48 PM
13356430, Which candidates will refuse to cooperate with fascism abroad?|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-19-19 08:55 AM
Here's Sanders denouncing the coup in Bolivia. So that's one.
Sanders has denounced coup, but Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg so far silent on Bolivia crisis
NOVEMBER 13, 2019 9:56PM (UTC)
In the nearly three days since Bolivia's elected President Evo Morales was deposed in a military coup, leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg have not said a word about the assault on democracy that U.S. President Donald Trump has enthusiastically endorsed.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) remains the only 2020 Democratic presidential contender to condemn Morales' ouster, which followed weeks of violent right-wing protests against the results of Bolivia's October presidential election.
"I am very concerned about what appears to be a coup in Bolivia, where the military, after weeks of political unrest, intervened to remove President Evo Morales," Sanders tweeted Monday. "The U.S. must call for an end to violence and support Bolivia's democratic institutions."
Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg did not respond to Common Dreams' request for comment on the current situation in Bolivia. This story will be updated if we hear back.
Targeted searches on Google News for "Warren + Bolivia"; "Biden + Bolivia"; and "Buttigieg + Bolivia" turned up no relevant results, while a search for "Sanders + Bolivia" returned numerous stories about the Vermont senator's comments on Monday.
"This is EXACTLY the time, when there is a blatant coup in Bolivia, that we need to hear from the presidential candidates," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of anti-war group CodePink, wrote in an email to Common Dreams. "Why is Bernie Sanders the only one who has spoken out, expressing his concern about the military pushing Evo Morales out? Don't the other candidates have a position about a destabilizing, right-wing takeover of a neighboring country? We need to hear from them."
The coup sparked swift condemnation from left-leaning political leaders around the world, including U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Morales' ouster left a political vacuum that was filled late Tuesday by right-wing Bolivian Sen. Jeanine Añez, who declared herself interim president despite lacking support from the constitutionally required number of lawmakers.
The New York Times reported that Bolivia's "military high command met with Ms. Añez for more than an hour at the government palace Tuesday night in what her aides described as a planning session to keep the peace."
In a tweet Tuesday night, Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, called out the silence of U.S. human rights organizations and foreign policy analysts in the wake of the Bolivia coup.
"Where are the people in U.S. foreign policy and human rights circles who claim to care about the rule of law?" asked Weisbrot. "Nobody denies that Evo was democratically elected in 2014, and his term doesn't end until January. How can the military have the right to tell him to resign?"
13356441, Bernie is truly the world candidate|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-19-19 09:53 AM
Just in the last week or so Lula has thanked and endorsed Bernie:
Evo has thanked him
Corbyn has retweeted his article on anti-semitism
Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa praised his Bolivia remarks
Even a Minister from India praised Bernie's policies
On Bernie's reddit there are constantly people from Europe, Canada, Asia etc. asking how to help and phonebanking and texting for the campaign.
The world realizes what a massive influence the US has on the globe with foreign policy and climate change etc. and also how the US people needlessly suffer from terrible health care etc. and they all see that Bernie is the obvious choice.
13356559, Mayor Pete getting good support in New Hampshire|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Tue Nov-19-19 08:16 PM
13356567, this is crazy.|
Posted by Reeq, Tue Nov-19-19 09:29 PM
its not just the rise.
its how much he is shooting up in such a short period of time.
all this without obsessive national news coverage and no real turning point viral breakout moment.
13356645, yeah the amount of rise in such a short time is odd|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Nov-20-19 11:59 AM
for what its worth it seems other polls arent showing the same results but theres not many of them in the same period
13356569, I'm struggling to figure out why|
Posted by Brew, Tue Nov-19-19 09:44 PM
13356571, Yeah that was quick|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-19-19 10:13 PM
Iowa makes sense. It was a slower climb and, at
least in my mind, Mayo Pete seemed like a natural
fit there- especially with Biden doing his Biden
Also it seemed like he was putting a lot of effort
But this is crazy. I wonder/hope it’s an outlier.
That said, I’m ready for this dude to take some
arrows tomorrow. I wonder how he’ll handle it.
13356643, Flavor of the month.|
Posted by stravinskian, Wed Nov-20-19 11:54 AM
In 2016, there were two separate points when Newt Gingrich had a massive lead. The second time was so late he guaranteed on camera that he'd be the nominee.
For a while at the end of the race it looked like Rick Santorum would be the GOP candidate.
It's just how clown-car races go.
I'm not saying Pete can't win (though I hope he doesn't), just that it isn't a surprise when some random person takes a lead.
13356783, Having spent a ton of time on the ground in NH |
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 01:39 AM
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that poll.
Pete has a good following and decent campaign infrastructure, but if you're a betting (wo)man - don't bet on Pete winning NH. Not going to happen.
13356785, Mayor Pete: habitual line stepper |
Posted by grey, Thu Nov-21-19 02:17 AM
PETE BUTTIGIEG TOUTED THREE MAJOR SUPPORTERS OF HIS DOUGLASS PLAN FOR BLACK AMERICA. THEY WERE ALARMED WHEN THEY SAW IT.
This shit kinda wreaks of okie doke, and I like the idea of the plan, smh. He can have all the Iowans and whoverans but if niggas ain’t fuckin with him he ain’t winnin. Perdt (c) my auntie
My favorite quote lol:
“Told that roughly half of the list of supporters were white voters, Cordero laughed. “Really?””
13356767, Trump polling well in Wisconsin (re: election and impeachment)|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Wed Nov-20-19 08:22 PM
Trump v Biden: 47 to 44
Trump v Sanders: 48 to 45
Trump v Warren: 48 to 43
Trump v Buttigieg: 47 to 39
40% say he should be impeached, compared to 44% in October.
13356813, no debate talk?|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 10:54 AM
i dont know if my perspective has changed but almost everyone seemed to do good last night.
warren and sanders didnt do anything to gain but werent bad.
pete...i think did good. he had a moment or two where he was called out but overall i would expect him to gain some support.
booker i think did the best.
kamalas willingness to directly call out people i think works well for her.
even yang and gabbard got an opportunity to talk about more issues.
i dont think gabbard calling out the democratic party is going to go well. if she had specified the DNC then it might have gone over better. the way she said it seemed like she was complaining about any and every democrat, officials, candidate and voters alike.
amy did well, still dont like her but she had her moments.
steyer....i guess brought up good points.
biden wasnt horrible (relative to his previous performances) except for a couple moments towards the end. claiming kamala isnt black or a senator or female or she endorsed him?
petes disingenuous attacks on M4A have turned me away from him as of late. last night he had moments that reminded me what interested me about him in the first place. i need to know what is covered in his proposed option and how much it would cost me. then i need him to focus on voter rights and adjustments to the system that would allow for real change.
13356930, what is tulsis agenda other than attacking democrats?|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-21-19 04:16 PM
in the last few weeks while kamala was releasing childcare plans, warren was releasing healthcare plans, pete was releasing racial inequality plans, etc...
tulsi was attacking hillary clinton, the dnc, and the media. thats it. that was what her campaign was focused on.
what plans does she actually have?
does she have any vision for the future not based on intra-party grievance?
i see even most bernie supporters are growing tired of her.
13356941, im not sure lol|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 04:49 PM
i know she said a couple things last night that got my attention but when i googled the transcript i couldnt find anything specific.
i know shes anti-intervention
13356944, it's this. this has always been her focus before the beefing started|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 04:58 PM
>i know shes anti-intervention
All she used to talk about is regime changes, foreign policy, etc. Which I don't think a lot of people disagree with, actually. But I know for me I used to always be like ok but what else tho.
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 05:01 PM
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-21-19 10:03 PM
>All she used to talk about is regime changes, foreign policy,
>etc. Which I don't think a lot of people disagree with,
>actually. But I know for me I used to always be like ok but
>what else tho.
A friend of mine posts about her on facebook all the time, a vehement supporter. And this is *all* he posts about, the non-meddling/non-intervention position.
Which, as you said, most people probably agree with. And it's noble.
But you nailed it - what else tho ! Tell me more. Haha.
13356950, you can't get enough of Tulsi|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 05:42 PM
She dominates your post-count here inexplicably - yet the more you and other establishment stalwarts try to drag on her - the more popular she seems to become. So do keep at it.
13356935, and i have no idea who pete buttigieg even is right now.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Nov-21-19 04:27 PM
i sometimes get on folks who criticize dems for changing their past positions (like gay marriage)...because most of those changes are usually just a result of aligning with the current platform of a diverse constantly evolving party. its technically pandering...but mostly just adapting to the fluid requests of your base.
but p booty just seems more and more driven by complete political expediency and has done complete 180s in the same campaign without much explanation. even his personality/demeanor...especially towards other candidates...has flip flopped a few times.
dude seemed like a genuinely good guy who had noble intentions regardless of where he stood on any issue. now he comes off as an opportunistic white dude just willing to say/do whatever he has to for the next vote.
13356942, he is the biggest nosedive candidate I've seen in a minute.|
Posted by Dr Claw, Thu Nov-21-19 04:51 PM
he and Julian Castro should swap places.
13356948, Tried checking out his platform? lol that might help. Also,180s on what?|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 05:12 PM
Do you mind giving examples? Curious, because I'm familiar with most of his proposals and haven't detected any significant posture changes on issues (or people).
Or are you just talking about the M4A thing?? Because his position on that isn't a flip flop lol.
I find that people who view his framing of M4A as a flip-flop never actually understood how Medicare worked to begin with and are reacting to the "buzzwords" ("M4A" vs "Public Option"), as opposed to what they would actually mean in practice.
For example, of the candidates running... the person whose plan actually qualifies as being called "Medicare for All" is Kamala Harris (i.e. she wants to sunset Medicaid, open Medicare eligibility up to all Americans, and private insurers can stay in business as long as they offer their plans through the Medicare system.. which is basically how current Medicare Part C works). But Kamala's problem is that because Bernie popularized the meaning of the term "Medicare" to be single-payer, she was selling her healthcare plan as "M4A" the single-payer buzzword, as opposed to the mixed payer system it is (and which her plan maintains).
>but p booty just seems more and more driven by complete
>political expediency and has done complete 180s in the same
>campaign without much explanation. even his
>personality/demeanor...especially towards other
>candidates...has flip flopped a few times.
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-21-19 10:08 PM
>i sometimes get on folks who criticize dems for changing
>their past positions (like gay marriage)...because most of
>those changes are usually just a result of aligning with the
>current platform of a diverse constantly evolving party. its
>technically pandering...but mostly just adapting to the fluid
>requests of your base.
There's pandering, there's adapting to the desires and needs of your base, and there's also room for the possibility that these people, you know, grew as human beings. Like we all do. Just because they're politicians who pander doesn't mean that at least *some* of their positions and 180s aren't genuine.
>but p booty just seems more and more driven by complete
>political expediency and has done complete 180s in the same
>campaign without much explanation. even his
>personality/demeanor...especially towards other
>candidates...has flip flopped a few times.
>dude seemed like a genuinely good guy who had noble intentions
>regardless of where he stood on any issue. now he comes off
>as an opportunistic white dude just willing to say/do whatever
>he has to for the next vote.
Agreed. Pete's entire campaign, the changes and the flip flops, seem entirely disingenuous. Whether due to personal shortcomings, or bad advice from aides, I'm not sure. But either way it's been glaring and jarring.
13356999, whaaaat fliiip flooops thoooo LOL. I keep asking. |
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 11:00 PM
At this point it just seems like folks are blindly repeating twitter chatter, without any examples.
Like I'll give an example of a flip flop with a different candidate:
In an early town hall, Kamala stated she favored abolishing private health insurance. She later walked that back after significant outcry, and her healthcare reform plan allows private insurers to continue as long as they adhere to Medicare requirements and offer through the system, kind of like Part C. This to me was a flip flop (although, not necessarily a bad one).
But Pete saying he thinks "Medicare for All" (using the term to mean "Universal Coverage" NOT "Single-payer", which is actually the only way the term makes any sense since actual Medicare is not even single payer) is the "right goal", or is the "true center position" on healthcare (i.e. as a halfway point between a fully market-based system and a fully nationalized system like NHS) etc and then proposing a public option - is not in any way a flip flop lol. Public options ARE a way to achieve universal coverage. And if anything, he did the field a favor by offering a simple explanation to help folks understand that "ALL" the Dem candidates are in consensus to EXPAND health insurance coverage and simply offering different ways of doing so, and that it is Republicans that are trying to RESTRICT health insurance coverage (eg. by trying to repeal PPACA).
But there must be OTHER areas where people feel he has flip flopped since I keep seeing people say "flip flops" plural lol. What have I missed??
>Agreed. Pete's entire campaign, the changes and the flip
>flops, seem entirely disingenuous. Whether due to personal
>shortcomings, or bad advice from aides, I'm not sure. But
>either way it's been glaring and jarring.
13357001, Haha yea this is all probly fair and I saw your post #303|
Posted by Brew, Thu Nov-21-19 11:35 PM
... after I sent my post. I went to respond to you but then got sidetracked and have been drinking lol; so I planned - and still plan - to revisit this tomorrow with you. Cause you're probably onto something - I may or may not be guilty of buying into the "m4a flip flip" narrative and pluralizing it. So I want to be better researched and more sober before I respond lol.
That said, I've been skeptical of Pete from day one because of the Darryl Boykins situation - my condemnation of which I stand by, but also may be skewing my opinion of him overall.
>At this point it just seems like folks are blindly repeating
>twitter chatter, without any examples.
>Like I'll give an example of a flip flop with a different
>In an early town hall, Kamala stated she favored abolishing
>private health insurance. She later walked that back after
>significant outcry, and her healthcare reform plan allows
>private insurers to continue as long as they adhere to
>Medicare requirements and offer through the system, kind of
>like Part C. This to me was a flip flop (although, not
>necessarily a bad one).
>But Pete saying he thinks "Medicare for All" (using the term
>to mean "Universal Coverage" NOT "Single-payer", which is
>actually the only way the term makes any sense since actual
>Medicare is not even single payer) is the "right goal", or is
>the "true center position" on healthcare (i.e. as a halfway
>point between a fully market-based system and a fully
>nationalized system like NHS) etc and then proposing a public
>option - is not in any way a flip flop lol. Public options ARE
>a way to achieve universal coverage. And if anything, he did
>the field a favor by offering a simple explanation to help
>folks understand that "ALL" the Dem candidates are in
>consensus to EXPAND health insurance coverage and simply
>offering different ways of doing so, and that it is
>Republicans that are trying to RESTRICT health insurance
>coverage (eg. by trying to repeal PPACA).
>But there must be OTHER areas where people feel he has flip
>flopped since I keep seeing people say "flip flops" plural
>lol. What have I missed??
>>Agreed. Pete's entire campaign, the changes and the flip
>>flops, seem entirely disingenuous. Whether due to personal
>>shortcomings, or bad advice from aides, I'm not sure. But
>>either way it's been glaring and jarring.
13357002, Lol! Fair enough. Although I thought about it some more after asking|
Posted by kfine, Fri Nov-22-19 12:16 AM
again and realized.. maybe they're talking about Pete putting pressure on Warren to cost it during the debates??? I guess I could see how folks could misconstrue that as him extolling the virtues of M4A on one hand and then attacking it on the other... and thus a flip flop???
I still wouldn't call it that tho... more like politics 101, lol.
I mean he is trying to win the nomination *shrug* Plus Biden focused his attacks on M4A costs and pay-fors too.
Besides, they're the top-polling candidates campaigning on a public option, it's exactly what they should have done! Especially since M4A's colossal pricetag and how it could be paid for are it's biggest weaknesses lol.
Anywho. Yes please do wait until sober before posting on okp, always a good idea haha
>... after I sent my post. I went to respond to you but then
>got sidetracked and have been drinking lol; so I planned - and
>still plan - to revisit this tomorrow with you. Cause you're
>probably onto something - I may or may not be guilty of buying
>into the "m4a flip flip" narrative and pluralizing it. So I
>want to be better researched and more sober before I respond
>That said, I've been skeptical of Pete from day one because of
>the Darryl Boykins situation - my condemnation of which I
>stand by, but also may be skewing my opinion of him overall.
13356943, affordable housing|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 04:51 PM
i dont know that i liked many of the answers. we will build more houses....eventually.
we will give you a tax credit if your rent exceeds a certain % of your income. wouldnt that incentivize landlords to raise the rent or at least keep it high?
i dont know what the right answer is.
Posted by Dr Claw, Thu Nov-21-19 05:00 PM
the framing of the questions was just annoyingly so far to the right it made me almost turn it off.
that being said:
Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's wild suspect.
And I want to add, NOT on some "Russian agent" bullshit that the establishment is claiming. She's her own woman with her own agendas, and frankly they look more like a Ron Paul wet dream than otherwise.
When Kamala called her out, it was about getting REAP for being verbally slapped in an earlier debate. People ate it up, but all I'll say about Kamala here is... she had a point.
This whole assigning foreign responsibility for Tulsi's assholia is ridiculous. Again, she has her own agendas. And going on Fox IS a problem when you attack someone like Obama, because you KNOW those niggas only attack Obama in bad faith. there's no real analysis of his policy decisions. You're basically a tool for the Fox News agenda in that scenario. So if she's courting libertarians and other right-leaning people who might be cool with a more isolationist foreign policy.... why do it there? Go on Joe Rogan's show or some shit.
Cory Booker had the funniest comment to me, talking about Biden "smoking something". I think he should be more popular than he is, if your thing is "good liberal guy who doesn't want to fuck up capitalism like that". like Julian Castro, his record as mayor is spotted, but better optics than Pete (I'll get to him later)
Biden? A mess. He only survives due to the Obama association and the perception that only he can go toe-to-toe with Trump.
Butti Dogg? Dogg... this guy is the biggest bust in I don't know how long. Like Beto flamed out, but Pete? Got damn. his South Bend history is coming back to haunt him. Black folks aren't fuckin' with him and it ain't because he's gay. It's because to raise his profile, and for his political survival, he threw Black folks to the curb. And when you ain't a Black Democrat, you can't get away with all of that.
They tried to make him "Gay Obama" and now he looks like John Edwards 2.0 with the flippin and the floppin'.
Pete gotta go.
The smart money is on Warren and Sanders. And IMO, Warren is more establishment friendly. Her foreign policy ideas (if she has any) are a total mess. She carefully positions herself so as to have an out with certain crowds. I really don't know why the big donors are so afraid of her. You're gonna get better out of her than you will Biden or Butti Dogg.
Sanders? His profile has risen IMO. Corporate media is Cuban B-ing him. I was lukewarm on him when the campaigns started, now I think he stands the best chance of "pulling an Obama" (namely, getting people who DON'T vote, to vote). I think this is why he's getting the "Cuban B".
Democrats need more than their base to beat Trump. They also need to go at it more structurally. That means, attacking the GOP-run states to keep the voting cheats away. Instead of trying to court NeverTrumpers, court the working poor and other people who generally don't give a fuck. Kill 'em with common sense. This is what Sanders (and to a lesser degree Warren) is doing. Everyone else on that "let's get the people furthest to the right we can" bullshit.
13356947, the are you high line was outright funny|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 05:07 PM
he didnt try to over do it like castro did with the "did you just forget??" thing
i really like warren. she has the most fleshed out policy proposals that are actually reasonable. she attacks issues with the big picture in mind.
she has to do something else to highlight that. she might have been stuck with M4A. as if thats the only thing shes running on. i trust her more than any of the others to put in some policies that will actually improve things.
hopefully more people can start seeing that. im worried warren and bernie might be at their max appeal. we wont know until more people drop out.
13356949, lol it was hilarious. and this is how I feel about Warren too.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 05:23 PM
>i really like warren. she has the most fleshed out policy
>proposals that are actually reasonable. she attacks issues
>with the big picture in mind.
I do think others have a fleshed out platform though. Especially Buttigieg. But people are super eager to look for reasons to write him off so I'm only mentioning it because not only is it true, but to me they have the most compatible platforms and coalitions... which could be important later on.
>she might have
>been stuck with M4A. as if thats the only thing shes running
Yes. And it's too bad bc I do think she actually believes in single-payer on its merits. But she's sort of inherited Bernie's mistakes in its rollout, and has paid for them dearly when she took on the responsibility of sorting some out (eg.a detailed costing out of the plan)
i trust her more than any of the others to put in some
>policies that will actually improve things.
Agree 100%. I think she would be a huge asset on the ticket whether as lead or Vice (for other Senate related reasons). Not everybody feels this way though.
13356951, many do have fleshed out platforms|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 05:42 PM
if they were asked to show how they would pay for their policies would they be able to? would pete bring a public option without raising the cost of middle income americans?
besides bernie warren seems to be the only one being asked to show her work on her proposals...in democratic debates. bernie isnt even asked anymore.
i know amy says thats her thing. she is only proposing things she know she can do and will pay for. i dont remember looking at her website before. i kind of dont want to lol im going to force myself to do so.
i think warren was onto something with trying to frame her proposals as what americans want. she is looking at the problems people actually have and offering actual solutions to them. she needs to highlight that and not let them frame her as some radical.
i might chill out on following this for the rest of the year. i think i might need a breather lol
13356960, I hear ya.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 06:04 PM
>if they were asked to show how they would pay for their
>policies would they be able to?
Lol probably not tbh lol. I don't know, I haven't worked my way throught everyone's platforms.
would pete bring a public
>option without raising the cost of middle income americans?
His proposal estimates a cost of just over 1.5T which would be paid for rolling back 45 admin tax cuts and extra revenue made available by his prescription drug pricing reforms.
To be honest... I think Bernie and Kamala might be the only ones proposing to pay for healthcare reforms with taxpayer dollars (although Kamala's proposing to only raise taxes on those earning more than $100K p.a.). Even Biden's plan is looking to increasing capital gains taxes to pay for his plan, not taxpayers.
>besides bernie warren seems to be the only one being asked to
>show her work on her proposals...in democratic debates. bernie
>isnt even asked anymore.
I actually find this to be a huge injustice. He gets all the love for these pie in the sky proposals, and Warren as the only other super-progressive gets saddled with having to show how the numbers add up. It's bullshit. And to top it off, half his supporters pile on her anyway even though she's the only one making an effort to turn his ideas into substantive policy. I feel for her tbh.
>i know amy says thats her thing. she is only proposing things
>she know she can do and will pay for. i dont remember looking
>at her website before. i kind of dont want to lol im going to
>force myself to do so.
Lol please do!! Then I'll have more people to talk to on here about actual differences in policy between these people instead of twitternomics and personal biases.
>i think warren was onto something with trying to frame her
>proposals as what americans want. she is looking at the
>problems people actually have and offering actual solutions to
>them. she needs to highlight that and not let them frame her
>as some radical.
>i might chill out on following this for the rest of the year.
>i think i might need a breather lol
LOL nooooooo :) JK. If it makes you feel any better tho, the resources you shared in that healthcare post were really, really, good. Especially the UI report. Unfortunately, it's super wonky.. but it's also the most thorough comparison of all the different healthcare reform plans being suggested by the candidates out there, and Warren even used it as a basis to cost out her single-payer proposal. Good finds.
13356955, fantastic post...nailed it|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-21-19 05:49 PM
>the framing of the questions was just annoyingly so far to
>the right it made me almost turn it off.
>that being said:
>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts
>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
I mean, yeah. She still won't call out Assad, correct?
>And I want to add, NOT on some "Russian agent" bullshit that
>the establishment is claiming. She's her own woman with her
>own agendas, and frankly they look more like a Ron Paul wet
>dream than otherwise.
>When Kamala called her out, it was about getting REAP for
>being verbally slapped in an earlier debate. People ate it up,
>but all I'll say about Kamala here is... she had a point.
>This whole assigning foreign responsibility for Tulsi's
>assholia is ridiculous. Again, she has her own agendas. And
>going on Fox IS a problem when you attack someone like Obama,
>because you KNOW those niggas only attack Obama in bad faith.
>there's no real analysis of his policy decisions. You're
>basically a tool for the Fox News agenda in that scenario. So
>if she's courting libertarians and other right-leaning people
>who might be cool with a more isolationist foreign policy....
>why do it there? Go on Joe Rogan's show or some shit.
I think Tulsi is building her brand. She isn't going to win the nom, and she isn't running for her seat.
I think she has her eye on a fucking Fox show all to herself or a 3rd party run if not this year, then in 4 years.
This is all brand-building. And very transparent too.
>Cory Booker had the funniest comment to me, talking about
>Biden "smoking something". I think he should be more popular
>than he is, if your thing is "good liberal guy who doesn't
>want to fuck up capitalism like that". like Julian Castro, his
>record as mayor is spotted, but better optics than Pete (I'll
>get to him later)
Cory must have a terrible team. There is no reason Pete should be doing *that much* better than Booker.
I checked his website and that shit is a mess. Borderline ugly.
I'm not sure who is on his team, but he needs new people.
As you said, if you want a young, more business-friendly basically moderate Dem why Pete over Cory?
Or why didn't the folks who begged Deval Patrick just not step to Cory to offer help?
>Biden? A mess. He only survives due to the Obama association
>and the perception that only he can go toe-to-toe with Trump.
At this point, I'm disgusted at how low the bar has been set for Biden in these things. If his dentures stay in and he manages to only forget one or two of his opponents, the heads call it a solid night.
Dude struggled to finish sentences, and forgot Kamala existed.
Fuck getting Deval Patrick or Bloomberg to run. The party should be begging for Biden to drop out for health reasons and endorse a moderate currently in the race, like Cory. If moderate is really the play they want to make.
>Butti Dogg? Dogg... this guy is the biggest bust in I don't
>know how long. Like Beto flamed out, but Pete? Got damn. his
>South Bend history is coming back to haunt him. Black folks
>aren't fuckin' with him and it ain't because he's gay. It's
>because to raise his profile, and for his political survival,
>he threw Black folks to the curb. And when you ain't a Black
>Democrat, you can't get away with all of that.
Its almost like he was created in a lab or a computer simulation. White dude + veteran + midwest + attempt at Obama-isms etc.
High hopes? High Hopes??!?
>They tried to make him "Gay Obama" and now he looks like John
>Edwards 2.0 with the flippin and the floppin'.
>Pete gotta go.
Oh shit, the John Edwards comparison is spot on.
>The smart money is on Warren and Sanders. And IMO, Warren is
>more establishment friendly. Her foreign policy ideas (if she
>has any) are a total mess. She carefully positions herself so
>as to have an out with certain crowds. I really don't know why
>the big donors are so afraid of her. You're gonna get better
>out of her than you will Biden or Butti Dogg.
I love Warren, but I think America is just too damn sexist man. She got 30X more heat than Bernie for M4A and its his fucking plan for the most part. She got heat from her rivals, the media, billionaires, everyone.
Then she dipped in the polls.
I'm shook by her struggles lately.
>Sanders? His profile has risen IMO. Corporate media is Cuban
>B-ing him. I was lukewarm on him when the campaigns started,
>now I think he stands the best chance of "pulling an Obama"
>(namely, getting people who DON'T vote, to vote). I think this
>is why he's getting the "Cuban B".
Maybe, but I think him getting ignored has probably been more of a benefit at this point.
Warren took arrows that would have had his name on it for over 6 weeks now. No one taking him seriously has been a net advantage for him at this point in my opinion.
I do agree that his campaign, at this point, is the closest to an 08 Obama of the lot which I didn't think I would say even a month ago.
I really don't think he'll win the nom though. I just don't think its possible.
>Democrats need more than their base to beat Trump. They also
>need to go at it more structurally. That means, attacking the
>GOP-run states to keep the voting cheats away. Instead of
>trying to court NeverTrumpers, court the working poor and
>other people who generally don't give a fuck. Kill 'em with
>common sense. This is what Sanders (and to a lesser degree
>Warren) is doing. Everyone else on that "let's get the people
>furthest to the right we can" bullshit.
I agree, but even those who do think we should go more moderate are doing it wrong IMO. Biden aint it. Pete isn't going to beat Trump. Deval Patrick held an event last night and literally no one showed up.
Not sure why the "establishment" or whatever just doesn't rally around Kamala or Cory.
13356969, It was really hard to take Tulsi seriously on the white nationalism question|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 06:30 PM
after she gave props to "Deplorables" in her closing remarks during the last debate, has been endorsed by David Duke, has/had a political relationship with Steve Bannon, and regularly goes on Fox to keke with Tucker Carlson and whoever.
She's maybe the only other person on that stage I could also see giving a "fine people/both sides" sound bite after an incident like Charlottesville, unfortunately.
Disagree with you strongly on Sanders and Buttigieg. But ya. All in all a meh debate. I kind of liked that there weren't any distracting viral scuffles tho.
>that being said:
>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts
>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
13356976, What's the "relationship" she had/has w/ Steve Bannon?|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 07:11 PM
13356977, Wasn't she being considered for a spot in their admin or something??|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 07:15 PM
Tbf, I've heard that it was him that reached out to her, not the other way around (Thank God lol). Still weird company tho.
13356979, Coasting on this implication sucks real bad|
Posted by Walleye, Thu Nov-21-19 07:25 PM
There are perfectly good reasons to dislike Tulsi Gabbard, but Steve Bannon waving his scabrous dick in her direction three years ago isn't one of them.
If Democratic candidates can't take some principled criticism from a colleague about the party's often indefensible failure to stand up against American imperialism, then they deserve to lose.
13356986, I don't conflate her appeal to them with her foreign policy stance tho.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 08:06 PM
Make no mistake, I find it a shady association completely independent of her anti-interventionist rhetoric. lol
And I don't even really have a problem with her foreign policy critiques. I've only ever thought that she should switch things up a bit lol
>There are perfectly good reasons to dislike Tulsi Gabbard,
>but Steve Bannon waving his scabrous dick in her direction
>three years ago isn't one of them.
>If Democratic candidates can't take some principled criticism
>from a colleague about the party's often indefensible failure
>to stand up against American imperialism, then they deserve to
13356987, That’s the thing: there is no association |
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 08:22 PM
>Make no mistake, I find it a shady association completely
>independent of her anti-interventionist rhetoric. lol
What association are you referring to?
This notion that somebody is “associated” with or has a “relationship” with any person who says a good thing about them is absurd. David Duke praised Omar for calling out Israel - but nobody in their right mind would say that she is “buddied up” with David Duke (like Kamala was desperately doing).
We gotta be grounded in reality and logical in our critiques - lest we be relegated to utter Hackery.
13356989, Alright well, endorsements from Bannon and David Duke may not be|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 08:49 PM
enough to make "you guys" uncomfortable but they're enough to make others uncomfortable. How about that??
I also think it's silly that the candidate folks pile on the most (by far) for struggling to diversify their coalition is Pete when a) he's hardly the only one (eg. how does Klobuchar do? Warren? Steyer? hell what's Tulsi's black support looking like??) and b) another primary candidate literally gets props from white supremacists (and entertains it!) and suddenly its out of line to thow her a side eye. Fuck that lol
I didn't even go in either!
>This notion that somebody is “associated” with or has a
>“relationship” with any person who says a good thing about
>them is absurd. David Duke praised Omar for calling out
>Israel - but nobody in their right mind would say that she is
>“buddied up” with David Duke (like Kamala was desperately
13356997, I’m just asking for minor fact checking |
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 10:40 PM
Bannon never endorsed her as you claim. He set up a meeting with her and Trump to hear her out on why she opposed regime-change in Syria. That’s a *good* thing. If a meeting is set up at the White House to convince America to stop its bullshit, we should celebrate that.
As for Duke - he did give some half-ass, half-baked endorsement, which Tulsi flatly rebuked and condemned immediately. Not sure what else you want from her there. Duke also has praised Omar and anyone who speaks out against Israel (because he’s an unabashed anti-Semite, and I don’t use that term often at all because it’s been abused - but he is clearly one). Let’s use some common sense though: do you really believe a progressive democratic woman of color and member of a religious minority is somehow this secret magnet of White nationalism?
You have to go investigate and look into the origin of these smear attacks - and you’ll find that it’s coming from neither a place of fact or good will.
Why was it that Tulsi was the darling of the DNC (praised by all party leaders) right until she called out the inequitable adjudication of the 2016 primary (when nobody else would say a word about it and bowed to the Clinton throne)? She relinquished her Vice Chair role with the DNC to endorse Sanders - then all of a sudden she becomes this enemy of the Clinton wing and they’ve worked tirelessly to smear her with this narrative. This ain’t hard to figure out my G.
13356991, Your plea for folks to be grounded in reality|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Nov-21-19 09:11 PM
>>Make no mistake, I find it a shady association completely
>>independent of her anti-interventionist rhetoric. lol
>What association are you referring to?
>This notion that somebody is “associated” with or has a
>“relationship” with any person who says a good thing about
>them is absurd. David Duke praised Omar for calling out
>Israel - but nobody in their right mind would say that she is
>“buddied up” with David Duke (like Kamala was desperately
>We gotta be grounded in reality and logical in our critiques -
>lest we be relegated to utter Hackery.
Is borderline asinine. It would mean a lot more if you
could have an honest back and forth about Tulsi without
ignoring points, glossing over issues, etc.
I’ll say this- you’re good at finding one thing in a
person’s critique and focusing on that- rather than
actually address the whole picture.
It’s not just duke. It’s bannon. Oh and the gop
twitter account. Oh and Assad. Oh and Fox News
to trash Obama. Oh and releasing a video to
help the GOP spike the ball on the mueller report. Oh
and “radical Islam”. Oh and not having anything
other than generic anti-interventionist aspirations
and attacking democrats. Oh and her iffy record
on refugees. Oh and praising Russia. Oh and staying in a race
she can’t win, ironically pulling small support from your guy.
Oh andstaging graveside photos.
There is a lot there. You cherry pick some, gloss
over some, ignore some, or blah blah blah
No need to do this dance with you but when I read
“Grounded in reality” I literally laughed out loud.
How old are you my man? You really gotta grow out
of putting strangers on pedestals. It’s getting concerning.
What would she have to do to lose your support?
Would a Fox News show do it?
Peeling support from Bernie late in the race?
Say...shoot someone on 5th ave?
13356982, The "end regime-change wars" language is striking|
Posted by Walleye, Thu Nov-21-19 07:41 PM
>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts
>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
To me the odd thing is that her wording is so hyper-specific, instead of just referring to imperialism as a behavior and war as an outcome of it. I'm aware, but only in the very general sense, that any phrase a presidential candidate repeats regularly has been focus-grouped within an inch of its life, so when she says "end regime change wars" it's very intentional and means something specific. But I'd love to hear her spend more time describing why she landed on that term specifically because every time I hear it, all I can think is that it sounds like it was crafted to:
a)make her sound like the anti-imperialist candidate
b)still provide some cover for some wars, some of the time
But I also can't square what sneakery that she could possibly think she's doing, so maybe it's just that her people believe that "end regime-change wars" is more palatable, and if I were in that focus group I'd be overruled when I said it sounded oddly fishy.
I don't know.
13356988, RE: The end regime-change wars” language is striking|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 08:30 PM
>>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground
>>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
>To me the odd thing is that her wording is so hyper-specific,
>instead of just referring to imperialism as a behavior and war
>as an outcome of it. I'm aware, but only in the very general
>sense, that any phrase a presidential candidate repeats
>regularly has been focus-grouped within an inch of its life,
>so when she says "end regime change wars" it's very
>intentional and means something specific. But I'd love to hear
>her spend more time describing why she landed on that term
>specifically because every time I hear it, all I can think is
>that it sounds like it was crafted to:
>a)make her sound like the anti-imperialist candidate
>b)still provide some cover for some wars, some of the time
It is hyper-specific and intentionally so. The reason she uses that language so precisely is because regime change interventionism is precisely what has been responsible for the most historic blunder in U.S. foreign policy history: the Iraq invasion - which led to the Libya debacle - which now threatens to repeat the same errors in Syria. Regime-change is the lineage of CIA meddling and manipulating in sovereign nations to try and influence outcomes in our favor - and it has always yielded disastrous results - be it our installment of the Shah in Iran, our abysmal history and disastrous results in Latin America - or our criminal intervention in the Middle East. Tulsi isn’t a pacifist - but she understands what so few seem to grasp in our body politic: that our military has been hijacked and used to destabilize entire regions for veiled interests that do not serve the people in America nor the people in the countries we engage in.
We have to fundamentally change our prescription of foreign policy and be judicious in our use of force. Tulsi understands this and is unapologetic about getting this critical message out.
13356952, MSBNC really tried to soft-serve up a moment for low-tier Kamala|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Nov-21-19 05:45 PM
and she still couldn't really bring it home - even with the fake crowd noise trying to syce her up. It reminded me of when the RNC establishment tried to boost Rubio in his spats with Trump, and he would say something and you'd hear RNC drones in the crowd like "yeaaah!!!" - yet he fell flat AF.
Pete looked angry and out of his depth. His stance on sending troops to Mexico is absurd and he didn't do a good job of trying to clean that up. Also, it's egregious that he isn't being called out more for his fabricating fake black donors and just being flat out dishonest in his attempts to raise his profile with black voters.
No matter how hard they try to make Amy Klobuchar a thing - it just ain't working.
Bernie continues to be the most rock-solid in these debates. His authenticity can't be tarnished and he has the most consistent, coherent and resonant messages on economic justice.
It's beyond clear that the DNC has marginalized Tulsi - and she isn't giving AF at the moment and just going full steam ahead with her outsider message - and GOOD - every election cycle needs a candidate who is willing to criticize leadership where necessary. It's never a good look to have all candidates sucking up to the National Committee to see who can be the purest partisan loyalist. For all the hate she gets - she's still here and one of 10 left standing.
Yang was criminally ignored by the hosts - and it was on purpose.
I didn't think Warren had the best night - she's lecturing a bit too much and not connecting. Her foreign policy is suspect AF.
Biden is an absolute joke.
Overall I thought it was one of the worst run debates of the season. Horrible lines of questioning by the hosts.
13356973, Ya I agree unfortunately. Warren's quite weak on foreign policy. Or at |
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 06:50 PM
least... she, Klobuchar, and Booker don't seem to like talking about it too much.
I could be wrong but. Intentions seem to be in the right place tho.
>Her foreign policy is
13356974, hrmm, i dont even know what it is|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 06:51 PM
13357231, see, I ain't even mention her|
Posted by Dr Claw, Mon Nov-25-19 01:31 PM
>No matter how hard they try to make Amy Klobuchar a thing - it
>just ain't working.
she's even worse than Pete at this point. people ain't fuckin with a boss so shitty she throws things at people... she better worry about winning at home when she's next up rather than trying to take off Trump
which is what I feel this is ALL about.
jabronis think this is gonna be EASY b/c it's Trump and he's a disaster.
that motherfucker got in after being caught on tape saying he would grab pussies. You are playing against a Ninja Gaiden boss here.
13356953, First time in my adult life, I've stopped watching the Dem debates.|
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Nov-21-19 05:45 PM
I've skipped a lot of GOP debates in my time, but never Dem debates until the latest couple in this cycle.
Nothing of any value is coming out of them. All we get is Democrats attacking other Democrats about make-believe policy proposals, and cringey attempts at zingers and other manufactured viral moments.
Then a week later, everything that happened is forgotten. Then three weeks after that, they have another debate.
13356956, i dont know what needs to be done|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 05:53 PM
should they just campaign until the elections? maybe have one last debate a month before the first votes?
there will be 7 more debates from now until april. i might join you with skipping the next one.
we still have 17 candidates at this point. maybe they shouldnt be forced to drop out but maybe we dont need to see 10 of them debating every month either.
13356954, I think it might have been Kamala's best debate so far. I rank her best.|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 05:49 PM
Sanders had a good showing in term of foreign policy. Tulsi started the race positioning herself as the anti-interventionist, but Sanders gave the performance she should have given if that's the case.
>biden wasnt horrible (relative to his previous performances)
>except for a couple moments towards the end.
Really? I found that he was making some good points but his blank outs are really, really, concerning. Saddening even. They're very uncomfortable to watch (for me anyway) when they happen, and make me question his cognitive health when they do. I really wish he didn't want this so bad.
>petes disingenuous attacks on M4A have turned me away from him
>as of late. last night he had moments that reminded me what
>interested me about him in the first place. i need to know
>what is covered in his proposed option and how much it would
>cost me. then i need him to focus on voter rights and
>adjustments to the system that would allow for real change.
Do you remember that UI report you posted with comparisons of different possible healthcare reforms? I think Buttigieg's plan most closely resembles Reform 6:
(For comparison sake, I think Klobuchar's mixed-payer plan maps closest to Reform 3, Biden's mixed-payer plan maps closest to Reform 5, Kamala's and Delaney's mixed payer plans map closest to Reform 7, and of course Bernie and Warren's map closest to Reform 8... although Warren's campaign exaggerated the amount of savings they believe her plan would cause, so they based their costing on a slightly lower amount)
And here are links to his fleshed out policy proposals for healthcare reforms with respect to Payers, Prescription Drugs, Mental Health and Addiction, and Rural. (I know it seems like I'm partial only to him but not true, I also like Warren, Yang, etc. Its more that I refuse to let yall be lazy about this shit. Lol. I want informed debates on here, if possible):
Individual and Group Insurance Reform/M4AWWI:
Prescription Drugs Reform:
Mental Healthcare and Addiction Services Reform:
Rural Healthcare Reform:
13356957, ill check these out later|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Nov-21-19 06:00 PM
its been a while since i read most of that UI report. from what i remember most of the reforms seemed to be severely lacking. they would be slight improvements on the ACA that wouldnt significantly improve the situation for the people that need the most help.
regarding biden...his bar really is so low lol. i forgot about his "obama picked me because of my support from black voters" argument.
13356959, I do think Kamala has enough time to become a contender again.|
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Nov-21-19 06:02 PM
It's not at all uncommon for a candidate to show early promise, then fizzle, and then come back as people realize that the rest of the field is even weaker. That's definitely how it went with John Kerry. I seem to remember it went that way for Mitt Romney, too, and Mike Dukakis.
(And yeah, those aren't very encouraging parallels.)
13356962, Lol! Ya I honestly don't know what to expect with this race anymore|
Posted by kfine, Thu Nov-21-19 06:08 PM
It's a really weird dynamic.
13357032, so according to petes healthcare memo i would pay more?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Nov-22-19 11:10 AM
if capped at 8.5% i would pay more for health coverage. not many details in the plan but thats the best information i could find for my situation.
if i am allowed to skip on my employer provided coverage and wanted to switch to the public option i would pay more than what im paying for my employer provided coverage. i think the cost is already a bit high for my current coverage (i skipped on it this year) and i dont get much for it. i dont see anything tangible in his plan on how much out of pocket costs would be reduced.
according to the kaiser study he references 53% of the uninsured are at 200% and above the poverty level. if their situation is anything like mine they would opt to skip coverage or i think be forced to pay for the public option.
is the public option actually any option? if you are offered insurance at work and cant afford it are you forced to pay the 8.5% of your income into the public option???
in one way thats better than a mandate because you get coverage but uh thats a lot of money. im understanding this wrong.....right??
at minimum i need to see a plan that eliminates out of pocket costs and keeps a premium. i would pay 8.5% of my income into a plan that had no copays or deductibles. is someone offering something close to that?
13357049, RE: so according to petes healthcare memo i would pay more?|
Posted by reaction, Fri Nov-22-19 12:17 PM
Under Bernie starting at $29,000 and up you pay a 4% income based premium with no co-pays, no deductibles and included dental, vision, hearing, mental health and long term care.
13357180, 4% for how long tho? There's a bunch of independent studies now|
Posted by kfine, Sun Nov-24-19 11:07 PM
with a majority of them (5 out of 7) converging on an estimated pricetag somewhere between $25T-$34T (and 4 of those 5 studies estimating $30T+).
Even if we take a lazy average of like ~3T/yr... that is still a spending increase which would ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT THE ENTIRE US FEDERAL BUDGET IS NOW lol: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55342
But in Bernie's M4A financing proposal that you link, EVEN IF all the provisions he lists get enacted into law, over 10y they don't even add up to $20T:
$3.9T (7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers) +
$3.5T (4 percent income-based premium paid by households) +
$4.2T (Savings from Health Tax Expenditures) +
$1.8T (More Progressive Income Tax (40% on income $250,000-$500,000; 45% on income $500,000-$2 million; 50% on income $2M-$10M; 52% on income >$10M) +
$1.3T (Wealth Tax on Top 0.1 percent, currently those worth >$21M *btw is this in addition to the 'tax on extreme wealth' listed on his website?? Because that formula states a threshold of $32M and est. revenue of $4.3T https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/) +
$0.247T (Mandate payroll and 3.8% Medicare taxes for S-Corporations) +
$0.767T (One-time tax on currently held offshore wealth (unspecified rate)) +
$0.117T (Fee on Large Financial Institutions) +
$0.112T (Outlaw LIFO corporate accounting)
= just under $16T
^Which is barely HALF the additional revenue most independent studies estimate the government needs to sustain a single-payer system for a 10y period, talk less of beyond.
Warren's attempt also comes up short (bless her heart for trying to save this idea tho):
$8.8T (Employer Medicare Contribution,*plus, if needed, supplemental EMC from large companies with high executive compensation and stock buyback rates) +
$1.4T (Americans' Freed Up Take-Home Pay No Longer Going To Premiums But Subject to Existing Taxes) +
$2.3T (30% Reduction in Tax Evasion/Fraud via Heightened IRS Enforcement) +
$0.9T (0.001% Financial Transaction tax on sales of bonds, stocks, or derivatives; Fee on Large Financial Institutions) +
$2.9T (Corporate Taxation Reforms (Minimum Rate Increase, Country-by-Country Minimum, Foreign Firm Tax)) +
$1T (Wealth Tax (Billionaire Tax @ 3% on wealth >$1B *taxed in addition to 3% Billionaire surcharge in the Ultra-Millionaire Tax that is allocated to other programs)) +
$2T (Capital Gains Tax Reform on 1%( Mark-to-Market scheme taxing capital gains income (excluding retirement accounts) as labor income and on an annual basis rather than time of sale/transfer)) +
$0.4T (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) +
$0.8T (Defense Cut)
^EVEN AFTER accounting for the concession her experts/advisors make in the report about how difficult it would be to estimate the extent utilization would increase (hint: it will probably be higher than anyone can fathom lol). And both Bernie and Warren seem to buy into an assumption that the government can just slash in half the pay of every doctor, surgeon, dentist, physical therapist, etc in the united states and not cause any labor market distortion, which is absurd.
So ya. 4% for how long??? Lol. Both M4A proposals come up short and the extra money would have to come from somewhere, no? I feel like Bernie's plan exposes taxpayers to a lot of risk. I've also questioned here before whether it makes sense to rely even partially on wealth taxes for a staple program, since their whole purpose is to shrink that tax base. (For example right on the website Bernie states his wealth tax is designed to reduce the the holdings of the top 0.1% (those worth >$32M) by 50% in 15 years. Ok... and their contribution to the healthcare system would be made up how??). Plus if Bernie and Warren want to rely on the private sector so much for M4A funding via corporate taxes, then it starts to beg the question why not just save everybody the headache and let mofos stay in business but REGULATE them better so that more of their capital is redistributed to help Americans?? And I feel like this is more where Pete's coming from.
I guess, for me, it's just difficult to see either M4A plans as better paths when the US population could achieve similarly universal coverage with a public option that's paid for, painlessly sustainable, and much faster/easier to implement. Lol
13357190, RE: 4% for how long tho? There's a bunch of independent studies now|
Posted by reaction, Mon Nov-25-19 10:01 AM
I'm not an expert by any means on this funding but I think the big thing you are missing is what is referred to as maintenance of effort funding which already exists and brings the needed NEW revenue way down. From this great article https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/10/30/how-to-approach-medicare-for-all-financing/ "The first thing you do is bring in existing spending on Federal Health Programs and State Health Programs, the latter through a maintenance of effort requirement. That gets you $1.761 trillion.
Then you can assume that Other Private ($0.308 trillion) remains the same, getting you to $2.069 trillion."
Sorry that I also linked Bernie's old financing document, the 2019 one is here https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file
You seem to like reading about this so I would also recommend this article https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/20/top-economist-robert-pollin-answers-key-questions-emerging-divide-between-sanders where he proposes a sales tax to fund Medicare for All which is interesting.
Now the problem with a public option is obvious and Rep Jayapal lays it out well here https://twitter.com/RepJayapal/status/1197702718967746565 I don't know what is going on behind the scenes which has her speaking the truth here but then also constantly defending Warren's public option but the facts remain the same
And never forget this about your boy Pete https://readsludge.com/2019/10/18/as-he-attacks-medicare-for-all-mayor-pete-gets-campaign-cash-from-health-care-executives/
13357280, Nah. I'm not missing anything lol. The math doesn't work out in Bernie's|
Posted by kfine, Mon Nov-25-19 06:42 PM
>I'm not an expert by any means on this funding but I think
>the big thing you are missing is what is referred to as
>maintenance of effort funding which already exists and brings
>the needed NEW revenue way down. From this great article
> "The first thing you do is bring in existing spending on
>Federal Health Programs and State Health Programs, the latter
>through a maintenance of effort requirement. That gets you
>Then you can assume that Other Private ($0.308 trillion)
>remains the same, getting you to $2.069 trillion."
>Sorry that I also linked Bernie's old financing document, the
>2019 one is here
favor and yall try to obfuscate that by playing down the ambiguity in your numbers and focusing almost exclusively on persuasion and information warfare. It's not that hard.
First of all, neither the financing proposal you linked before or the updated one you link here make any mention of State Maintenance of Effort. And, even if they did, it wouldnt close the gap in funding between $16T and $30T. Under current law State spending is like less than 10% of annual National Health Expenditure, or roughly 0.3T-0.4T (lazy math, but consistent with what Bruenig mentions in your link). So over 10y, State Maintenance of Effort helps Bernie raise "maybe" a few more trillion. Not enough.
Furthermore, the funding sources in Bernie's updated financing proposal you link are:
-7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting first $2 million in payroll;
-4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting first $29,000 for family of four;
-Eliminating health tax expenditures
-More Progressive Income Tax eg. marginal tax rate of up to 70 percent on those making above $10 million;
-Making the estate tax more progressive, including a 77 percent top rate on an inheritance above $1B;
-Closing Gingrich-Edwards Loophole/Mandate payroll and Medicare taxes for S-Corporations;
-Fee on large financial institutions;
-Repealing corporate accounting gimmicks eg.LIFO corporate accounting
so pretty much identical to the funding sources listed in his older financing plan (and in alignment with recommendations Bruenig makes in his article), except that he nixed the one-time offshore tax (slightly shady but ignoring bc has nothing to do with my point) and threw in an estate tax (LOL @ a 77% top rate ever passing into law btw). Given that his older financing plan could barely raise 16T and is very similar to the updated one, EVEN IF we incorporate State Maintenance of Effort (again, only a few trillion, and he doesn't even propose it anyway) that might get him to where Warren's proposal is at (~20T) but it's extremely unlikely he'd be able to raise $10T+ with an estate tax. So like, no.
You also didn't even bother with my questions about why/how long he can even guarantee a 4% rate on taxpayers given the weaknesses in his M4A financing, or how the wealth tax revenue even makes sense given he wants to shrink that tax base by half in 15 years. You were quick to slip in those Warren and Pete disses tho. Obfuscater! Lol
>Now the problem with a public option is obvious and Rep
>Jayapal lays it out well here
>don't know what is going on behind the scenes which has her
>speaking the truth here but then also constantly defending
>Warren's public option but the facts remain the same
Ya I've seen you try to push the anti-selection argument on here too, and it's just a weak argument imho. Less than 10% of the US population is uninsured, and their composition doesn't magically change depending on whether they gain coverage via single-payer plan or public option. The gov is paying for them either way. So whatever risk there is in covering them via public option exists for covering them under single-payer too.
Besides, the most impoverished working-class people, seniors, or children are likely already on Medicaid/CHIP with States covering the bulk of their care. The uninsured are mostly people disenfranchised by their States' failures to expand Medicaid, self-employed folks, hardest-to-reach indigent folks (eg. homeless), etc. And because this small segment of the population has been very well characterized, from a public health perspective this actually makes it a bit easier for policymakers to tailor an intervention (in this case, a public health insurance plan) specifically to them.
There's even clues in Pete's plan that tailoring the public option to the most vulnerable uninsured was his intent eg. the free/no-copay prescription drug benefit (which would be enormous therapeutic and financial relief for the most chronically sick polypharmacy folks, but more or less just an attractive marketing feature for healthy people buying-in). Imho, he budgeted for the worst-case scenario and structured his pay-fors around that (Which is smart policy design, and the complete opposite of Bernie's M4A approach).
>And never forget this about your boy Pete
See! Lol. And I'm not susceptible to your dissuasion tactics. Mostly because I choose to just read through a policy, or court doc, or (reputable) data analyses to shape my opinion on these people. Nice try tho.
But to your point: if Pete's so cozy with the healthcare industry lobby why did Partnership For America's Healthcare Future (the lobbyist coalition in the article Mista K links at the bottom of #345) put out this statement trashing his public option?:
"The fact is, a new government-controlled health insurance system – whether it’s called the public option, Medicare buy-in, or ‘Medicare for all who want it’ – would ultimately lead to a one-size-fits-all system that would cause Americans to pay more and wait longer for worse care,” said Lauren Crawford Shaver, the Partnership’s executive director. “These proposals are not ‘moderate’ alternatives to Medicare for all, as some would claim, and would put too much control over Americans’ health care in the hands of politicians. With about 90 percent of Americans covered today and the majority satisfied with their current health care, our nation’s leaders should instead focus on solutions that improve and build upon what’s working and fix what isn’t.”The Wall Street Journal reports that new government health insurance systems like the public option represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"
Besides, since he doesn't accept Corporate PAC money all those health industry donors are just folks that happen to work in the sector. Case in point: Bernie is only a few spots below Pete: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/20dems-are-taking-money-healthcare/. I mean sure there's execs... but also some laughably harmless people too lol come on. Like OH NO NOT A DIRECTOR FROM THE INDIANAPOLIS COALITION FOR PATIENT SAFETY.
13357322, You're forgetting the existing federal spending|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-26-19 10:31 AM
that nobody is proposing getting rid of and I quoted in my response "The first thing you do is bring in existing spending on Federal Health Programs and State Health Programs, the latter through a maintenance of effort requirement. That gets you $1.761 trillion. Then you can assume that Other Private ($0.308 trillion) remains the same, getting you to $2.069 trillion."
2 trillion times 10 years is 20 trillion, voila! This existing funding remaining is assumed in all the studies on this including Warren's: "From that $52 trillion figure, Warren’s team then fills in all the existing payments and taxes that the government already puts toward health care. Federal spending through Medicare taxes, as well as Medicare and Medicaid health spending financed by general taxes, comes to a little over $25 trillion over the ten-year period.
Then there’s another $6 trillion that reflects the state and local government share of spending for health programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and coverage for government employees. By using a “maintenance of effort” function that keeps those states paying the same amount for Medicare for All, that lowers the new revenues needed even further. Because overall health spending growth will reduce over time, states will end up spending less through this maintenance of effort provision than they would under current law.
After doing the math, Warren’s team projects that new government revenues necessary to finance Medicare for All would come to $20.5 trillion."
>You also didn't even bother with my questions about why/how
>long he can even guarantee a 4% rate on taxpayers given the
>weaknesses in his M4A financing
That's just your presumptions, don't forget all the cost savings in M4A through reduced admin, economies of scale, buying power etc. You are also presuming that utilization rates will go way up and cost more etc. but that hasn't been the case in other countries (ie most of the entire planet) that have introduced some form of M4A or in America's past either https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-election-medicare-for-all/medicare-for-all-might-not-cause-surge-in-hospital-use-idUSKCN1UI2LI
>either way. So whatever risk there is in covering them via
>public option exists for covering them under single-payer too.
The most important part in Jayapal's statement was "game the system". The insurance industry is not stupid and they will do everything possible to keep their riches. For example with Warren's 3 year transition public option proposal nothing is stopping the insurance companies from financing great plans for 3 years and giving people everything they want so that people sour on the idea of M4A being better and then when we stop pursuing it they go back to the crap that they provide now making us have to start the process all over again. This is just one of a million possible scenarios.
>covering the bulk of their care. The uninsured are mostly
>people disenfranchised by their States' failures to expand
>Medicaid, self-employed folks, hardest-to-reach indigent folks
>(eg. homeless), etc.
Again you are forgetting about UNDER insured, a lot of people are covered but can't afford the copays and deductibles so they are essentially not covered.
>what isn’t.”The Wall Street Journal reports that new
>government health insurance systems like the public option
>represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"
The reason they are against even that is because they don't want to give an inch. The insurance industry fought the ACA too which helped enrich them. It is a barbaric system and in their perfect world it wouldn't change one iota. To counteract that level of evil you have to go at them full bore, no half measures, no middle ground. A moral society has to break the grip of people profiting off of other's sickeness, misery and death, it's beyond obvious.
>people too lol come on. Like OH NO NOT A DIRECTOR FROM THE
>INDIANAPOLIS COALITION FOR PATIENT SAFETY.
Don't be deliberately naive, Pete has 39 billionaire donors, https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-more-billionaire-donors-than-any-other-democratic-candidate-2019-11 Bernie has 0, every other candidate is just going to continue the status quo, if people are fine with that just admit it but change isn't coming from anyone else.
The bottom line is that all these arguments against M4A are ridiculous and anyone who isn't a lobbyist, or an insurance exec that gives weight to them is just on their side and helping stop progress. There is no other way around it, in the richest country in the world the only reason to not have M4A is to placate the insatiable greed of the oligarch class. As that Politico article stated their is unlimited money out there fighting against M4A and anyone who believes they are dong it because they are on our side and looking out for our interests is simply delusional.
13357419, No. You're conflating Federal Spending w/ NHE. They're not the same.|
Posted by kfine, Tue Nov-26-19 04:27 PM
I'll let actual health economists explain:
Anyway. My point is that "additional federal spending" estimates from all those indpendent studies are - shocker lol - IN ADDITION to current federal spending. When I said those independent analyses concluded M4A would essentially double the budget, that's what that means... $30T+ IN ADDITION to what the gov will already need to spend over a decade not only on healthcare but social security, defense, etc. Notice in the Warren plan appendix I linked from her website, her advisors/experts labelled the independent estimates as "ADDITIONAL Federal Spending Over 10 Years" in Table 2:
Tbh I'm not actually surprised that either Bernie or Warren sought to come up with their own federal spending estimates lol (and unsurprisingly, they're so much lower than 5 out of 7 of those independent analyses). Politically, they have every incentive to do so. But it's super unlikely that an increasing number of independent experts would converge on an estimate interval "that" tight (~30T +/- a few trillion) - with their analyses conducted using different cuts of data and methodologies and microsimulations and the whole nine - and the true dollar amount needed NOT be in that interval. So ya. I'm rolling with them.
>The most important part in Jayapal's statement was "game the
>system". The insurance industry is not stupid and they will
>do everything possible to keep their riches.
Yes, I agree. This is why industries must be properly regulated. Laws, regulations, enforcement, etc. These are things.
For example with
>Warren's 3 year transition public option proposal nothing is
>stopping the insurance companies from financing great plans
>for 3 years and giving people everything they want so that
>people sour on the idea of M4A being better
Um, this would be ideal behavior from the private sector actually. Lol. Quality up, prices down.
and then when we
>stop pursuing it they go back to the crap that they provide
>now making us have to start the process all over again. This
>is just one of a million possible scenarios.
OR the government (exec, congress, AND judiciary) could actually do its job keeping them in check and they won't. Why do you only focus on that 1 extremely laissez-faire scenario out of the "million possible"?
>Again you are forgetting about UNDER insured, a lot of people
>are covered but can't afford the copays and deductibles so
>they are essentially not covered.
You couldn't be more wrong. I know what it is like to have coverage but lack access. And, ironically, I've experienced it in a single-payer system. My position is influenced by comparing that experience what I've experienced in the US healthcare system. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your narrative, or that some of the single-payer problems I've seen are being predicted in some of these independent analyses.
For example, estimation of how utilization may change (due to factors on the supply side and demand side) by one of the groups that's examined M4A (RAND, whose experts estimate the gov will need $31T in additional revenue to implement M4A over 10 years):
Excerpt from their summary of what could happen with respect to provider burden, paycuts, etc:
Accounting for Supply Constraints for Services
"Although, on average, we assume payment levels would be the same as they are in the status quo in 2019, providers’ willingness and ability to provide health care services—including the additional care required by the newly insured and those benefiting from lower cost sharing—would most likely be limited. The extent and distribution of unmet care would depend on providers’ payer mix under current law and their responses to Medicare for All payment levels. For example, some providers may elect to not participate in a Medicare for All plan (and instead enter in private contracts with individuals, an arrangement permitted in some single-payer bills), providers may alter when they retire, and potential medical students and trainees could change their career choices. As a result, some patients might experience longer wait times for care or face unmet needs.
RAND’s Health Care Payment and Delivery Simulation Model (PADSIM) accounts for how providers’ supply of services might respond to changes in payment (White et al., 2016). In our analysis of the NYHA, which included similar assumptions to those described above regarding how payment would change under a single-payer plan, PADSIM estimated that the supply of physician and hospital services would adjust such that unmet demand would approximately equal 50 percent of the new demand. We apply this 50 percent factor to our utilization estimates for 2019 to account for supply constraints in the current analysis. In a sensitivity analysis, we considered how the results would change if this supply constraint were alleviated."
^^So again - even just looking at providers (eg.doctors, surgeons,dentists, therapists,etc) their modeling supports that with the paycuts outlined in M4A, the increase in utilization could distort medical labor participation so much that it would feel like HALF OF ALL PATIENTS IN THE US can't access a provider when they need it. Not unlike the under-insured people you claim M4A would help, just more of the population and healthcare access limited due to wait-times, long distances, packed scheduling, etc instead of cost. And this is just looking at the effect of dramatically changing provider burden and payment.. I've ranted on okp before about other characteristics of the US population that would likely ramp up demand.. namely how numerous, violent, overweight, chronically ill, and stressed Americans are compared to other countries' populations in addition to one of the country's largest demographics (Boomers) living longer in their old age with these issues.
>>The Wall Street Journal reports that new
>>government health insurance systems like the public option
>>represent “stepping stones to single payer.”"
>The reason they are against even that is because they don't
>want to give an inch. The insurance industry fought the ACA
>too which helped enrich them. It is a barbaric system and in
>their perfect world it wouldn't change one iota. To
>counteract that level of evil you have to go at them full
>bore, no half measures, no middle ground. A moral society has
>to break the grip of people profiting off of other's
>sickeness, misery and death, it's beyond obvious.
>Don't be deliberately naive, Pete has 39 billionaire donors,
>Bernie has 0, every other candidate is just going to continue
>the status quo, if people are fine with that just admit it but
>change isn't coming from anyone else.
>The bottom line is that all these arguments against M4A are
>ridiculous and anyone who isn't a lobbyist, or an insurance
>exec that gives weight to them is just on their side and
>helping stop progress. There is no other way around it, in
>the richest country in the world the only reason to not have
>M4A is to placate the insatiable greed of the oligarch class.
>As that Politico article stated their is unlimited money out
>there fighting against M4A and anyone who believes they are
>dong it because they are on our side and looking out for our
>interests is simply delusional.
Oh hush. If yall can't even handle some technical questions about glaring financial conflicts in your guy's policies, perhaps what you have is a religious movement not a political movement. And *STILL* your complete dismissal of my questions, which I'll ask for the last time: a)does Bernie's camp have a plan to guarantee/stabilize that 4% tax rate on everybody above $29k and b)given his intended use of the wealth tax to diminish the tax base it would apply to by 50%, what are other ways that revenue stream could be replaced?? Because 15y is not that far in the future. If you propose State Maintenance of Effort could replace/supplement Wealth tax revenue, I could see that (~$3T could replace ~$1T). But please do not continue this back and forth unless your response includes insight about those two specific issues. They are completely fair concerns and the only two things I want to understand better about Bernie's M4A plan right now. Thanks.
13357426, We're arguing from two disparate points|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-26-19 05:12 PM
I am looking at it in terms of right and wrong. I've shown the numbers are close as even the Mercatus Center said "we are projecting a $32 trillion increase in federal spending, above current projected government expenditures, from 2022 to 2031. In terms of overall health care spending in the United States over the same period, however, they are actually projecting a slight reduction. There is the rub. The federal government is going to spend a lot more money on health care, but the country is going to spend about the same. “Lower spending is driven by lower provider payment rates, drug savings, and administrative cost savings,” Yevgeniy Feyman at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute told me. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/30/17631240/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-32-trillion-cost-voxcare
They might not have a guarantee that 4% will be iron clad forever or that the wealth tax portion might be slightly insufficient in 2035 but to me the big picture is so much more important than the wonkery of it. If there is a will there is a way, we will figure those things out, do you get into the minutiae of military spending where every dime and nickel has to be accounted for before we start a war? I seriously doubt it.
It can be done and it will be done. If I die and come back in 200 years best believe America will have M4A if the planet is still habitable. It just comes down to the fact that it's the right thing to do at the end of the day and even if it costs a little more (which is debatable) it is worth it. I prefer to help someone in need while they are suffering and not stand over them crossing the t's and dotting the i's on some technocratic form before my empathy is allowed to kick in. For the Bernie movement whether we need M4A or not is no longer debatable.
13357441, There's only estimates of less spending if comparing NHE. Not Federal.|
Posted by kfine, Tue Nov-26-19 06:37 PM
Excerpt from your link about the Mercatus/Blahous study:
"Mercatus is projecting a $32 trillion increase in federal spending, above current projected government expenditures, from 2022 to 2031.
In terms of overall health care spending in the United States over the same period, however, they are actually projecting a slight reduction."
"Overall health care spending" = NHE, in this context. And has nothing to do with the necessary increase in Federal Spending. Basically, by killing the private insurance industry the gov would have to take over much of the stuff they used to pay for, among other things.
ANYWAY let's be done with that topic, there's links galore.
>They might not have a guarantee that 4% will be iron clad
>forever or that the wealth tax portion might be slightly
>insufficient in 2035 but to me the big picture is so much more
>important than the wonkery of it.
This is such irresponsible politics tho. Look. There's a reason humane politicians worry about hiking (current or future) taxes on the lower and middle class. There's a reason why reckless spending, just printing mad money, or whatever else the MMT folks keep advising aren't popular in other (not-failed) states. YES things like taxes and inflation matter, are you kidding me?
It may be too wonky for you but it's real life. Healthcare is important but so is feeding ones family. Do you know there's some places in the world where the average annual income is like a few hundred USD a year and a bag of rice costs like 1/3 of that? Places where people can't even afford to buy bread or milk bc of how expensive they are or how weak their currency is? Failed policies are a big deal and running a country is not the kind of thing you just "wing". America's size only makes it even more important that the folks in charge know wtf their doing. Look at how the subprime mortgage and banking crises caused a recession GLOBALLY.
And the thing is I'm not even against the OUTCOME of universal coverage. Just the method yall want to use to achieve it. There are several other proposals out there, yall need to get over it. And perhaps I could come around to your method, but even asking about suuuuper BASIC safeguards or post-implementation assurances is like OMG CIVIL WAR WITH THE OLIGARCHS GREEDY CLASS TRAITOR blah blah blah. I feel less and less confidence that yall are ready to govern.
If there is a will there is
>a way, we will figure those things out, do you get into the
>minutiae of military spending where every dime and nickel has
>to be accounted for before we start a war? I seriously doubt
Ok well, ambiguous numbers and no game plans don't exactly give me confidence in your guy's leadership or responsible stewardship of my taxpayer dollars. And just because Repubs have abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility doesn't mean Dems need to run the country that way.
It just comes down to the fact that it's the
>right thing to do at the end of the day and even if it costs a
>little more (which is debatable) it is worth it. I prefer to
>help someone in need while they are suffering and not stand
>over them crossing the t's and dotting the i's on some
>technocratic form before my empathy is allowed to kick in.
>For the Bernie movement whether we need M4A or not is no
Then do it right now! Hand over all your paychecks to enroll and pay the healthcare premiums of the first uninsured person you see from today onwards. Oh.. what's that? You need to pay your bills, buy groceries, support your family and pay for shelter? You want to donate a bit less but still help out any way you can? YOU ARE SO SELFISH FOR HAVING A BUDGET AND WHATNOT.
13357179, 8.5% of income is the CAP tho, so never "higher" but perhaps lower|
Posted by kfine, Sun Nov-24-19 10:42 PM
>if capped at 8.5% i would pay more for health coverage. not
>many details in the plan but thats the best information i
>could find for my situation.
Well, that's good then right? lol. If you have better/cheaper coverage through your employer, then I think the idea is that someone like you would stick with that. Yay for having decent healthcare coverage. Not everybody does tho. What was the percentage of your annual income that goes towards premiums, after you calculated it? Was it less than 5%? Bc then it would even be cheaper than the M4A transitional plans.
>if i am allowed to skip on my employer provided coverage and
>wanted to switch to the public option i would pay more than
>what im paying for my employer provided coverage. i think the
>cost is already a bit high for my current coverage (i skipped
>on it this year) and i dont get much for it. i dont see
>anything tangible in his plan on how much out of pocket costs
>would be reduced.
My read is he's prioritizing capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare. Which is fair tbh, if that's the most vulnerable population that his plan can afford to provide that for while remaining budget neutral. I think, currently, Medicare Part A and Part B don't actually cap out-of-pocket costs which is why so many beneficiaries seek out private plans through Medicare Part C/Advantage - for the MOOP.
He does propose outlawing out-of-network billing past a cap of 2x the Medicare rate tho, I think for all Americans. I'm a little foggy on other features of the public plan at the moment. But I believe it's supposed to mimic Gold coverage if compared to an ACA plan. People can also qualify for subsidies regardless of income level, generic prescription drugs will essentially be free/no co-pays too (with a cap of 250/mth on brand name drugs).
>according to the kaiser study he references 53% of the
>uninsured are at 200% and above the poverty level. if their
>situation is anything like mine they would opt to skip
>coverage or i think be forced to pay for the public option.
It's my understanding that folks at this income level would actually be auto-enrolled for premium-free coverage under the public plan, tho. Tbh I think this resembles the target population the plan is especially designed to capture.. lower income people who might have qualified for Medicaid had their State expanded it but don't have great employer coverage to fall back on. Plus others who find themselves in that access gap for various reasons too (eg. job loss, caregiving, etc). And for the hardest-to-reach people, who perhaps aren't even captured by the system (eg. homeless), if they turn up in an ER or walk-in clinic etc a seperate reimbursement fund is budgeted out to pay back providers/hospitals that treat such uninsured people without payment. There would also be a streamlined mechanism to retroactively enroll such people right then at the point-of-care so they are covered from that point onwards too.
>is the public option actually any option?
if you are offered
>insurance at work and cant afford it are you forced to pay the
>8.5% of your income into the public option???
Not to my knowledge.. Big Pharma's supposed to foot the bulk of the program via a range of taxes he plans to levy through his Prescription Drug Pricing reform plan.
>in one way thats better than a mandate because you get
>coverage but uh thats a lot of money. im understanding this
Lol is it though? It depends what one's current situation is. For example, the cases used in the white paper:
"Today, a family of three making $31,000 a year pays about $1,200 annually for “silver” coverage on the marketplace. Under Pete’s plan, they will pay a maximum of roughly $600 a year for higher quality (i.e. gold-level) coverage. This plan will also extend the subsidies to more middle-income people by capping premium payments at 8.5 percent of income for everyone. That means that the 60-year-old in Iowa making $50,000 and currently paying $12,000 annually in premiums will now pay no more than $4,250 annually for gold coverage."
>at minimum i need to see a plan that eliminates out of pocket
>costs and keeps a premium. i would pay 8.5% of my income into
>a plan that had no copays or deductibles. is someone offering
>something close to that?
Well I mean.. there are people "promising" that lol (Sanders @ 4% income no copays or deductibles; Warren @ 0% income unless you're a businessowner with >50 employees, a businessowner incorporated or operating outside of the US, or worth more than $50M).
Personally? I think you just have to figure out what is higher priority to you. In some of your responses, it seems like you prioritize expansion of benefits (wanting more for your money eg. everyone should have vision, dental, hearing, long-term care, home-care, etc). If that's so, then contemplate whether you believe it's sensible, feasible, or necessary to essentially double US gov spending per year to have those benefits. However in other responses, it seems like what matters to you most is net costs. And if that's so, then contemplate the merits of achieving the same moral objective of the single-player plans - universal health insurance coverage for the US population - but in a way that is federal budget neutral, gives you optional access if you ever need it, qualifies you for subsidies if you ever need them (regardless of income level), and slaps new restrictions on the private sector to limit what you can be billed for out-of-network care and prescription drugs.
Is it the most "EVERYTHINGS FREE FREE FREE!" promise out there? No. But its one of two highest polling public options, no one in America would ever lack healthcare access again, it's already paid for once a repeal of the 45 tax cuts and passage of prescription drug pricing reform (which has strong public support https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/) goes through. And no cumbersome transition over 4y, 10y, or whatever either. *shrug*
13357193, a few things|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-25-19 10:29 AM
my premium is currently around 5%.
is it good coverage? i would say no. thats why i skipped it this year. is it good compared to what other people are offered??? i have no idea, i really hope not. if my coverage is the "good" coverage that is available now then things are worse than i thought.
ive been lucky to not REALLY need to see a doctor this year. my calculation was that i would spend less paying out of my own pocked without insurance than if i got insurance and had to actually use it. it worked out this year but i know its a stupid gamble.
i think (would love some more details) petes plan would help 50% of the uninsured. the ones over 200% the poverty line i dont really see how it would help them. if i can see what benefits these people would get, how much they would pay then i could be sure one way or the other.
my fear with his public option is that people would be covered only by name. they wouldnt be able to afford to actually use their coverage. nothing i have read about the plan has taken that fear away. insurance and health care would still be too expensive for most people.
im trying to step back and think of what needs to change the most instead of going full single payer. or full single payer where everyone except the wealthy gets "free" health care.
i would say people below 200% percent of the poverty line should have free coverge, no premium, no deductible, no co-pays. i would even say a lot of help with prescriptions. this is any age. does the public option do this?
second, the MOOP needs to be reduced greatly for everyone else. people should not go bankrupt due to an illness. this could be based on income for anyone over 200% of the poverty line. anyone between 200% - 400% should pay a small premium and thats it. anyone over 400% can pay a premium and have a reasonable MOOP.
there also needs to be an adjustment to how the MOOP is applied. if you suffer an injury or illness in nov/dec and max out the MOOP it should not reset in january. at least not for care of the same injury/illness.
lastly, i do think everyone needs to have coverage available to them that meets the above regardless of what their employer offers.
from what i have read the public options lack in giving adequate coverage to people. the single payer options maybe go a bit too far in helping people who can afford to pay for their coverage. i think some tweaks to the single payer options would be the bet route.
its true that people fighting single payer have been successful in scaring people so far. i dont know if that can be fixed in this election cycle.
13357285, Cool. And yes you have been lucky lol|
Posted by kfine, Mon Nov-25-19 08:23 PM
>ive been lucky to not REALLY need to see a doctor this year.
>my calculation was that i would spend less paying out of my
>own pocked without insurance than if i got insurance and had
>to actually use it. it worked out this year but i know its a
>i think (would love some more details) petes plan would help
>50% of the uninsured. the ones over 200% the poverty line i
>dont really see how it would help them. if i can see what
>benefits these people would get, how much they would pay then
>i could be sure one way or the other.
Well, it's all out there. And no to my knowledge it doesn't only cover 50% of the uninsured, all uninsured (and currently insured) would be eligible. What differs, among other things, is whether folks are auto-enrolled and whether they qualify for no premium. For people above the Medicaid FPL threshold, they would go from being uninsured to having gold-level coverage for no more than 8.5% of their annual income and free generic drugs. That's not nothing. And the most vulnerable, indigent, people... like I said, homeless etc.. they are probably impoverished enough to be eligible for Medicaid so they would qualify for premium-free gold-level coverage and free generic prescription drugs. Again, not nothing.
>my fear with his public option is that people would be covered
>only by name. they wouldnt be able to afford to actually use
>their coverage. nothing i have read about the plan has taken
>that fear away. insurance and health care would still be too
>expensive for most people.
I hear ya. It's a tough problem for sure. Thankfully, the public and politicians share the same sense of urgency. That's helpful even if folks are still deciding what path they want to try.
>im trying to step back and think of what needs to change the
>most instead of going full single payer. or full single payer
>where everyone except the wealthy gets "free" health care.
>i would say people below 200% percent of the poverty line
>should have free coverge, no premium, no deductible, no
>co-pays. i would even say a lot of help with prescriptions.
>this is any age. does the public option do this?
I believe so. Maybe do some more research. Free/no-copay prescriptions are only for generics tho.
>second, the MOOP needs to be reduced greatly for everyone
>else. people should not go bankrupt due to an illness.
Well, remember out-of-network costs are capped too. Not the same as a MOOP, no, but it's still a sort of price-control and disincentivizes some of the stuff going on behind the scenes between insurers and hospitals. In the white paper the language seemed to focus a lot on basically outlawing suprise billing. So it seems he prioritized curtailing what and how the private sector can even charge to begin with.
>there also needs to be an adjustment to how the MOOP is
>applied. if you suffer an injury or illness in nov/dec and max
>out the MOOP it should not reset in january. at least not for
>care of the same injury/illness.
Ha! Best thing I learned from that video lol. And agreed.
>lastly, i do think everyone needs to have coverage available
>to them that meets the above regardless of what their employer
>from what i have read the public options lack in giving
>adequate coverage to people. the single payer options maybe go
>a bit too far in helping people who can afford to pay for
>their coverage. i think some tweaks to the single payer
>options would be the bet route.
I hear ya. And believe it or not, I actually would try to be open-minded about a single-payer plan that could work and is credibly financed (it would have to be passable and sustainable for me to full-on support it though). Warren "almost" got me lol, bc I do find her M4A attempt more workable than Bernie's. But now that more price tag estimates are rolling in, time to hold them accountable. Can't just be sweeping $10T-$15T deficits under the rug like that running for pres lol I don't care who you are
13357318, i mean the world will end before we have to handle the deficit|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Nov-26-19 10:18 AM
spend spend spend!!!
but nah i know you do your research so i am trying to be level headed about this. i dont really believe the estimates that are being put out there. they seem to ignore financing that already exists and pretends it will just disappear if a single payer option is implemented. thats that i liked about warren keeping the employer contribution (although there are issues with it).
i havent really see anyone dispute that we are paying twice per capita on health care than any other developed nation. the money is being spent. can we cut it to half with single payer?? i wouldnt build a plan with that as a guarantee but it would at minimum make sense that we can expand coverage to everyone and keep the same cost. should also be able to improve the benefits drastically. does that mean zero premiums, zero deductibles, vision and dental????? maybe, but as i said if people above a certain threshold have to pay a small premium i would be okay with it.
the problem would be that the GOP and centrist would kill it because ohmegerd taxes!
the other side is that the wealth gap does need to be closed. that changes the dynamics too. if minimum wage is raised to $15 that could very positively improve the calculations. thats what i liked about the green new deal, it combined several big issues and provided goals to solve all of them together.
13357034, if you seen one you seen em all|
Posted by BrooklynWHAT, Fri Nov-22-19 11:28 AM
the only reason to keep watching them is for shit like bernie barring tf out of joe while he's 3 feet away from him and wanting to punch him in the mouth for it.
or booker's "it sounded like he was high when he said it" moment.
and to see Tulsi fine ass.
13357035, What's this ?|
Posted by Brew, Fri Nov-22-19 11:30 AM
>the only reason to keep watching them is for shit like bernie
>barring tf out of joe while he's 3 feet away from him and
>wanting to punch him in the mouth for it.
Got a link by any chance ? I didn't see any of the debate.
13357048, yeah lol shit was awkward|
Posted by BrooklynWHAT, Fri Nov-22-19 12:03 PM
not quite as brutal as i remember but biden was def tight.
13357050, those seem to be Joe's standard non verbal reactions|
Posted by Mynoriti, Fri Nov-22-19 12:23 PM
Smile like it doesn't bug me
Hang my head in shame
Maddog you while you speak
Ok he didn't do the confused face, so almost all
13357243, Medicare for all could be a huge pay raise to the middle class|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Nov-25-19 02:14 PM
opinion piece, theres a good chart thats worth clicking on the article for but swipe below.
We can afford Medicare for All…
… and it could even deliver a huge pay raise to the middle class.
he current debate over "Medicare for All" anxiously asks “ How are we going to afford paying for health care?” But of course, we’re already paying for health care. The true question should be: “ Who should pay for health care?”
Our research shows that when you look at health care costs as a distribution problem, it becomes clear that not only can we afford Medicare for All, but a properly designed transition to Medicare for All could deliver the biggest pay raise in a generation to middle-class workers.
To understand why, it’s worth reviewing how health care is currently funded in the United States. American workers who don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid almost always get their insurance through an employer. The average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance is $13,000 a year per covered worker and this cost is growing fast. That adds up to roughly $1 trillion a year.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, it is mandatory for all employers with more than 50 full-time workers to provide health insurance to their full-time employees; employers that don’t provide insurance have to pay a fine. The government has in effect washed its hands of the responsibility of providing health insurance to workers, and instead forces employers to manage this growing cost.
Premiums depress wages
Formally, employers pay about 70 percent of insurance premiums and workers the remaining 30 percent. But in practice, workers are paying the whole thing. The costs might seem invisible to workers, but in fact their health benefits are reducing their take-home pay every week. Why? Because for an employer, what matters is the total cost of employing someone. This cost includes salary but also benefits such as health insurance. If an employer believes your work is worth $50,000 to the company but has to pay $13,000 for your health care, your salary is going to be no more than $37,000.
They also reduce wages in a particularly unfair way: Because health insurance premiums are fixed, the wage penalty is the same for a low-wage secretary as it is for a highly paid executive. This severely depresses wages for tens of millions of moderate-income workers. When you hear that average hourly earnings of (nonsupervisory) American workers have stagnated since the late 1970s in spite of a growing economy, keep in mind that’s in part because growing health care costs are devouring an increasing share of what workers would otherwise be paid. Given the fast growth of health care costs, this situation is not sustainable.
The system is opaque enough that workers can’t see such costs clearly, but they aren’t completely hidden. Health care costs are sometimes visible on your pay slip as the “employer contribution to medical insurance.” The full cost of employer and employee premiums is also usually reported on the W-2 form that you use to file your income taxes. Take a look at box 12, code DD, and see how staggering the amounts are—typically the amount exceeds $10,000 in a year, and it can exceed $20,000 if your insurance covers family members. This is compensation for your work that you never see in your bank account, and you don’t have much choice, let alone the option to take the money as wages rather than health insurance.
Economically, insurance premiums are effectively the same as a tax on labor—a tax administered by employers. What makes this tax stand out is that it’s a so-called head tax, unrelated to ability to pay. It’s the most unfair type of tax: A huge burden for low-wage workers and almost meaningless for the rich. Head taxes (sometimes called poll taxes) used to be popular centuries ago but have long fallen out of fashion. (When Margaret Thatcher tried to impose a head tax in 1988 to replace real estate property taxes in the United Kingdom, she faced an unprecedented revolt and was ousted from office in 1990.)
No government would out-of-the-blue impose a head tax to fund health care; it would be a crushing burden on the working and middle classes. And yet in essence that’s what the U.S. government does today by mandating that employers manage a huge head tax to fund health insurance for workers.
Middle class bearing the burden
If you see the health system this way, it changes how you understand the entire U.S. tax system. Many people believe that the United States has what’s known as a progressive tax system, in which you pay more, as a fraction of your income, as you earn more. It’s true that income taxes are for the most part designed that way, but when you add all the various tax burdens together, the reality is different. And if you add mandatory private health insurance premiums to the official tax take, the U.S. tax system turns out to be highly regressive. Once private health insurance is factored in, the average tax rate rises from a bit less than 30 percent at the bottom of the income distribution, reaches close to 40 percent for the middle class, and collapses to 23 percent for billionaires.
When politicians urgently debate the tax burden on the middle class, they rarely point out that the system is already unfairly built on the backs of the middle class — and it’s our health care premiums that make it that way.
The solution to this mess is simple: The head tax currently paid by workers in the form of mandatory premiums should be replaced by actual, normal taxes based on ability to pay. If employer-sponsored health insurance premiums were transformed into wages, that’s a $13,000 pay increase that each covered worker would get on average, the biggest pay raise in a generation, and one that is long overdue.
Of course, taxes would then have to increase to fund Medicare for All. But they could, and should, look very different than the hidden tax they’re replacing. It would be possible to structure the new taxes so that all workers below a high wage threshold would pay less in taxes than what they would get in extra wages once those were returned to their paychecks – and the government could still raise the same $1 trillion in revenue. Any form of taxation (be it a payroll tax, an individual income tax, a corporate tax, a wealth tax, or a mix of these) would do, since all these taxes are much less regressive than the current health insurance premiums.
Will employers pocket the savings?
One crucial aspect of the transition to Medicare for All has not received enough attention so far: Once employers no longer have to pay for health benefits, how do we make sure they don’t abuse the system, keeping wages the same and pocketing the difference?
To address this problem, the government should legislate the conversion of employer health care premiums into a permanent wage increase at the time of the transition to Medicare for All. From the point of view of employers, this conversion would be neutral: for them, the cost of each worker would not change. Because health insurance premiums are already reported on W-2 forms and pay slips, this wage increase would be easy to enforce and monitor. Firms that try to pocket the premiums instead of boosting wages could be fined.
Even in the case of a slower transition to universal health insurance (such as the creation of a public option) it is essential to legislate that workers who migrate to the public option can take their current health insurance premiums as extra wages. If not, the transition will either never happen (as workers won’t see any upside to migrate), or it will be a boon for employers who will pocket the health care premiums. But if a law mandates that all premiums be added to wages, “Medicare for all who want it” will become “Medicare for All” faster that anyone believes (and the funding equation for both programs will become the same).
The current funding of health care in the U.S., which imposes a mammoth burden on moderate-income workers, is not sustainable. There is broad agreement that everybody should have access to health care—just like all children should have access to education. Given the enormous costs—there’s no cheap way to treat heart attacks, cure cancers, or give birth—low-income families cannot afford health care on their own. The U.S. spends approximately $10,000 on health care per person per year; it is impossible for workers with low salaries to spend $10,000 per family member. Other wealthy countries have understood this basic truth long ago and fund universal health insurance through taxes that are based on ability to pay.
The key question, in the U.S. context, is how to conduct a successful transition to universal public health insurance that redistributes the burden of paying for health care. Do it fast or do it slow, the big picture is this: Fixing the injustice of our current health care funding system is possible and in fact straightforward. And if it came with a law mandating the conversion of premiums into wages, it would deliver the biggest pay raise in a generation to American workers.
The Army Built to Fight ‘Medicare for All’
13357247, Ds definitely need to reframe the topic|
Posted by bentagain, Mon Nov-25-19 02:57 PM
This is a good start
I always LOL when the topic is presented as...'taking away insurance'...
It's called medicare FOR ALL
Nobody is losing health coverage
TBH, Ds have been terrible at controlling the narrative IRT M4A
13357300, Pick a (good) running mate for a candidate you don't like|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-26-19 09:15 AM
I don't use the word "thought experiment" seriously because, out of all the types of assholes that I am, that's not one of them. So jut call it a fun thing to do among internet friends.
I'll start with something easy. May not be the best answer for this candidate but for this dumb exercise I feel moderately responsible to pick non-insane matches.
Biden and Klobuchar
Hurt to say outloud, but pretty much every financially-secure-but-perhaps-not-actually-RICH boomer lib that I know is into one of those two. And I suspect we can all agree that Biden's campaign is probably hunting desperately for who fits at least two of: younger, not white, not a dude. Klobuchar is just bonkers popular in Minnesota, a state that the GOP rather scarily seems to be targeting so she helps play defense there *and* you can at least dream that her appeal could spread to Wisconsin or Michigan. Upper Midwest doesn't really work like that, but the first part is more tangibly true and the aspiration of the second part harms nobody's chances.
13357321, Biden and Stacey Abrams|
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Tue Nov-26-19 10:26 AM
Biden safe bet would be Harris but man I might vote Biden/Abrams combo above a lot of combos that I actually like.
If Biden doesn't pick a progressive person of color, I couldn't vote any less enthusiastically for him.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13357360, is Stacey that progressive? How about Ayana?|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 01:00 PM
I'm honestly not familiar with Stacey's stances.
How about Ayana Pressley? She could bring in some squad energy, but in a way that is less 'scary' to Murrrica and the party. She endorsed Warren this cycle and Clinton last time.
Stacey might make more sense for Bernie.
13357361, TBH, not sure how progressive she is so legit and the real deal to me. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Tue Nov-26-19 01:05 PM
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13357438, Harris and Buttigieg|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-26-19 06:18 PM
Strong hall monitor energy ties them together. If Buttigieg has a base that's more than just eight dudes wearing TRowePrice windbreakers, then Harris gets that and has a shot at winning the polite suburban racist vote in some midwestern states. Buttigieg gets to wait his turn and run in 2028.
13357353, Pete Buttigieg Is a Lying MF|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-26-19 12:07 PM
Plus 17 reasons to not like Pete
13357427, I was extremely frustrated that|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 05:12 PM
he didn't get attacked more at the debate.
Booker and Castro, if they make it, should mollywhop this dude.
13357443, Pete Buttigieg Called Me. Here's What Happened|
Posted by Quas, Tue Nov-26-19 06:39 PM
This was posted by Michael Harriot
13357444, I can't stand how this guy writes|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Tue Nov-26-19 07:20 PM
It's unreadable to me. Get to the point!
13357356, The Best Health Care System in the World: Which One Would You Pick?|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Nov-26-19 12:32 PM
kind of old but still interesting
again kind of old but an interesting comparison
13357364, question for Bernie supporters...this Politico article on Obama|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 01:12 PM
Do you really think he can win the nom? (Article alludes to Obama floating the idea of doing his part to stop Bernie, which is a whole other conversation if true)
I'm not being snarky or hating at all. In fact, I've come around more to Bernie lately- as Doc put it up above, his campaign seems most like Obama's so far.
That said, even if he can get the votes, it seems to me there are a lot of powerful people who don't want that to happen. So when you start talking about the delegate game, potential spoiler candidates (I'm convinced Deval Patrick is only there to muddy the waters at this point), a brokered convention, and Bloomberg basically laying the ground work for a 3rd party run (to spook the party to not going too far left)...
How likely do you really think it is that Bernie wins the nom?
I'm asking in a pragmatic way here.
It is interesting that a lot of Bernie supporters think (maybe rightfully so) that the party is against him and actively worked against him last time, but can win this time.
** It is also always interesting to see how little faith folks like Obama and his team have in Biden. Can't believe they didn't have a better plan B 6 months ago.
13357365, i was reading that earlier|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Nov-26-19 01:19 PM
not sure what to think right now.
i wonder how many people would switch to michelle if she did decide to run. i would think she would get most/all of the anti bernie/warren dem support. i dont know how many bernie/warren voters would switch to her.
what would independent voters do? i dont think it would go as well as people calling for her to run think it would.
i almost think it would force a 3 way race, trump vs obama vs bernie/warren
13357366, RE: question for Bernie supporters...this Politico article on Obama|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-26-19 01:31 PM
>Do you really think he can win the nom? (Article alludes to
>Obama floating the idea of doing his part to stop Bernie,
>which is a whole other conversation if true)
In regards to that article I believe it since there were also articles in 2016 about how Obama worked behind the scenes to stop Bernie then and also to stop his influence by inserting Tom Perez into DNC chair over Bernie surrogate Keith Ellison.
>That said, even if he can get the votes, it seems to me there
>are a lot of powerful people who don't want that to happen.
>So when you start talking about the delegate game, potential
>spoiler candidates (I'm convinced Deval Patrick is only there
>to muddy the waters at this point), a brokered convention, and
>Bloomberg basically laying the ground work for a 3rd party run
>(to spook the party to not going too far left)...
>How likely do you really think it is that Bernie wins the nom?
I am getting more confident. In the last few weeks there are polls with Bernie in the lead in NH and Iowa and he is back in second in the RCP average. I'm seeing a lot of people in various places start to take him more seriously. Just today I saw a post where someone said Bloomberg jumping in was the final straw and now they were with Bernie to finally fight off this menace of billionaire influence.
In regards to the 50.1 percent and the convention I might be naive but I think whoever takes a plurality in the primaries will get the nom just because the alternative is so unthinkable. If super delegates take it away from Bernie I could imagine a repeat of 1968 and violence and social unrest.
13357422, RE: question for Bernie supporters...this Politico article on Obama|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 05:04 PM
>>Do you really think he can win the nom? (Article alludes to
>>Obama floating the idea of doing his part to stop Bernie,
>>which is a whole other conversation if true)
>In regards to that article I believe it since there were also
>articles in 2016 about how Obama worked behind the scenes to
>stop Bernie then and also to stop his influence by inserting
>Tom Perez into DNC chair over Bernie surrogate Keith Ellison.
I'm not aware of the '16 stuff, but I do recall some of the DNC Stuff you are referring to. I sort of chalked it up to Perez being an Obama guy.
>>That said, even if he can get the votes, it seems to me
>>are a lot of powerful people who don't want that to happen.
>>So when you start talking about the delegate game, potential
>>spoiler candidates (I'm convinced Deval Patrick is only
>>to muddy the waters at this point), a brokered convention,
>>Bloomberg basically laying the ground work for a 3rd party
>>(to spook the party to not going too far left)...
>>How likely do you really think it is that Bernie wins the
>I am getting more confident. In the last few weeks there are
>polls with Bernie in the lead in NH and Iowa and he is back in
>second in the RCP average.
Interesting. Seems like polls on a lot of stuff have been all over lately though.
I don't know man. I think there's reason to be nervous about this. That whole "he's not a democrat" is not going away, especially if he goes far.
I'm seeing a lot of people in
>various places start to take him more seriously.
Any specifics? Just curious. I was very down on Bernie entering the race, but I've become more accepting myself. I don't think I represent anything though lol
Just today I
>saw a post where someone said Bloomberg jumping in was the
>final straw and now they were with Bernie to finally fight off
>this menace of billionaire influence.
Yeah I think Bloomberg is prepping a 3rd party run if its Sanders or Warren.
He's jumping in now so he doesn't look like a complete spoiler candidate if it comes to that. In fact, I think he hopes it comes to that because he doesn't *want* to run against someone like Biden.
I think he sees this as his chance to look like a hero, rather than a spoiler.
Tin foil hat shit, but I gotta believe he he doesn't think he'll win the Dem nomination. And obviously he isn't going to TAKE votes from progressives.
So...only angle that makes sense is he sees this as a chance to run 3rd party. Jump in now, build his campaign/brand, take some votes from Biden...and when its Warren or Sanders he can run and save America from 'extremism'
He's apparently flirted with a 3rd party run in like 2 of the last 3 elections.
>In regards to the 50.1 percent and the convention I might be
>naive but I think whoever takes a plurality in the primaries
>will get the nom just because the alternative is so
>unthinkable. If super delegates take it away from Bernie I
>could imagine a repeat of 1968 and violence and social
You would hope so, either way.
13357436, RE: question for Bernie supporters...this Politico article on Obama|
Posted by reaction, Tue Nov-26-19 05:44 PM
>I'm not aware of the '16 stuff, but I do recall some of the
>DNC Stuff you are referring to. I sort of chalked it up to
>Perez being an Obama guy.
It went well beyond that, I remember one article in particular that really laid out all the behind the scenes stuff that Obama did, I think it was also in Politico but unfortunately can't find it on Google.
>I'm seeing a lot of people in
>>various places start to take him more seriously.
>Any specifics? Just curious. I was very down on Bernie
>entering the race, but I've become more accepting myself. I
>don't think I represent anything though lol
Mainly random threads on Reddit and Twitter but the biggest one was this Medium post by Peter Daou, a former Clinton worker who was quite literally in the Top 5 of biggest Bernie haters in 2016 who has now done a 180 https://gen.medium.com/a-former-clinton-aide-on-embracing-the-sanders-movement-31fcea5e04ea
13357384, What's Obama going to do? |
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-26-19 02:24 PM
It's not like Bernie Sanders is a wedding reception in Yemen that he can just hit with a drone.
13357400, you don’t think Obama has pull? |
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 03:05 PM
If it comes down to Bernie or Biden/Pete, you don’t
think Obama could carry one of those dudes over
the finish line?
Hell, if he gave an explicit endorsement of Biden
today it might be game over. Joe is hanging on
just off association alone at this point.
The article talks about each candidate visiting with
Obama like he’s the fucking godfather.
At the very absolute least he could make Bernie’s
path very difficult- so I’m curious in his followers
confidence all things considered.
13357401, According to these articles, Obama is negative on everyone.|
Posted by Vex_id, Tue Nov-26-19 03:08 PM
which doesn't sound much like Obama, at all. He's "skeptical" of Pete, down on Warren, told Biden to sit this one out, said he'd work to sabotage Sanders. K.
This is likely agenda wielders trying to use some vague comment to serve their primary preferences.
13357421, I don't know about that|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 04:51 PM
>which doesn't sound much like Obama, at all. He's
>"skeptical" of Pete, down on Warren, told Biden to sit this
>one out, said he'd work to sabotage Sanders. K.
>This is likely agenda wielders trying to use some vague
>comment to serve their primary preferences.
there were those articles circulating a while back about certain Dems panicking about their choices. Everyone from Deval Patrick to Bloomberg to Hillary were mentioned as possible late entries.
Within weeks, two of those guys jumped in. Seems like folks were on to something. This sounds like that.
You don't think Obama (or, at the very least, his team) urged Deval to at least try the waters?
If you were a moderate, would you be happy with your choices?
Not to mention, how can you say, on one hand, that the party has been/will be unfair to Bernie, but not 'buy' that the most prominent Democrat out there would work to help his opponent?
Have you kept up with the public subliminal shots Obama has taken at Bernie/Warren/squad?
This all sounds exactly like Obama to me. Even down to maintaining norms while kids are in cages and shit. In fact, I would say his desire to maintain norms + his apparent (valid) skepticism in Biden are the only things keeping him from flat out endorsing Biden now.
Also, maybe I missed something, I didn't get 'sabotage' from the article. I got 'work to stop him'- which to me essentially meant help whichever moderate is facing him- assuming Bernie and say Pete made it that far.
I also disagree that this is somehow a dog whistle or whatever. If anything, I think an article like this would energize/validate Sanders supporters who think its them against the world.
I'm still a Warren supporter and I got pissed off by this article- hell, it makes me want to throw a few bucks to Bernie.
Like I said, not sure why Obama/his team/the establishment/whoever didn't have a better plan months ago. That is also classic Obama to me- sit back and hope norms (not getting involved) play out in their favor.
I don't think he does anything until he feels he absolutely has to. So if its Bernie vs Biden/Pete or whoever...and its close? ...yeah, I think he'll be heavily involved
13357428, If it ends up being a brokered convention I'm upping this post lol|
Posted by kfine, Tue Nov-26-19 05:14 PM
bc it was you I was telling my theory to and we can watch shit play out.
I'm convinced the delegate stuff behind the scenes might even be more popcorn worthy than what we see in the open
13357424, Right. The thing is..Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer etc they're all SDs|
Posted by kfine, Tue Nov-26-19 05:08 PM
Belonging to a majority who havent publicly endorsed anyone, but is probably pooling together support behind the scenes.
Like I said somewhere else in the post..lol..There's definitely more than one nomination process happening.
The far-left may scoff at the relevance/influence of a HRC or Obama to the general population... but within the party I bet they function like a senate. There's probably a whole shadow whip operation "just" among the SDs.
13357435, Sounds democratic!|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-26-19 05:41 PM
>The far-left may scoff at the relevance/influence of a HRC or
>Obama to the general population... but within the party I bet
>they function like a senate. There's probably a whole shadow
>whip operation "just" among the SDs.
This can be both true and indefensible. If that happens, how do Democrats continue to tell voters that their view actually matters? And when they find some way of doing that, why should anybody listen to them?
13357440, Lol! And ya you raise important questions|
Posted by kfine, Tue Nov-26-19 06:29 PM
>This can be both true and indefensible. If that happens, how
>do Democrats continue to tell voters that their view actually
>matters? And when they find some way of doing that, why should
>anybody listen to them?
True. All I can think to say is... though this may be their party's way of doing politics, it doesn't have to be every party's way of doing politics :)
13357433, He couldn't get Clinton over the hump against a game show host|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Nov-26-19 05:37 PM
But what I was actually saying was that his presidency and ex-presidency has been consumed with a nearly pathological observance of "norms" - a habit the article mentioned at length - and that his decision to break those norms in order to sabotage the democratic primary would be pretty out of character.
But even if he were to do it, I've got faith that people will ignore him. Sitting out an active engagement with politics for four years when the news cycle moves as quickly as it does now means he effectively doesn't have a political voice any longer.
To your larger question: I think Bernie can win a fair fight and even a slightly unfair one. Democrats are, at the end of the day, a bunch of procedure nerds and suckups and the power brokers in the party will only sabotage him up until the point when he's a clear favorite because going beyond that will jeopardize their jobs and reputation. Sort of like what happened with the Republicans and Trump, actually. Lot of "how dare you!" dorks in the GOP shifted gears to boot licking pretty fast.
13357491, lol fair but that was a general election|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Nov-27-19 12:14 PM
And...it was Hillary.
I definitely think he has pull in a Dem primary. I think it would bey unwise to underestimate him.
I could go on and on about how popular he is, but I'd just point you to Joe Biden still being a thing.
That isn't because of Joe.
>But what I was actually saying was that his presidency and
>ex-presidency has been consumed with a nearly pathological
>observance of "norms" - a habit the article mentioned at
>length - and that his decision to break those norms in order
>to sabotage the democratic primary would be pretty out of
This is a good point, which is why I said I think this is why he hasn't endorsed yet.
But if it comes down to Joe Biden/Pete or Bernie? I think Obama gets involved.
His passive aggressive shots at Bernie and Warren are a small preview imo.
>But even if he were to do it, I've got faith that people will
>ignore him. Sitting out an active engagement with politics for
>four years when the news cycle moves as quickly as it does now
>means he effectively doesn't have a political voice any
Maybe, but again I'd point to how large his shadow looms. Joe Biden is coasting off his Obama association. Every candidate coming to his child's christening...I mean, coming to his office.
I don't think the Bernie camp should underestimate this challenge.
>To your larger question: I think Bernie can win a fair fight
>and even a slightly unfair one. Democrats are, at the end of
>the day, a bunch of procedure nerds and suckups and the power
>brokers in the party will only sabotage him up until the point
>when he's a clear favorite because going beyond that will
>jeopardize their jobs and reputation. Sort of like what
>happened with the Republicans and Trump, actually. Lot of "how
>dare you!" dorks in the GOP shifted gears to boot licking
Maybe, but Dems love to punch themselves in the face a lot more than the GOP does.
Also, the super-delegate factor which kfine understand a lot better than I do.
13357508, It's hard to estimate him one way or the other|
Posted by Walleye, Wed Nov-27-19 01:37 PM
>I definitely think he has pull in a Dem primary. I think it
>would bey unwise to underestimate him.
You're not wrong, but since he's just sitting back and either sending cryptic hints through intermediaries *or* being used as an edifice by people who want to spread their own messages, there's not really much to do one way or the other. He only lives about a mile and a half from me, so I guess I could go over there and ask politely for him to either fuck off or (and this would be the best solution) back Bernie.
Here he is in 2006 doing exactly that. The Biden stuff you mentioned is solid proof that your question is valid and important but I like this video as an example of the "how" he can sway people. He's basically a baby politically in 2006 and he's so ridiculously good.
>But if it comes down to Joe Biden/Pete or Bernie? I think
>Obama gets involved.
>His passive aggressive shots at Bernie and Warren are a small
I bet no on the first point, but I don't disagree with your reasoning so there's only one way to find out. On the second point, I remain open to the possibility that the voices we are hearing aren't authentically his.
>coming to his child's christening...
I laughed. Well done.
>Maybe, but Dems love to punch themselves in the face a lot
>more than the GOP does.
Scarily, this is true.
13357389, This was a clear hit-piece on Bernie|
Posted by Vex_id, Tue Nov-26-19 02:41 PM
and I'm not sure I buy it other than innuendo to try and dog-whistle to conventional Democratic voters that Bernie is too extreme for the party.
But to answer your question -- in a fair fight? Absolutely, Bernie has a great chance to win the nomination.
But it ain't a fair fight, nor was it in 2016.
13357402, RE: This was a clear hit-piece on Bernie|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Nov-26-19 03:12 PM
>and I'm not sure I buy it other than innuendo to try and
>dog-whistle to conventional Democratic voters that Bernie is
>too extreme for the party.
>But to answer your question -- in a fair fight? Absolutely,
>Bernie has a great chance to win the nomination.
>But it ain't a fair fight, nor was it in 2016.
Wait, you don’t buy what innuendo? That the party/Obama
doesn’t want Bernie?
You just said you don’t think it will be fair, and it wasn’t
fair in 16.
So what exactly don’t you buy? Do you think it’s being
As far as the hit piece...I guess. There’s dirt on Biden
in there too, though. Mostly, it seems like an article
stroking Obama’s ego.
But- the interesting question to me- is how Bernie supporters
seeing this play out if true.
How does Bernie overcome an “unfair” fight plus
the most popular Democrat endorsing/campaigning
for his opponent?
13357387, Vice Chair of NY Democratic Committee: Trump preferable to Tulsi|
Posted by Vex_id, Tue Nov-26-19 02:39 PM
Can't you just feel that big-tent unity?
13357481, these recent polls are weird|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Nov-27-19 11:28 AM
some of them show a huge surge for pete. i dont doubt that his numbers are going up but 15+ points?? some are showing warren dropping big. i think her stagnating is enough to be troubling. dropping 15 points??? some even show bernie leading with a big jump himself.
what is weird is that there is so much fluctuation between polls.
i think warren is in a prove it moment. i doubt her plan to pay for M4A is the reason for the drop. maybe the transition plan is. either way it looks like neither helped her. if kamala is still clinging on then warren definitely still has hope to turn it around.
i wonder if pete will stay this high or if he will also have a big dip.
13357519, Who is ahead in the Democratic primary race?|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Nov-27-19 03:58 PM
interesting. worth clicking on just to hover your mouse over the candidates heads. some really good use of graphs and technology.
13357509, I’ve already mentally prepared myself for a Dem loss |
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Nov-27-19 01:39 PM
This way I will feel overjoyed if they pull it out.
13357517, lol |
Posted by Lurkmode, Wed Nov-27-19 02:50 PM
Trump will lose the burbs are leaving him.
13357518, Like I said... until he loses I’m good on that type of thinking |
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Nov-27-19 03:42 PM
I trust no polls and trust none of those people who claim they won’t vote for him this time around.
13357622, I blinked and missed the Kamala Harris Crash and Burn|
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Sat Nov-30-19 09:56 AM
One minute she is roasting Biden and looking like the next President. Next thing I see she is polling at 3%. What happened?
I guess this is the story.
I did find this line interesting, "One adviser said the fixation that some younger staffers have with liberals on Twitter distorted their view of what issues and moments truly mattered,"
I think unknowingly Joe Biden has prospered by totally ignoring the micro-debates that take place only on Twitter.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13357802, her roasting Biden WAS her crash and burn|
Posted by seasoned vet, Tue Dec-03-19 01:26 PM
13357827, this is objectively false|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Dec-03-19 02:00 PM
She got a huge bump after that.
She just didn't offer anything to connect with voters afterwards.
In fact, debates is where she probably did the best.
Seems like she crashed and burned because a) the campaign was a mess and didn't really have a central theme/message and b) Murikkka sets the bar a lot fucking higher for a black woman.
Theres not a *good* reason that Kamala is where she is in polls, and Bloomberg is where he is. Or hell, Pete.
13357835, nah, we just saw it different|
Posted by seasoned vet, Tue Dec-03-19 02:14 PM
she had nothing to offer and decided to sling mud in an effort to win the favor of the #ADOS crowd when she was never going to win them over.
i knew then her time was up
her time would of been better spent on the progressive ideas the left wants to hear about.
im glad her mud slinging ass it out the way, fuck her. one less.
13357839, but thats just not true|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Dec-03-19 02:18 PM
She had the biggest bumps (aside from initial announcement) after debates - specifically when she roasted Biden.
Its okay that you personally didn't care for her roasting Biden, but it definitely got her attention.
She just didn't offer anything to keep that attention.
Honestly, if nothing else, had she kept on attacking Biden she probably would have eaten into his support and lasted a little longer. She let up and let mayor of fucking South Bend become the next best moderate option.
I'm glad the field is thinning, but there is no way in hell she should be gone before fucking Tom Seyer, Delaney, Tulsi, etc.
13357866, politics is more than poll bumps|
Posted by seasoned vet, Tue Dec-03-19 03:06 PM
ok, tell us, what did she have to offer?
i seen through her poll bumps
you didnt, still dont
and thats fine
again, i KNEW it was over for her once she said what she said
why? because anyone with anything to offer wouldnt of wasted time on the bullshit she was talking about.
you wanted her poll bumps to be more than they were.
>there is no way in hell she should be gone before fucking Tom Seyer, Delaney, Tulsi, etc.
doesnt that say something about what she had to offer?
13357868, You got most of it right|
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-03-19 03:09 PM
>She had the biggest bumps (aside from initial announcement)
>after debates - specifically when she roasted Biden.
This is true and when you said
"b) Murikkka sets the bar a lot fucking higher for a black woman."
>Honestly, if nothing else, had she kept on attacking Biden she
>probably would have eaten into his support and lasted a little
>longer. She let up and let mayor of fucking South Bend become
>the next best moderate option.
Going at Biden some more wouldn't help. Look at Castro and what the press did to him. She didn't "let" Pete do anything, the press pushed him.
>I'm glad the field is thinning, but there is no way in hell
>she should be gone before fucking Tom Seyer, Delaney, Tulsi,
13357874, In hind sight, I think seasoned vet is right on this one. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Tue Dec-03-19 03:55 PM
The campaign seemed to have known that they were stuck and they devised the strategy of going after Biden as a way to give a sinking ship some life. It appears to work but was really only a short term strategy that didn't really fix the underlying problems with the campaign. It's clear now that that bump was a dead cat bounce.
We can say America wasn't ready for a black woman president but that really doesn't explain the internal fighting and one of your field directors writing scathing op-ed articles about how bad the org was internally.
I am a firm believer that if you can't run a campaign org that you probably shouldn't be running a country.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13357726, WaPo: lobbyists helped craft lawmaker's anti-M4A op-eds |
Posted by Walleye, Tue Dec-03-19 08:29 AM
Also, this line - actual instructions from the lobbyist - is pure delight: “The client had trepidations that it might also come across to the ‘less-discerning’ reader that because foreign single-payer markets cost patients less, they are superior.”
State lawmakers acknowledge lobbyists helped craft their op-eds attacking Medicare-for-all
Dec. 2, 2019 at 3:02 p.m. EST
Lobbyists either helped draft or made extensive revisions to opinion columns published by three state lawmakers in a way that suggested Medicare-for-all and other government involvement in health care posed dangers, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.
Montana state Rep. Kathy Kelker (D) and Sen. Jen Gross (D) acknowledged in interviews that editorials they published separately about the single-payer health proposal included language provided by John MacDonald, a lobbyist and consultant in the state who disclosed in private emails that he worked for an unnamed client.
Gross said MacDonald contacted her on behalf of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, a multimillion-dollar industry group founded in 2018 and funded by hospitals, private insurers, drug companies and other private health-care firms.
Additionally, an aide to Ohio state Sen. Steve Huffman (R) confirmed in a brief interview that the lawmaker’s op-ed criticizing Medicare-for-all was written with the help of Kathleen DeLand, an Ohio-based lobbyist.
None of the lawmakers’ columns discloses that they were written with the help of a lobbyist.
The emails show how, even at the state and local levels, lobbyists are trying to bend public opinion away from an idea that has seized much of the debate during the current Democratic presidential primary. Two candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.), have proposed a massive redesign of the health-care system that would place all Americans on a single government health insurer.
The documents were provided to The Post by the nonprofit advocacy group Medicare for All Now, which supports the single-payer system. The group obtained the documents through Freedom of Information Act requests.
The revelation comes amid a fierce debate among Democrats nationwide about the best way to address health-care concerns. Health care remains a top issue for many voters, and industry groups and moderate politicians have warned that the ideas pursued by Warren and Sanders could be viewed as too extreme and lead Democrats to lose in the 2020 election. But the ideas are also very popular among many Americans, and the health-care industry has taken notice.
The emails offer a glimpse into the industry mobilization against both single-payer and a “public option," a government-run insurer that would compete with private plans. A change could redirect trillions of dollars in spending, with insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies all directly affected.
The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future has spent more than $1 million on television advertisements since August warning against Medicare-for-all and other changes to the health-care system, according to Advertising Analytics, a firm that tracks TV spending. The Partnership has recently expanded its operations to the state level, and has heavily targeted voters in early primary states and battleground states, according to Politico.
Neither of the consultants who helped write the op-eds would confirm or deny whether they had been hired by the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future.
MacDonald, asked whether he works for the organization, responded over the phone by saying: “Not directly. ... I probably need to talk to some other folks before I provide any details to you and see if I can have somebody call you back.” MacDonald said in a subsequent interview that he could not provide additional information about his clients.
DeLand’s emails to the Ohio lawmaker’s staff include the acronym for the group in the subject line: “PAHCF op-ed - OH - Huffman. docx.” DeLand did not return requests for comment about whether she had been hired by the group.
A spokesman for the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future declined to confirm or deny whether the group had hired MacDonald or DeLand. In emails to reporters, the partnership linked to op-eds written by these state lawmakers, at one point citing them as evidence that “voices throughout the nation” oppose Medicare-for-all.
“It’s no surprise that elected officials on both sides of the aisle, and many other voices throughout the nation, are expressing serious concerns about these one-size-fits-all proposals” such as Medicare-for-all, Lauren Crawford Shaver, the Partnership’s executive director, said in a statement.
Single-payer supporters say the lobbyists’ role in crafting the op-eds bolsters their argument that their opponents are parroting talking points from industry groups that profit off the current health-care system.
“These secret emails blow open what I saw firsthand and revealed as a health insurance whistleblower: These companies and their lobbyists will stoop to whatever it takes, no matter how grotesque, to deny people the lifesaving coverage they need," said Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who is now president of Business for Medicare for All. “This is just the latest reason we need to reform this broken system where greedy corporations determine who can get medical treatment in America.”
The emails raise troubling ethical implications about the undisclosed involvement of private interests in lawmakers’ public statements, said Larry Noble, who served as general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center and the Federal Election Commission.
“It’s disturbing,” Noble said. “I think there’s a certain ethical obligation to be upfront about who wrote the editorial.”
The emails appear to show extensive outside involvement in the Montana lawmakers’ op-eds. In a Microsoft Word document, MacDonald removed three paragraphs from a draft of Kelker’s op-ed that pointed out that the United States “clearly spends significantly more on health care per capita than other developed nations.” He also deleted a table from the lawmaker’s original draft showing that the United States has higher health-care spending per capita than France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland.
The columns were published this summer in the Missoulian, a newspaper published in Missoula, and the Billings Gazette.
“I know most newspapers are going to have trouble formatting the graphic you provided and will likely ask us to hold off on that,” MacDonald told Kelker in a June 12 email. “The client had trepidations that it might also come across to the ‘less-discerning’ reader that because foreign single-payer markets cost patients less, they are superior.”
Instead, MacDonald wrote in the draft he sent back to Kelker that “extreme ends of the political spectrum" are offering health-care proposals while “what most Montanans and Americans would prefer lies somewhere in the middle.” In his revisions, MacDonald also added a sentence that said, “Calls for a more government-controlled healthcare system are misguided as well.”
In an interview, Kelker said it is common for state legislators to publish under their name op-eds that they did not write. “That’s pretty normal," she said. "Actually, most of the time, for legislators, at least in Montana, are written by someone else. You know, a helper-person, not necessarily a lobbyist. I normally write all of the text for my op-eds.”
She added: “I suppose I’m fairly naive. … As a legislator, you learn to sort out who is a good guy, and who is not, in terms of the lobbyists, and has always been really straight. I don’t hang out or do anything with lobbyists much, but I really do trust him."
Gross, who acknowledged writing less than half of her op-ed, said that when she worked at Planned Parenthood, she frequently provided “templates” for young people who needed help drafting statements, adding that this practice occurs elsewhere, as well. Gross also said she listened to MacDonald’s description of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future and supported the group’s message.
“Formally and informally, I have held the role of community/grassroots organizer for more than a decade. Providing letter-to-the-editor op-ed drafts/templates is a common practice in organizing work,” Gross said in a text message.
Gross also pointed to low pay for Montana lawmakers and noted that they do not have staff members.
She added: "If I could do it over again, I would have spent more time on it and put it in my own words. But I was up against time constraints. ... If the angle is that a consultant wrote half of the op-ed that I had published in the Billings Gazette in July, so be it. I’m not embarrassed by that at all.”
Andrew Person (D), who served in the Montana state legislature until 2017, said in an interview that MacDonald also sent him a draft of an op-ed in June. The draft, reviewed by the Post, drew on Person’s background as a former aide to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.), who helped write the Affordable Care Act.
Person said he did not think it was unethical for lawmakers to sign their name to an op-ed they did not write, but said: “It’s an important story because the public should be aware ... It has a definite impact on the public perception of the stand elected officials are taking on certain issues, and on certain issues you’re not going to be able to get a paid lobbyist to organize an effort like that.”
Person declined to put his name to the op-ed.
An aide to Ohio state Sen. Huffman confirmed that their office worked with the consultant on Huffman’s op-ed criticizing Medicare-for-all as “socialized medicine” and “not a workable solution.” Asked whether that consultant had been hired by the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, the aide responded, “I believe so.” Huffman’s office declined additional requests for comment.
John Fortney, a spokesman for the Ohio Senate Majority Caucus, later said in a statement: “The legislative process is open to input from everyone, including experts from medical community. Senator Huffman is an emergency room doctor and understands the serious problems and affordability of the left’s misguided single payer agenda.”
Both Kelker and Gross said they received criticism from constituents about the views expressed in their op-eds. The day after Kelker’s op-ed ran, however, she wrote MacDonald an email that said: “At church, I received many favorable comments — mostly from Republicans!”
13357800, Kamala's out...|
Posted by ThaTruth, Tue Dec-03-19 01:18 PM
13357801, was about to post this|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Dec-03-19 01:25 PM
this is the biggest drop out for sure. a bit shocked. theres like 12 people (no exaggeration) that should had dropped out before her.
i feel pete will get most of her supporters.
thats three people dropping out in one week, wonder how many more are to come.
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Dec-03-19 01:56 PM
>this is the biggest drop out for sure. a bit shocked. theres
>like 12 people (no exaggeration) that should had dropped out
There's literally no way she should be out before folks like Seyer, Tulsi, Yang, etc.
As far as her timing, I read it might have to do with not wanting to get embarrassed in CA. Candidates have to decide soon weather or not to be on the ballot.
She loses poorly in CA, that would be tough to recover from long-term.
13358441, We've collectively decided to go with Biden|
Posted by Tw3nty, Fri Dec-06-19 12:03 PM
Buttigieg's campaign chair has been harrassing Kamala supporters online.
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-06-19 12:05 PM
what do you mean by harassing?
boo on biden but whatever
13357804, I liked her but her campaign left a lot to be desired...|
Posted by Marbles, Tue Dec-03-19 01:27 PM
She's very sharp and her background as a prosecutor could have made for some interesting head-to-head battles with 45.
But she never seemed to have solid footing. I found myself frustrated by the lack of forward thrust in her campaign. It felt like she was just lingering around.
I hope she can hang around on the federal level & have an impact.
EDIT - Just a couple of days ago, I read this scathing article in NYT. It might provide some insights into what her campaigns failings may have been.
13357808, She seemed like she didn't care abt anything...besides getting elected|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Tue Dec-03-19 01:32 PM
Most other candidates, you can attach some "passion project" to or some defining vision. She, as you said, just kind of lingered. She was just, there.
13357805, "Top-tier" Kamala.|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Tue Dec-03-19 01:28 PM
13357832, Good. She played herself during the first debate going after Biden|
Posted by Case_One, Tue Dec-03-19 02:11 PM
on sone old Bussing issues.
“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ
The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k
Looking for Good News: https://www.goo
13357836, she was pandering to #ADOS like a dummy|
Posted by seasoned vet, Tue Dec-03-19 02:15 PM
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-03-19 02:48 PM
You can't be serious.
Posted by legsdiamond, Tue Dec-03-19 02:59 PM
13357912, I legit have never heard anyone mention ADOS in real life|
Posted by Doc Catalyst, Tue Dec-03-19 05:29 PM
13357995, Pandering to #ados?!|
Posted by Hitokiri, Wed Dec-04-19 11:17 AM
Lmao! Okay, player.
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-03-19 02:47 PM
Posted by Brew, Tue Dec-03-19 10:01 PM
13357905, lol what??|
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Dec-03-19 05:05 PM
So you just started paying attention this week then, huh?
13357837, Take Corey with ya bish!|
Posted by isaaaa, Tue Dec-03-19 02:17 PM
Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
13357842, so now we're left with 70 year-old white people and racist Pete|
Posted by ThaTruth, Tue Dec-03-19 02:29 PM
13357844, Pete aint in it, never was. #PeteBootyghey|
Posted by isaaaa, Tue Dec-03-19 02:32 PM
Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
13357867, Go Bernie!|
Posted by seasoned vet, Tue Dec-03-19 03:08 PM
13357898, Tales From the Crypt|
Posted by ThaTruth, Tue Dec-03-19 04:58 PM
13357907, but Pete can stay? |
Posted by Stadiq, Tue Dec-03-19 05:07 PM
13357930, Yeah, he can stay with you. |
Posted by isaaaa, Tue Dec-03-19 08:01 PM
Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
13358005, lol what?|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Dec-04-19 11:31 AM
No way Cory should go while Pete is in, let alone a front runner.
But, yeah, dodge my point I guess.
13357850, Bye. Don't let the door hit'cha.|
Posted by Airbreed, Tue Dec-03-19 02:37 PM
13357862, I blame her husband. |
Posted by legsdiamond, Tue Dec-03-19 02:57 PM
Posted by Mynoriti, Tue Dec-03-19 03:42 PM
13357878, I knew that horrible staff, hired from Hillary's failed campaign...|
Posted by Cam, Tue Dec-03-19 04:14 PM
would lead to her demise.
Look at all the hit-pieces they're writing/helping write about her and the failed campaign, as if they didn't fuck it up, just like they did in the aftermath of Hillary's loss.
Nothing like it at the end of anyone else's drop out announcement this cycle.
And watch all those same good-at-losing campaign staffers find new campaign jobs in this same cycle.
13357887, Exactly - what a horrible idea to run a Hillary 2.0 campaign|
Posted by Vex_id, Tue Dec-03-19 04:45 PM
Incidentally - the Director of State Operations who outed her and trashed the campaign was from (wait for it) --- Hillary's 2016 team.
And she is now with Bloomberg lol.
Not the people you want running your org.
13357888, Post #6|
Posted by Vex_id, Tue Dec-03-19 04:46 PM
13357889, i guess the good news is that they will take down bloomberg next?|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Dec-03-19 04:47 PM
13357903, How do they keep getting jobs |
Posted by Cam, Tue Dec-03-19 05:05 PM
after numerous campaign losses
after complied strategic failure
after not being able to fundraiser well
after disloyal hit-pieces
13357906, Yeah, the Op-Ed should have been career suicide. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Tue Dec-03-19 05:06 PM
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13357923, They run in the same circles and don't care about|
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-03-19 06:32 PM
ethics, morals, competency.
13358162, It's not a political party|
Posted by Walleye, Thu Dec-05-19 08:09 AM
>after numerous campaign losses
>after complied strategic failure
>after not being able to fundraiser well
>after disloyal hit-pieces
It's a jobs program for earnest liberals who grew up watching The West Wing. Politics, for them, is getting somebody with a "D" next to their name in office instead of somebody with an "R". That's it. The party doesn't believe in anything and can't be counted on to fight for anything.
See, for instance, Ralph Northam taking a "not right now" approach to repealing VA's Right to Work law when he was elected in 2017. Now the Democrats have Northam as a governor and control the Virginia legislature and he's threatening to stand in the way of any legislative action that could help build end right to work and build union power in a state that is just starting a blue-ward turn.
13358299, Hello, nail. Meet hammer.|
Posted by Dr Claw, Thu Dec-05-19 05:35 PM
13357875, PBS does a long update on all the candidates except one|
Posted by reaction, Tue Dec-03-19 03:57 PM
I wonder who? https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/manufacturing-consent-in-action
Also interesting chart comparing coverage share vs polling avg https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/e5ka0r/best_evidence_of_media_bias_against_bernie_sanders/
13357909, Was it Williamson?|
Posted by stravinskian, Tue Dec-03-19 05:25 PM
I'll bet it was Williamson.
Or maybe Michael Bennet.
13357929, McKinsey to ICE: Have you tried *more* cruelty|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Dec-03-19 07:36 PM
I'd appreciate it if journalists would press Mayor Pete a little bit more on what he did for McKinsey. Because chances are, it was really creepy.
The article links to a larger NYTimes piece.
MCKINSEY: THE PROBLEM WITH ICE IS THAT IT TREATS CAPTIVES TOO HUMANELY
BY SCOTT LEMIEUX / ON DECEMBER 3, 2019 / AT 7:12 PM / IN GENERAL
No matter how evil you think our Ivy League consultancy overlords are, somehow they’re always even worse:
ICE quickly redirected McKinsey toward helping the agency figure out how to execute the White House’s clampdown on illegal immigration.
But the money-saving recommendations the consultants came up with made some career ICE workers uncomfortable. They proposed cuts in spending on food for migrants, as well as on medical care and supervision of detainees, according to interviews with people who worked on the project for both ICE and McKinsey and 1,500 pages of documents obtained from the agency after ProPublica filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.
McKinsey’s team also looked for ways to accelerate the deportation process, provoking worries among some ICE staff members that the recommendations risked short-circuiting due-process protections for migrants fighting removal from the United States. The consultants, three people who worked on the project said, seemed focused solely on cutting costs and speeding up deportations — actions whose success could be measured in numbers — with little acknowledgment that these policies affected thousands of human beings.
In what one former official described as “heated meetings” with McKinsey consultants, agency staff members questioned whether saving pennies on food and medical care for detainees justified the potential human cost.
Imagine how monstrous you have to be to cause people in Donald Trump’s immigration Gestapo to think your ideas are too cruel to be implemented. Our best and brightest!
13357941, Holy fucking shit.|
Posted by Brew, Tue Dec-03-19 10:03 PM
13357946, Goodbye, Kamala.|
Posted by jane eyre, Tue Dec-03-19 10:57 PM
Although she wasn't my first choice candidate, for a bit of time I thought she was in a position to move up in the race when some of the front runners showed cracks in their armor. Instead she stalled and got stuck. I think a combination of factors have knocked Kamala out of the race. One of those factors, unfortunately, involved Kamala as the target of a scurrilous smear campaign that was aimed at Black voters and non-voters.
I was beginning to re-assess my interest in Kamala, too. In theory, I was toying with the "who would I support if Warren were to tank?" scenario. My second choice, considering the field, was shaping up to be Harris.
Now? Lol. I'm beginning a long, eternal eye roll at who is leftover to consider as my second choice. I will vote for whoever the Democrats put up for a nominee, though. That's a fact.
13357992, Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial.🔥🔥🔥|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Wed Dec-04-19 11:13 AM
...i didn't like her much as a candidate or her policies, but she's good at roasting trump
13358001, Yea that was good. The first response to that tweet was almost better tho.|
Posted by Brew, Wed Dec-04-19 11:24 AM
Something like "You've been out of the race not even 3 hours and you're already trying to lock people up again ?!" lol
13357999, Joe Biden's is DONE.. Roaches/Hairy Legs/Kids on lap???|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Wed Dec-04-19 11:23 AM
...Not sure who hasn't seen this insane video by now, but it should be documented in our discussion ...We absolutely can NOT have this babbling fool whose mind is declining fast as the dem nominee.
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu Dec-05-19 05:49 PM
13358157, biden dropped that hottest mixtape of the year.|
Posted by Soldado, Thu Dec-05-19 05:38 AM
13358306, didn't Hillary have something very similar?|
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Dec-05-19 06:02 PM
I think, at this point, people with brains know Trump is bad.
People without brains will not be convinced by this ad.
Maybe it pumps up some Dems I guess.
But if Biden is the nom, which is looking increasingly likely, he's GOT to have something more than "look how bad Trump is"
It didn't work last time. It wont work this time.
I'm not saying don't touch on it, but dude has to have more than "Trump bad, Obama was my friend, shut up you dirty liar or I will beat you in a push up contest"
13358308, she did|
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu Dec-05-19 06:13 PM
she dropped an ad with a bunch of republicans and intelligence officials warning us about him, clips of him acting crazy and saying how he knows more about Isis than the generals, etc..
also doesn't help that the trump people can counter this with Biden videos from the past week talking about kids in his lap and pushups and shit.
13358292, I think this Biden clip sums up what's wrong with Dems. |
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Thu Dec-05-19 05:10 PM
I bet if you polled all voters, 75% would think that exchanged left them with a favorable opinion of Biden.
However, if you polled Dems, I bet you 75% would think this was a bad exchange and makes Biden look bad and would like a more measured, thoughtful (Dukakis like) response to dude.
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
13358294, did he say, "Look, fat.." |
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu Dec-05-19 05:18 PM
at 2:00? or did i hear that wrong ? lol
I have no idea how that's gonna play but it was both cringy and fun to watch
also he's gonna have to come up with some kid of reply to that question. he can't just name call every time someone brings it up. Just like the Hillary email thing was largely nonsense, it didn't help that she never knew how to answer it.
Posted by Stadiq, Thu Dec-05-19 06:07 PM
>also he's gonna have to come up with some kid of reply to that
>question. he can't just name call every time someone brings it
>up. Just like the Hillary email thing was largely nonsense, it
>didn't help that she never knew how to answer it.
And its crazy that Dems didn't learn this lesson. It doesn't matter that Biden and his son did nothing wrong- just like her emails didn't matter.
Its all part of adding to the white noise so that people will say "meh, both candidates are the same" or whatever and either a)stay home or b) vote Trump cuz their 401k is up.
Biden can't just challenge people to arm wrestling contests and just rant until he loses his dentures.
He will be painted as a crooked washington lifer who never changed anything for the good in washington- just like Hil was.
A year ago "investigate the Bidens" wasn't even a thing. Now look.
I think our nom absolutely needs to be a figher and be ready to punch back. But that can't be all he or she does.
13358335, Thought I heard that too hahaha.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Dec-05-19 09:39 PM
Figured he was about to say "look fatass" but caught himself.
13358355, yeah I'm sure dude wasn't the only fat person in the room|
Posted by Mynoriti, Thu Dec-05-19 10:54 PM
and Joe he hit the brakes . Albeit a bit late
13358401, And here’s “fat” calmly roasting Biden by|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-06-19 10:12 AM
Pointing out just a couple of his huge weaknesses
as a candidate.
Joe Biden is not good at this.
13358423, ^^^ This should be the takeaway from that exchange|
Posted by bentagain, Fri Dec-06-19 11:29 AM
i.e. He's not very good at this
Does he think he won't have to field these questions throughout the campaign?
Given that he couldn't anticipate this and formulate a more insightful response is indicative of him as a candidate
He's not good at this.
...and that was without diving into his career as illustrated in the follow up clip...
So much to question about his career
The answer can't be shouting insults.
13358465, yea, Trump made "grab em by the pussy" a non factor in fucking week|
Posted by Mynoriti, Fri Dec-06-19 01:18 PM
I apologize.. locker room talk... what about Bill Clinton... grand closing
These things stick to dems like herpes
I don't know what his response *should* be but these questions aren't going away. On one level I appreciate Joe stepping to someone, but guys like "Fat" are supposed to be Bidens whole selling point. He cant be driving them away lol
13358468, he called "fat" too old to vote for him lol|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-06-19 01:37 PM
WTF is he on?
>I apologize.. locker room talk... what about Bill Clinton...
>These things stick to dems like herpes
Thank you!!! Hillary was treated more harshly for her husband's affair than Trump was for credible sexual assault accusations.
People clapping that "this is what America wants!" and "Biden's gaffes aren't nearly as bad as Trumps!" are forgetting the insane higher standards that are in place for Dems.
>I don't know what his response *should* be but these questions
>aren't going away. On one level I appreciate Joe stepping to
>someone, but guys like "Fat" are supposed to be Bidens whole
>selling point. He cant be driving them away lol
Yeah. In the opening seconds of the exchange I was like "this isn't too bad its nice to see some fight" but then it kept going.
13358369, CNN moron comes back and says "It's been a good week for Biden"|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Dec-06-19 02:00 AM
....Jesus Christ CNN is so fucking out of touch with reality ...First roaches, hairly legs, and loving kids jumping on his lap ...then this bizarre exchange ..poll numbers dropping ...but it's been a good week??? Word??? I cant wait for a bad week.
13358354, Hillary on Howard Stern: accuses Bernie of being a Russian prop lol|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Dec-05-19 10:45 PM
This is *not* The Onion, fam.
Hillary is really out here whining on Stern shamelessly and just lazily calling out any and everything that got in her way a product of Russia propaganda. The entitlement is egregious.
Also crying that Bernie didn't endorse her "fast enough" - lol. He stumped for her like 40 times and it was her campaign that decided not to bring him out anymore -- they didn't want him as a surrogate.
But the notion that he didn't do enough - when the 2016 primary process was inequitable AF and he had every right to boycott and cause a mess - but instead - he does the principled, big-picture move by endorsing Clinton and publicly showing out/stumping for her -- is beyond the pale - even for a narcissist like Clinton.
13358356, Oh no.|
Posted by Brew, Thu Dec-05-19 11:09 PM
13358357, Worst part about all of this: It fractures Democratic cohesion|
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Dec-05-19 11:29 PM
She's doing more to sew division in this primary process than any third-rate Russian Facebook bot could ever achieve.
13358364, Yea I wish she'd just stay out of it honestly.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Dec-06-19 12:41 AM
It's 3 years later but she should still be hella embarrassed and know better than to be doing this.
13358367, i never wanted to be one of those 'go away' folks|
Posted by Soldado, Fri Dec-06-19 12:54 AM
cuz we generally dont do that with other people (men).
but if this is the type of shit shes gonna keep popping up and pouring gasoline on...then she needs to go the fuck away.
i have no idea why the people at the top of the dem party have such a hard time just closing ranks and playing as a team like repubs.
13358396, With you 100%.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Dec-06-19 09:39 AM
>cuz we generally dont do that with other people (men).
And to that end this is the first time I've "ugh - go away"'d Hillary. Up to this point I've been mostly cheering on her increasingly frequent Twitter snark and interviews.
But yea this is not what I'm looking for from her at all. This type of shit can only hurt dems.
>but if this is the type of shit shes gonna keep popping up and
>pouring gasoline on...then she needs to go the fuck away.
>i have no idea why the people at the top of the dem party have
>such a hard time just closing ranks and playing as a team like
13358422, stop sucking his dick|
Posted by seasoned vet, Fri Dec-06-19 11:26 AM
like you wasn't JUST in that other thread on that we need to be better than them bullshit
ole fight the good fight ass
13358430, Whatever your (probably terrible) point is, it's being clouded ...|
Posted by Brew, Fri Dec-06-19 11:49 AM
... by your little hissy fit.
Take a deep breath and try and clarify, if you would. Cause the way I'm seeing it you're talking about two entirely different things. But again I can't tell because you're mad as fuck.
13358445, ‘playing as a team like repubs’ <— im with you 100%|
Posted by seasoned vet, Fri Dec-06-19 12:06 PM
dont play dumb
13358447, Damn you're an angry little elf. Get therapy.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Dec-06-19 12:12 PM
Anyway I see nuance isn't exactly your strong suit so let me help you out.
In whatever other post you're referencing where I apparently said something about "being better than them" that's, obviously, in reference to their propensity for bending and breaking the law, without regard, their overall lack of integrity, their dishonesty, their overall wretchedness and soullessness. I'm not certain which post you're referencing exactly, but I'm assuming that I said this in response to someone who was arguing that dems should play dirty (paraphrasing) like repugs do.
In this instance, I was "agreeing 100%" with quite literally what he said, that leadership and the dem party would benefit from the (very specific) repug strategy of playing as a team and crafting consistent messaging.
Like I said - two completely different points, which you nevertheless conflated because you're stupid and perpetually having a tantrum.
13358482, thats EXACTLY how the Rupubs stick together you dumb fuck|
Posted by seasoned vet, Fri Dec-06-19 02:14 PM
13358491, You're very, very, very stupid - I'll leave you to cry and scream alone in the dark.|
Posted by Brew, Fri Dec-06-19 02:43 PM
13358512, buy a Thesaurus hoe|
Posted by seasoned vet, Fri Dec-06-19 04:05 PM
13358553, You spelled "sorry I don't understand stuff" wrong.|
Posted by Brew, Sat Dec-07-19 12:47 AM
13358474, It is very odd|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-06-19 01:51 PM
>cuz we generally dont do that with other people (men).
>but if this is the type of shit shes gonna keep popping up and
>pouring gasoline on...then she needs to go the fuck away.
>i have no idea why the people at the top of the dem party have
>such a hard time just closing ranks and playing as a team like
how much Dems like their old "stars" no matter what.
Hillary definitely isn't helping anything by this. The twitter snark, etc? I'm here for it. But this kind of shit? Nah.
And I guess a John Kerry endorsement matters this week too? LOL
13358365, she needs to go on somewhere with this bullshit.|
Posted by Soldado, Fri Dec-06-19 12:51 AM
this shit serves no good purpose heading into 2020...and thats all these party leaders should be focused on. all it does is inflame old/ongoing divisions in the party and make the coalition even more rife for disruption.
its like we have been stuck in 2016 for years now and cant get our feet out of the mud. anyone in a position of leadership still looking back to that election needs to only be talking about how we double down in those important swing states and turn out the vote.
clinton does a lot of good supporting issues and organizations and the party in general. but this type of shit here is an unnecesary/detrimental trade-off tho.
13358564, agreed 100% -- she is a MOTHERFUCKING LOSER.|
Posted by Dr Claw, Sat Dec-07-19 11:43 AM
and I'm not just talking about elections.
her politics are TRASH. like, I don't even LIKE feeling so strongly about her but this shit is annoying af, when the world is burning.
and I remember people talking back in 2016, not to bring up her 2008 primary antics. and how some of her supporters were acting worse than the so-called Bernie Bros after Obama seemed to be gaining momentum.
I wish we could exile her and her family to the ends of the Earth
13358368, at this point, i wish Trump DID lock her up...|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Dec-06-19 01:52 AM
....she's seriously interfering with the election process ...she had her turn and lost twice ..once to a great candidate, and once to the worst we've seen ..Now GO THE FUCK AWAY.
13358425, i hope you're not being serious|
Posted by makaveli, Fri Dec-06-19 11:32 AM
13358372, Howard's probably still the goat of making people open up |
Posted by Mynoriti, Fri Dec-06-19 04:18 AM
and that's surely a largely measured version of the shit she really wants to talk
13358399, apparently Monica questions were off limits...|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Dec-06-19 09:57 AM
...can't call it a real interview without that shit
13358417, Thank you|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Dec-06-19 11:16 AM
2 hour interview and nothing about Lewinsky.
13358421, Good for Hillary|
Posted by Lurkmode, Fri Dec-06-19 11:22 AM
Bernie needs to speak out against his supporters causing trouble in a BLM shirt and going at some of the Black folk supporting other candidates on twitter.
13358575, I listened to almost all of it. didn't really see a big deal in much she said |
Posted by Mynoriti, Sat Dec-07-19 01:22 PM
The Bernie/Russia part was really the only selatious thing that deserved a "wait follow that up" from Howard.
The Bernie phenomenon *was* a part of why she lost, along with a bunch of other reasons. I could always feel Bernie's teeth grinding when he was trying to be a good soldier for her. She mentions the Comey thing fucked her good, the reaction to her passing out from pneumonia, Russia/facebook of course. She talks about sexism a bit. More in general than 2016 except maybe debate optics
What she doesn't mention at all is that any of it is on her. No 'Maybe I should've campaigned harder in areas I thought I had locked down' shouldn't have said X, shoulda came up with some kind of answer to the stupid email thing, etc.. (or if, as you said her campaign decided to bench Bernie). she mentions briefly, as she has before, that shes not as politically gifted as Bill or Barack, but that's as close to looking inward as she got
The whole interview is pretty bland. Howard spoon fed her mostly because he's an admitted big fan of hers. Most of the interview is him giving her the answer and her literally repeating it. She gets into her history and talks about fam and friends she lost to illness this year. To quote Barry, she came off likeable enough, She definitely believes she'd have made a very good president, and she def can't hide that shes still bitter over this thing. She'll never get over losing to trump and that's understandable. Shell also never lose that sense of entitlement
13358592, I actually thought the interview humanized her pretty effectively|
Posted by Vex_id, Sun Dec-08-19 10:52 AM
Probably one of (if not the) best interview she's ever done in terms of making her appear as a real person.
That said, she had a huge opportunity to infuse positive energy and unity into the democratic primary process - and she failed miserably yet again to do so.
13358601, it's as unguarded as she's been|
Posted by Mynoriti, Sun Dec-08-19 01:04 PM
to.the point where she did a good job of explaining why shes so guarded and overly careful.
Sadly that's likely what kept her from doing his show while she was running. Could've been a good opportunity to let people get to know her but even if she had gone on she'd have been in campaign mode and scared of what soundbite would get extracted and used against her. Plus she had the Trump thing on lock lol
>That said, she had a huge opportunity to infuse positive
>energy and unity into the democratic primary process - and she
>failed miserably yet again to do so.
This is true but this story will be gone in a few days or whenever she gets done plugging her book. Nothing short of falling on her sword will satisfy people (if even that), and I kinda respect her fuck you attitude towards everyone who wants her to shut up and go away
13358418, interesting that theres only 1 other vote|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-06-19 11:18 AM
the vote total is also kind of low compared to the previous polls.
wonder who the 5 harris supporters would vote for now
13358451, Trump's gonna get re-elected because the Dems don't have good candidates|
Posted by flipnile, Fri Dec-06-19 12:39 PM
Democrats going Chip Kelly, reducing the playbook to the same 3-4 plays that didn't work last game.
I'd rather see a Dem that's putting on work boots and overalls right now and hitting to the road to win over republican-leaning voters in middle America, instead of this circle-jerk shit the Dems are currently on.
Save all that new-age shit for after the election.
13358456, All they need to do is get a handful of votes in Wisconsin, Penn, Michigan|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Fri Dec-06-19 01:01 PM
What do they need to hear to either flip them from Trump to the Dem, or get them off the sideline to the Dem?
I don't think the democratic candidate (whoever it is) is under threat of losing any Clinton won states. So yeah, get those overalls on and pander to those Rust belt factory workers.
My desired president out of this pool is Warren. But if I'm playing to win against Trump, I'd roll with Buttigieg I guess. I would've had said Biden, but Trump really put the air of controversy around him (imagined or not) and I wouldn't want to risk it.
13358485, Goig back to Clinton, one thing I wish she'd done was to play-up her roots|
Posted by flipnile, Fri Dec-06-19 02:29 PM
She's from Scranton, PA. It really bugged me how her campaign allowed Trump to be perceived as the "down to earth, everyday man" when he grew up a literally 100 millionaire in Manhattan. Meanwhile, Hillary was perceived as an elitist Illuminati member.
Clinton didn't do enough to play up her every-woman roots, and I fear the Dems are making the same mistakes again.
One thing Obama did really well was to make people feel a connection with him. I don't see anyone among the running class this election that can endear themselves to people that usually would vote against them. I hope I'm wrong, and do hope that Trump's support base abandons him this election.
13358768, Trump's "everyman" appeal was never economic though|
Posted by Mynoriti, Mon Dec-09-19 05:29 PM
it's more anti-intellectual.
kind of the Palin appeal of people who don't know much about the world, but somehow feel qualified to have a know-it-all opinion about everything
Trump offers simple simon solutions to problems he has no understanding of, and these people see it and say "exactly!" because it reflects how they feel "it snowed more this year where's all that global warming?"
Then there's the whole anti-PC thing but that's a whole other conversation because trump and his ilk are even more snowflakey than woke twitter
Then they look at Hillary with all her advanced degrees and decades of experience and think what has she ever done. That the economy hasn't crashed is proof to them that he's qualified for this job.
Plus he's a poor dumb person's idea of what a Rich person should be like. all that gaudy gold and names on planes and shit.
>She's from Scranton, PA. It really bugged me how her campaign
>allowed Trump to be perceived as the "down to earth, everyday
>man" when he grew up a literally 100 millionaire in Manhattan.
>Meanwhile, Hillary was perceived as an elitist Illuminati
>Clinton didn't do enough to play up her every-woman roots, and
>I fear the Dems are making the same mistakes again.
13358471, Trump pissed off too many ppl to get re-elected|
Posted by seasoned vet, Fri Dec-06-19 01:44 PM
i expect a historic voter turnout come 2020
13358461, goddamn this is crazy, i literally cannot call it. |
Posted by double negative, Fri Dec-06-19 01:13 PM
I'm still feeling Warren
but uh...Yang man, something about him is looking interesting.
Sanders...I still cant figure out why I'm so meh on homeboy.
13358467, Say what you want about Biden but this ad is fire|
Posted by makaveli, Fri Dec-06-19 01:36 PM
13358472, do you think this will work better in '20 than it did in '16?|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-06-19 01:45 PM
No snark, I'm really curious if people think this will work now when it didn't before.
On one hand, I think it could work better because there is actual proof of him as president.
But on the other hand? There is no way just running on how bad Trump is is going to cut it.
Megan McCain types aren't voting for Joe Biden, no matter how much they say it publicly. Republicans will vote Trump no matter what.
The mythical independents who allegedly consider both sides and pick the better one? I don't think they exist in this era of hyper partisanship.
But, if they do, maybe this moves them. I dont know. If the economy is still "good", I don't think an independent who voted for the pussy grabber in 16 is going to be swayed by an ad. Trump is exactly who he said he would be.
And I don't see how the Dems win on "trump is bad" by running a guy who makes a lot of similar gaffes, etc.
Basically, I think we're fucked.
13358519, 7000 miners are losing their jobs per month under trump!|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-06-19 04:15 PM
at least thats what we would be hearing from the GOP if it was obama
disregard any other gains and focus on one misleading negative number. its not a lie and it would resonate.
13358562, Buttigieg getting pushed on his McKinsey work|
Posted by Walleye, Sat Dec-07-19 10:45 AM
I don't like him as a candidate, so I'm not bothered that he's getting his turn on the hot seat. But I also saw somebody frame this issue in a way that I think is more meaningful than my spite. Though spite is also a perfectly valid reason.
There's a real possibility that the stuff that he did working for McKinsey was shady and immoral. This is because a lot of their work is shady and immoral. Hiding behind an NDA may work for the early primaries, but it's clearly not a tenable position for somebody who wants to be president. Additionally, there are people who know the answer to the question of what he was doing for McKinsey in Afghanistan and that means it's going to come out eventually. Do you want to find out what that is now? Or do you want to find out what it is in October of 2020?
Posted by Dr Claw, Sat Dec-07-19 11:41 AM
(and an excellent point, I might add)
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Sat Dec-07-19 11:55 AM
We don't know what he was up to at his job.....but it's was probably bad
13358599, He could just tell us|
Posted by Walleye, Sun Dec-08-19 12:26 PM
At least then, I'd have to explicitly call him a liar. Now, he's pretending that an NDA for a private corporation is more important than being transparent about his work history when he's running for president. For real, don't you find that insulting?
13358586, He released a timeline and description of all he did there yesterday (swipe)|
Posted by kfine, Sat Dec-07-19 07:40 PM
It's super unexciting.
My Time at McKinsey
Dec 6 · 4 min read
I give authorization to McKinsey to release the full list of clients I was assigned to serve.
"After completing my higher education in 2007, I worked at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. I held this job for roughly two and a half years, leaving in early 2010 to pursue my passion for public service. As an Associate, I was assigned to months-long stints on ‘teams’ of typically three or four people working on a study for a client. The bulk of my work on these teams consisted of doing mathematical analysis, conducting research, and preparing presentations. I never worked on a project inconsistent with my values, and if asked to do so, I would have left the firm rather than participate."
Much of my work at McKinsey, including the names of clients served, is covered under a confidentiality agreement that I signed when I joined the firm. In June, my campaign inquired about the scope of this confidentiality agreement. Last month, my campaign reached out again, not only about the scope of the agreement, but also with a request to be released from the confidentiality agreement in full, given the importance of transparency for presidential candidates. To date, the company has not agreed.
I believe transparency is particularly important under the present circumstances in our country, which is one of the reasons why I have released all tax returns from my time in the private sector and since. I am today reiterating my request that McKinsey release me from this agreement, and I again make clear that I authorize them to release the full list of clients I was assigned to serve. This company must recognize the importance of transparency in the exceptional case of a former employee becoming a competitive candidate for the U.S. presidency.
I understand why some are calling on me to break the agreement. But, it’s important to me to keep my word and commitments. I know the American people also want a president who they can trust to do the same. Now more than ever, however, I also understand the American people deserve to know these kinds of details about their president’s background in order to gain and hold that trust. So, I am asking McKinsey to do the right thing in the name of transparency. In the meantime, to add as much clarity as possible to my record, I am providing the following summary of the work that I performed while at the firm.
Timeline of McKinsey Work
Working in Michigan for my first study, I served a nonprofit health insurance provider for approximately three months, undertaking on-the-job training and performing analytical work as part of a team identifying savings in administration and overhead costs.
Working in the Toronto area, I served a grocery and retail chain for approximately six months, analyzing the effects of price cuts on various combinations of items across their hundreds of stores.
Working in Chicago, I briefly served a division of a consumer goods retail chain on a project to investigate opportunities for selling more energy-efficient home products in their stores.
I stepped away from the firm during the late summer and fall of 2008 to help full-time with a Democratic campaign for governor in Indiana, returning after the election.
Working mostly in Connecticut, I worked on a project co-sponsored by a group that included the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, other nonprofit environmental groups, and several utility companies, to research opportunities to combat climate change through energy efficiency. This work was published as a report entitled “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy”, which is publicly available and includes the full list of co-sponsors.
Working mostly in California, I served an environmental nonprofit group on a study to research opportunities in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Working in Washington with visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, I served a U.S. Government department in a project focused on increasing employment and entrepreneurship in those countries’ economies.
Working in Washington, I served a logistics and shipping provider working to identify and analyze potential new sources of revenue. This was my last study while at McKinsey.
To the best of my recollection, these are all of my client engagements during my time with the firm, but a full release from McKinsey will allow the American public to see the full scope of my work.
13358598, Sure, nothing to see here|
Posted by Walleye, Sun Dec-08-19 12:23 PM
>Working in Washington with visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, I
>served a U.S. Government department in a project focused on
>increasing employment and entrepreneurship in those
Who amongst us doesn't enjoy partnering with an un-named "U.S. Government department" in order to aid economic growth in countries we've blown up for the better part of the decade? I can't think of any possible reasons to ask for more details for this endeavor, which - though vaguely defined - could only possibly include stuff that's totally aboveboard and not a single thing that's grotesque and amoral.
13358726, Lol. I'm starting to resent that I've become this de facto Pete defender|
Posted by kfine, Mon Dec-09-19 02:54 PM
on here. Because I like others too and he, like anyone, has his areas where he could improve/is improving.
But come on lol. This is probably the most histrionic way one could interpret what he shared.
My main issue with this McKinsey nonsense (and the smears in general, really) is the far-left doesn't hold other candidates (including their own) to the same standard.
Tbh with you, after reading his description of that defense assignment the things that come to mind for me are:
1. He enlisted and started training with the Navy in 2007... so maybe by 2009, given his training with Navy intelligence, he attained a clearance level (eg. TS/SCI) that short-listed him as eligible to even staff a project like that. Not newsorthy.
2. Reconstruction, stabilization, technical assistance etc are pretty standard efforts in conflict/post-conflict zones, no? Tbh t's probably a "good" thing the gov incorporates such efforts in its military engagements as opposed to.. whatever the military version of a pump and dump is. Yall can't possibly hold a low-level contracted analyst responsible for US foreign policy.
3. Personally, I actually think it's kind of good that a pres candidate's military experience has focused on stabilization/reconstruction and intel work, as opposed to combat. This is exposure more appropriate for a 21st century Commander in Chief imho, given the age of hybrid-warfare and what not. Particularly a candidate also calling for withdrawing ground troops over there and restructuring defense priorities.(eg. focusing less on combat and more on things like AI, critical infrastructure protection and human capital; housing the climate portfolio under defense... which the left probably scoffs at but I think is a super smart strategy to ensure bipartisan support in Congress, etc).
So ya. I don't share the far-left's paranoia.. and if he was up to anything horrible, it was funded by the gov so take it up with them.
13358667, Here's one guy's guess on the MI health insurance provider|
Posted by Walleye, Mon Dec-09-19 11:45 AM
>Working in Michigan for my first study, I served a nonprofit
>health insurance provider for approximately three months,
>undertaking on-the-job training and performing analytical work
>as part of a team identifying savings in administration and
Apparently Blue Cross Blue Shield made a bunch of layoffs in 2007 and raised premiums on policy-holders. Michigan is a key battleground state in 2020. Do we want Trump and the GOP filling out the details on the content of his consultation during the general election? Does this possibility add any dimension to Buttigieg's defense of the role of private insurers?
Maybe it wasn't Blue Cross Blue Shield. Maybe he was doing something completely benign or even helpful for poor and working class people. He can tell us now, with the objectives of specific studies and client names. Or we can find out later. It's not going to stay secret.
13358736, So, question: Why is similar scrutiny not demanded for the candidate|
Posted by kfine, Mon Dec-09-19 03:11 PM
who actually founded and led a healthcare financing firm, John Delaney?
I mean... again, like I mention to you above, it's already a reach to hold a low-level analyst accountable for the decisions made by executives of a company he/she was directly employed by. But this is going so far as to hold a low-level analyst accountable for the decisions made by the executives of a company that the executives of his company secured a contract to do some analyses for (lol?)... his crime being that he was assigned to a project and completed his work? This is very silly Walleye, come on. lol
And re: Michigan in 2020, 45 has done plenty damage to Michigan with his trade wars. The Dems shouldn't have a problem crafting a resonant message.
And re: a role for private health insurers, easy: they have tons of capital. Regulate them better so more of their capital can go towards paying for Americans' healthcare, rather than mandating their closure and taking an extra 20%+ off my paycheck, thanks. lol. Pete gets this.
Also, just want to share this link below. Seems relevant lol:
"The most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter
As a group, political tweeters differ in numerous ways from those who tweet about nonpolitical topics and from those who rarely tweet at all. It’s also the case that there are meaningful differences within the group of users who tweet about national politics. The most prolific political tweeters (defined as those who tweeted at least 10 times and mentioned national politics in at least 25% of those tweets) stand out even from other political tweeters (whose political tweets make up a smaller share of their total output). Prolific political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning national politics."'
13358738, Tweets don't represent national opinion at all|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Mon Dec-09-19 03:20 PM
If anything is getting huge traction on twitter, more than likely the majority of Americans think the opposite lol
>"The most prolific political tweeters have behaviors and
>attitudes distinct from other U.S. adults on Twitter
>As a group, political tweeters differ in numerous ways from
>those who tweet about nonpolitical topics and from those who
>rarely tweet at all. It’s also the case that there are
>meaningful differences within the group of users who tweet
>about national politics. The most prolific political tweeters
>(defined as those who tweeted at least 10 times and mentioned
>national politics in at least 25% of those tweets) stand out
>even from other political tweeters (whose political tweets
>make up a smaller share of their total output). Prolific
>political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but
>generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning
13358802, You busted me clearing a path for ... John Delaney|
Posted by Walleye, Tue Dec-10-19 08:38 AM
I think the reason why nobody's trying to take the air out of John Delaney's campaign is obvious to both of us, since we're all three equally likely to be president in 2021.
Buttigieg called his work for McKinsey an "intellectually forming experience" in his biography, and has characterized the actual tasks he did for his clients as "nothing inconsistent with my values." Since McKinsey is notable for having fostered some genuine evil in the world, and not abstract stuff but things that harm actual, living human beings, it seems like an important part of Buttigieg's record to interrogate. That's how this stuff is supposed to work - candidates put their track records out there as evidence of their positive vision for the world and we judge:
a)if that's the sort of vision we want
b)if their experience demonstrates that they can get it done
Nobody is singling out Pete so much as treating him like what he's become: a frontrunner. Nobody is asking for anything more than transparency, and if you like him at all, you should be pleased that he's being pushed on this now instead of having it hung around his neck like Bain Capital on Romney or closed Wall Street fundraisers with Hillary.
And now that he's been given permission to disclose client names, we all know what's going to happen. Some of the work will be banal. Some of it will be grotesque. Everybody will make of it what they were already going to make of it, except now we'll be a few steps closer to actually knowing what' true, an objective that feels weirdly distant for a presidential candidate. I mean, he's running for *president*. You don't get to have a three or four year work experience in your adult life that goes unexamined if you're applying to be a temp, let alone president. Was your position really that he didn't need to disclose this stuff any further? In a presidential campaign? Because that seems kind of bonkers to me the more I type it out.
13358953, Don't try to frame this stuff as vetting, Walleye. lol|
Posted by kfine, Wed Dec-11-19 10:53 AM
>That's how this stuff is supposed to work -
>candidates put their track records out there as evidence of
>their positive vision for the world and we judge:
>a)if that's the sort of vision we want
>b)if their experience demonstrates that they can get it done
Vetting would imply some level of fairness and objectivity in these judgements. That's not what yall do. And I brought up Delaney because if concern about healthcare policy is TRULY why the far-left cares so much about whatever slides entry-level analyst Pete put together for a health insurer, then a closer look at the founder and executive of a former healthcare financing firm running for the Dem nomination would also be relevant. Or better yet: scrutinize Bernie as well, because the VA single-payer health system's physician shortages, facility closures, and other healthcare delivery issues haven't alleviated all these years he's been a member (and one-time Chairman) of the Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs which is responsible for its congressional oversight. Why should he be entrusted to scale single-payer up nationally if he couldn't even help bring the VHA single-payer system up to standard?
>Nobody is singling out Pete so much as treating him like what
>he's become: a frontrunner.
Nah, this is bullshit. In fact, not only is there a lack of criticism/scrutiny of other frontrunners, not only is there definitely some weird obsession with Pete, but the abuse has spread to his staff (https://twitter.com/Lis_Smith/status/1202403237237800960)
and his supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=admcxaVXn0w) which is when, in my eyes, these tactics became truly repugnant. ONLY Bernie's coalition is doing shit like this.
And don't get me started on the far-left's abusive relationship with Warren. Let her show the "slightest" sign of independent thought and she gets it almost as bad as Pete. i mean.. imagine being the only candidate to "Stand with Bernie" (I think she literally even said that verbatim during one of the debates) on single-payer, only for him to sit back and watch her take all the smoke for trying to finance HIS plan. And then EVEN MORE SMOKE from HIS OWN supporters after mapping out her own transition plan! Ugh.
It's all so toxic, Walleye.
>he's running for *president*.
>You don't get to have a three or four year work experience in
>your adult life that goes unexamined if you're applying to be
>a temp, let alone president. Was your position really that he
>didn't need to disclose this stuff any further? In a
>presidential campaign? Because that seems kind of bonkers to
>me the more I type it out.
Well, I think I was quite clear about my position: imho what the far-left is doing is wack, abusive, and unfair since all candidates aren't held to the same standard. It's basically devolved into cyberbullying and straight up harassment at this point. And the only reason yall even get away with it is because the rest of the field is engaging in civil contest imo. Bernie probably wouldn't survive this primary if the rest of his competitors were willing to stoop to this level and that's fact.
13358964, I'd be disappointed if I thought a candidate was holding back|
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-11-19 11:31 AM
There's too much at stake to be civil. But if Buttigieg's move is going to be conceal as much about his work history as he can get away with and then cry about how he's being treated then we don't really need to argue about it. He's just going to lose and then I'll be happy to talk about him in the same breath as John Delaney: a pair of guys who aren't going to be president.
13358972, Lol what is he concealing? He wrote a lengthy medium post under NDA|
Posted by kfine, Wed Dec-11-19 11:42 AM
describing the nature of his work during that job, and then the firm released him from his NDA and he wrote another one with even more details, client names, links to public-facing reports etc.
I'm not surprised this isn't enough for you, because nothing he does will ever be enough for you guys.
>There's too much at stake to be civil.
Ya well, good luck with this style of politics. You guys aren't winning over anybody that isn't already part of your group imho. It's the political equivalent of a moshpit.
13358980, you see why i wanted to take a break from following candidates??|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Dec-11-19 11:58 AM
my main issue with pete is that i dont think his public option would be a good enough improvement. i think it might be purposely built so that it is not attractive which would then be another big delay on improving health care in america.
when he first mentioned he wanted to offer a public option i assumed he meant it would be as comprehensive as bernies medicare for all, just an opt in instead. i would understand losing some of the benefits but i think it just doesnt do enough.
i didnt like him pushing warren to give more details on her plan when hes been vague on his own. i would definitely prefer the focus to be on that instead of trying to find dirt in his work history.
his fundraisers are a bit more troubling but im not convinced theres anything bad there.
i also dont like how people keep trying to get warren to give more and more information of her past when shes already been so open. usually a candidate being vague about their past or their funding is troubling because people think their actual policies will end up being tailored to unfairly benefit corporations and industries. shes laid out so much detail in her plans that its just a distraction to try to dig into how she made her money.
it would be nice if everyone put more focus on the issues and proposals.
13358988, ^^^^ well said|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Dec-11-19 12:32 PM
All of this.
13358995, I disagree entirely on Pete pushing Warren to cost M4A. Hers is the only|
Posted by kfine, Wed Dec-11-19 01:04 PM
credible financing plan for it that even exists. And we finally have something now, in large part, because Pete pressed her during those exchanges. Bernie is the only other frontrunner running on single-payer and he outright said he doesn't feel obligated to layout the financing to American taxpayers (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/sanders-no-exact-plan-medicare-for-all/index.html). What other candidates were there to ask?How else are people supposed to make informed comparisons of single-payer vs all the public options??
Pete pushed for exactly the information needed. And there's no vagueness about financing his public option either, mind you.. it's made clear both in writing and in speeches it would cost ~$1.5T and be financed by repealing the 2017 tax cuts and through new taxes and savings derived from his prescription drug pricing reform package. Done.
Now if you don't "like" his public option?? *shrug* That's fair and totally your decision. Like we talked about elsewhere in the post, if what really excites you about the single-payer proposal is the promise to expand benefits (eg. dental, vision, hearing, long-term care etc) than that's just your priority. But you should know that that won't come cheap and it's likely the federal budget can't sustainably cover it.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that ONE OF THE SINGLE-PAYER CANDIDATES NEEDED TO CLUE AMERICANS IN ON WHAT M4A MIGHT COST AND FOR WHOM. Period. And I will never respect Bernie for the way he basically used Warren as a human shield on that.
13359004, is Pete your guy? I'm confused|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Dec-11-19 01:33 PM
because usually dudes only go to these lengths and weak arguments if they are all in on a candidate.
I mean, you literally brought John Delaney into this to defend him, man.
Pete is getting heat that John isn't because Pete is a front runner and no one knows who Delaney is.
You're also spouting off odd attacks at M4A. There is literally no question that America can afford it. Like, none.
The debate is HOW do we pay for it and if it is a political loser regardless.
If you want to argue its a loser, I'm tempted to agree (unfortunately).
But this idea that America can't afford nice things is fucking untrue and insulting.
It is probably a political loser though. But, if we engage in an elect-ability argument, you'd have to address how Pete could even enter Michigan after this BCBS shit.
Oh and him polling at 0 with black voters. And his age.
As far as Liz?
I agree with you on Bernie letting Liz take the heat. I also agree that the far left basically helped kill her campaign simply because she wasn't Bernie, and now we are all staring at a Biden nomination. The purity shit had them all punching themselves in the face.
But, did Pete go at Bernie nearly as hard as he went at Warren and I missed it??
Nah. Pete went at Warren, and we all know why. She was rising and he had to make a splash. And demographics in Murikkka.
The problem is he was/is a fucking hypocrite. If anything, Warren has been TOO transparent.
And lol at "repeal the tax cuts, close loop holes, and vague plan" = done!
I'll say this about Pete, he is making Biden not look quite as bad to me.
13359320, Lol! Yes you are confused :) 1st of all, I'm a woman. And I like a few|
Posted by kfine, Fri Dec-13-19 05:44 PM
... sure Pete, but also Warren, Yang, etc. Some of the lower-polling candidates that failed to connect with voters too, like Castro, Booker...Kamala started to grow on me a bit before she dropped out *shrug* Not that wild, is it? I've defended others in posts on here too. Didn't you and I even go back and forth about UBI at some point lol? I should look for that post lol.
Anyway. I push back not out of some undying loyalty to Pete Buttigieg, but because I hate disinformation and selective attacks. He just happens to be one of the more frequently targeted candidates for both.
>You're also spouting off odd attacks at M4A. There is
>literally no question that America can afford it. Like, none.
Nope, this is false and the result of sustained disinformation and bad math from the left-wing. I'll indulge since you wanna go there tho lol:
First, its scale. The far-left often downplays the enormity of what Bernie's proposing eg. "People shrug off war spending but push back against single-payer healthcare" But what they fail to account for is that the estimated ~$3T+ of additional federal spending needed PER YEAR to cover Bernie's single-payer system is around what the Afghanistan + Iraq + AND Syria wars cost from 2001-2016 COMBINED:
Next, Bernie's entire platform. Yes it sounds nice, but its likely it would also collapse the US economy lol. It tallies to about $90T of "additional" federal spending over 10 years:
$30T+ (Single-Payer Healthcare Plan)
$16.3T+ (Climate Plan)
$30T+ (Federal Job Guarantee @ $15 Minimum-Wage)
$3T+ (Student Loan forgiveness + tuition free public post-secondary)
$1.8T+(Social Security Benefits Expansion)
$1.6T+(Paid Family Leave Expansion)
$0.8T+ (K-12 Investment)
$0.4T+ (Teacher Salary Increase)
Or $97.5T+ (https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals) if one uses the upper bound ($40T+) of what Bernie's single-payer system is supposed to cost (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNP-AQlVZKM).
Just to put ~$90T in perspective:
**the combined economic output of every country on the planet earth in a year is ~$80T (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/209.html#XX)
**The financing Bernie has proposed only covers a little over $20T of that (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing) ... meaning he could exhaust every conceivable revenue stream, jack up everybody's taxes, and his agenda *STILL* would not be adequately paid for
**The federal debt is already scheduled to grow to its highest level since WWII by 2029 (~$30T, or 93% of GDP) (www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-03/55013-BudgetSlides2019.pdf#page=7), and federal budget deficits already run at ~$1T/yr under current law (www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-03/55013-BudgetSlides2019.pdf#page=2). Bernie's policies would add to the current annual budget deficit and increase it by a magnitude of *10*
So under a *successful* Bernie presidency, taxpayers could expect at least an extra 20%+ or whatever it will be off our paychecks, a completely fucked economy, rising inflation, etc, but yes.. unfettered access to an overstrained healthcare system and free public college.
But what if somebody still wanted to support social democratic outcomes... just *without* significantly hiking everybody's taxes and crippling the economy?? Then I'm sorry but the next frontrunner down the spectrum after Sanders and Warren is in fact Buttigieg lol: public option healthcare plan, public option 401k, tuition-free public college available to 90% of households,student debt cancellation for people screwed by for-profit programs, etc. No he is not a Republican just because his free college plan would help 90% of US households instead of 100%. No he is not the same as Biden; who's to his right given that he proposes a public option healthcare plan and prescription drug price relief but no free college (though, tbf, he does propose 2 years of tuition-free Community College), or Klobuchar who's to the right of even Biden since she's not proposing a public option or anything in the way of tuition-free education. These are just the facts.
The unfortunate truth is Bernie's just a cult figure whose entire platform amounts to little more than one big $90T+ gaslight. He 1) doesn't have even the revenue plan to implement what he's talking about and 2) doesn't seem worried about implementation anyway because, unlike Warren, he's against getting rid of the filibuster which is what would give any of his proposals the slightest chance of getting through Congress EVEN IF he could rally other Democrats. The man clearly just wants to be President, and he throws around these lavish promises and incomplete financing plans to advance that goal knowing damn well he's gonna do dick all from 1600 except rant about oligarchs every day and hold rallies. Waste of support.
>The debate is HOW do we pay for it and if it is a political
>If you want to argue its a loser, I'm tempted to agree
lol yassss fact over fiction :)
>But this idea that America can't afford nice things is fucking
>untrue and insulting.
I do understand your frustration, actually. American Exceptionalism is a hell of a drug tho.
>But, if we engage in
>an elect-ability argument, you'd have to address how Pete
>could even enter Michigan after this BCBS shit.
>Oh and him polling at 0 with black voters. And his age.
Meh. I don't think anyone cares outside of the far-left tbh. And they'll find other things to froth at the mouth over by then I'm sure. It's not like there was this tsunami of Buttigieg stories across local media outlets in Michigan when the McKinsey thing dominated the twitter news cycle. Besides, his husband's from Michigan so he has family there. Michigan's closer to the part of Middle America he knows best anyway *shrug* Who knows tho.
The zero black support thing is based on old stats, imho. He started the race with zero name recognition so I wonder what people were expecting. The main issue I have with that talking point is, again, singling him out when in reality most candidates - other than Biden with older black demographics and Bernie with younger black demographics - haven't been polling well with black voters. Kamala and Booker weren't even polling as high as Biden in SC. I saw a poll the other day showing Klobuchar had literally 100% white support in a state. Lol. More recent polls show Pete making some inroads where he campaigns tho, so whatever. I just think a lot of folks are still undecided/uninspired. I'm not saying there isn't a clumsiness there lol, there is. But I do think the issue's been overblown.
Hell I'm a black Pete supporter lol. AMA
>As far as Liz?
>I agree with you on Bernie letting Liz take the heat. I also
>agree that the far left basically helped kill her campaign
>simply because she wasn't Bernie, and now we are all staring
>at a Biden nomination. The purity shit had them all punching
>themselves in the face.
>But, did Pete go at Bernie nearly as hard as he went at Warren
>and I missed it??
>Nah. Pete went at Warren, and we all know why. She was
>rising and he had to make a splash.
Good point, and you touch on a couple things:
1. You're right he didn't go at Bernie. Personally, I see this as part of a larger trend of Bernie being treated with kids gloves during this primary - by MSM and by his competitors - for reasons unknown to me. Maybe Pete wants to go easy on his former childhood hero or something lol, or maybe folks are weary of triggering another heart attack. Whatever the case, the far-left complains quite a bit about a Bernie Blackout but if we're being real he's benefitted tremendously from his own scandals eluding the spotlight.
2. I think some of the resentment floating around re: a public-option candidate for challenging a single-payer candidate(s) is super odd lol. It's a primary and healthcare is one of the top issues on folks' minds. That was exactly what needed to happen imho. In fact, it produced one of the most useful outcomes of the debates: Warren costing out Bernie's single-player plan. Now people at least have hard numbers to consider/compare. We should be thanking him lol.
>And lol at "repeal the tax cuts, close loop holes, and vague
>plan" = done!
Lol! Well, compared to the laundry list of legislative miracles (eg. comprehensive immigration reform, big defense cut, 77% estate tax, etc) Sanders and Warren are banking on to raise what is *still* insufficient revenue for a single-payer system?? Unfortunately for them, Pete's approach actually is more doable.
>I'll say this about Pete, he is making Biden not look quite as
>bad to me.
Lol that's fair. Support who you want man lol. Again, my main issue is with the disinformation, hysteria, and harassment that's come to define the far-left's tactics. I'm about facts, fairness, and objectivity. So I could care less if somebody just prefers Biden/Biden's platform as opposed to Pete's. But, for example, don't claim its about anyone's record on race when Biden eulogized Strom Thurmond, authored the 1994 Crime bill, and was a ringleader in the senate's humiliation of Anita Hill. Or, don't claim its about age/competency when Biden's displaying obvious signs of cognitive decline and is floating that he'd only serve one term. Lol. That sort of thing.
13359007, how informed is the comparison though?|
Posted by mista k5, Wed Dec-11-19 01:39 PM
for the general public the messaging was that warren was going to raise taxes. she is going to make you lose your private insurance. she was going to tear down murrica
murrica loves to chose to pay more for less!
an informed comparison would be to discuss what is actually covered and what the cost would be for people.
pete would hint that his option was to give you all the benefits of M4A but still leave a choice for those who love to pay insurance companies more for less. instead of a flavor of medicare he really is only offering a whiff. i dont think people would really support that if they understood it.
i do think going with M4A would be the best option, the most cost effective option in the long term. the most humane option. the most logical option. because of the effective fear campaign i would be okay with a public option that actually offered much more than any being proposed outside of warren if it means we get something done versus we dont.
theres no question that the GOP will attack equally any of the dems proposals as socialist, and hurting the american people. not sure why were caving to them already.
13359232, Fair points.|
Posted by kfine, Fri Dec-13-19 12:38 PM
>for the general public the messaging was that warren was
>going to raise taxes. she is going to make you lose your
>private insurance. she was going to tear down murrica
>murrica loves to chose to pay more for less!
Well, the correct framing of this issue is Bernie proposes to raise taxes on anybody earning more than $29k/yr, and Warren was pressured to either endorse that approach or commit to not burdening taxpayers. She (smartly) chose the latter. Private health insurance abolition is just a feature of the proposed single-payer system as a whole, not Warren-specific.
And Bernie and Warren aren't proposing paying less for more, what? It's more for more! Lol. That 'M4A is cheaper' trope is just sloppy health economics out of the left-wing. Nobody is actually going to feel that $2T drop in National Health Expenditure; it's an economy-wide metric. Just like you probably don't notice GDP fluctuation in your everyday life. But you know what people would notice? An extra 20%+ or whatever it would end up being coming off their paychecks. You said uptop that your current personal health spending accounts for ~5% of your annual income. 20%+ is more than 5% lol.
>an informed comparison would be to discuss what is actually
>covered and what the cost would be for people.
>pete would hint that his option was to give you all the
>benefits of M4A but still leave a choice for those who love to
>pay insurance companies more for less. instead of a flavor of
>medicare he really is only offering a whiff. i dont think
>people would really support that if they understood it.
Well if you read through his policy there's no insinuation about fully expanded benefits tho. Actual Medicare doesn't even cover all the perks Bernie's proposing, so it's not that Pete is offering a "whiff" as you put it... it's pretty standard coverage (ACA essential benefits at gold-level/80% actuarial value). It's that Bernie is proposing in excess. Maybe Pete just decided a life-or-death perk (free/no-copay generic drugs) was the most impactful use of budgeted funds? I dunno. But in that UI analysis you shared a while back, they ran the numbers for Reform 8 (M4A) and then went so far as proposing Reform 7 ("single-payer lite") because scaling back on benefits (eg. dental, vision, hearing, long-term care etc) could help shave another $1T from the federal spending the proposal needs in a year. $1T that neither Bernie's or Warren's financing has been able to cover.
>because of the effective fear
>campaign i would be okay with a public option that actually
>offered much more than any being proposed outside of warren if
>it means we get something done versus we dont.
Pointing out real issues with single-payer as a model and/or Bernie's specific single-payer system isn't a fear campaign tho. Lol. It's just reality. Warren's transition plan/public option is still mad expensive and dependent on a string of legislative miracles to fund it. No sense in denying that.
But knowing that you favor expansion of benefits (eg. dental,vision, hearing, etc), what you said here made me just think that perhaps the healthcare plan that should have appealed to you most was Kamala's then??? Because she also sought expanded benefits, no income-based premiums for anyone making <$100k; but then she went a little further than Pete on private insurer controls (they could stay in business but more tightly regulated i.e adapt and become part of Medicare system a la Medicare Advantage), while avoiding some of the more contentious funding sources proposed by Bernie and Warren (eg. the wealth taxes, 77% estate tax, comprehensive immigration reform, big defense cut,etc). That said, in terms of Congress, the public option with the best prospects for actually getting universal healthcare access legislated within a presidential term is still and has always been Pete's. Kamala's plan called for a 10y transition, even longer than Warren's, and was similarly more cumbersome than his too.
>theres no question that the GOP will attack equally any of the
>dems proposals as socialist, and hurting the american people.
>not sure why were caving to them already.
I actually agree with you on this. It's why I hate how abusive the tactics of the far-left have gotten. But I know, for example, that because you really like Warren you didn't like how Pete challenged her on single-payer. In my view tho, that is "precisely" the type of friction we should see between candidates in a primary: civil, productive, and about the issues. Done correctly, everybody wins.
Yes she suffered in the polls, but that's more because Sanders' healthcare proposal was just poorly designed from jump. In the big picture tho, her plan enabled her to 1) make a critical distinction between herself and Bernie (no taxes on lower and middle class to bankroll the system) and 2) give skeptics (like me lol) a more substantive single-payer plan to try to change our minds and/or stand up against the public option proposals. Tbh I think her initial openness to both single-payer AND public option was a perfectly tenable position (I think she was quoted recently saying something along the lines of "I'll sign anything that helps"). It would have distinguished her MUCH earlier from both Bernie and the public option candidates, while allowing her to lead on a commitment to not raise taxes for anyone except the wealthy. But she crumbled a bit trying to appease too many folks, especially the far-left who will never be 100% satisfied with anyone other than Bernie. Imho Warren's at her strongest when she's propelled by her own convictions, not his. I wish she'd stand tall in her center-left progressive accountable-capitalism glory lol, she would have destroyed this primary.
13359243, a couple of things|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-13-19 01:19 PM
where are you getting 20%? ive said before i would be willing to pay around 8% towards health care if it meant everyone gets these improved benefits. why do you say it would end up being 20%? based on the pricing/funding studies i really think it would be around 6%. thats an increase for me because i dont actually use the coverage. for most people it would be a decrease in what theyre spending on health care now. they would get a lot more though.
if you look at the total cost of health care, individual people and america as a whole would spend less and get more. will some individuals spend more? yes. warren would make only the super wealthy pay more. bernie would make the well off and above pay more.
im slightly above median income, i have a ton of debt. i could afford to pay for health care. im sure some families around the same income would not. anyone that actually needs to use health care would end up spending less under medicare for all than any public option or current system. people that dont need it might spend more but it would not be an unreasonable amount.
ive been thinking of why petes attack has bothered me. is it at all something other than "hey your not being nice to my currently preferred candidate"????? yes. we know when the general election comes trump will not give any details on what he wants to do. he will say the dem candidate wants to take away your benefits, tax you more, turn us into venezuela. what benefit is there to lock yourself into specific details on how to pay for the policy now? very little if any, that was petes argument when i first started paying attention him. he wasnt going to lock himself down to anything. it made sense. why is he then trying to push other dem candidates to lock themselves into details now? because he knows it will give him and others ammunition to attack them on. in my view, unfairly. these details should be worked out once the policy is actually being voted on. laying them out now just puts you in a position to be attached. right now and if you have to make concessions once the policy is being put in place.
thats why i didnt like how he kept pushing. its clear that facts and details dont matter in our elections. warren should have recognized that. oh well. best case she learns from this and is able to hit back better and be ready when trump tries the same. worst case, shes out and were looking at bernie vs whoever survives the "electability" contest and wins the fundraisers backing.
how is the public option going to be defended vs trump? how do you think trump will attack it?
13359296, There's been another independent study trying to estimate M4A costs|
Posted by kfine, Fri Dec-13-19 04:10 PM
>where are you getting 20%?
and they included their estimate of the necessary tax hike (Bernie's financing plan says 4% for households earning $29k+).
I refuse to link it tho, because it was a Heritage Fdn study lol... I skimmed for the math only (which, tbf, they were pretty forgiving to Bernie on. They estimated the ~20% tax hike on a federal spending increase of ~$24T+, which is closer to the lower bound of estimates where other independent studies have been converging).
But ya. The paper is called "How Medicare for All Harms Working Americans" (lol). Hopefully some less partisan groups will take a stab at trying to estimate the tax issue tho. I liked that the estimated pricetag was looked at from across the spectrum.
>for most people it would be a
>decrease in what theyre spending on health care now. they
>would get a lot more though.
>if you look at the total cost of health care, individual
>people and america as a whole would spend less and get more.
total cost of health care = NHE tho, so america as a whole yes because NHE goes down a bit, but not necessarily individually. Certainly not if a substantial tax hike is in the cards. This conflating of federal spending and NHE the left does has really messed up the discourse on this tbh.
>will some individuals spend more? yes. warren would make only
>the super wealthy pay more. bernie would make the well off and
>above pay more.
Correct on Warren, consistent with her pledge. Incorrect on Bernie: Only households of 4 earning less than $29k p.a. would be exempt from paying what he "says" will be a 4% payroll tax increase:
"Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four;"
But that 4% isn't locked in stone, and independent analyses are starting to trickle in estimating a necessary tax hike much higher than that.
>im slightly above median income, i have a ton of debt. i could
>afford to pay for health care. im sure some families around
>the same income would not. anyone that actually needs to use
>health care would end up spending less under medicare for all
>than any public option or current system.
Well, you don't know that. In your case, your 5% was less than the 8.5% Pete's plan would guarantee. Why would you switch? But not everyone is in your situation. And some people are too impoverished to afford any coverage at all, and they would benefit most. I know you're not a fan of his public option and that's fair, I have no problem with that. But let's not go so far as erasing the obvious value propositions for some people lol.
>ive been thinking of why petes attack has bothered me. is it
>at all something other than "hey your not being nice to my
>currently preferred candidate"????? yes. we know when the
>general election comes trump will not give any details on what
>he wants to do. he will say the dem candidate wants to take
>away your benefits, tax you more, turn us into venezuela. what
>benefit is there to lock yourself into specific details on how
>to pay for the policy now? very little if any,
that was petes
>argument when i first started paying attention him. he wasnt
>going to lock himself down to anything. it made sense.
Hmm, interesting. I remember his argument being that he wanted to lay out the values animating his policy first, because he felt Repubs have been better at rallying their base around shared interests than Dems. I do remember him saying something about being careful not to be so inflexible that one ran into difficulty trying to govern... but that's a bit different than mapping out how proposals will be funded imho.
Taxpayers probably don't need a spreadsheet lol, you're right. But I think the way a candidate approaches government spending says a lot not only about their competence but about their leadership and ability to allocate my tax dollars responsibly. And Pete's been talking about fiscal responsibility more as of late, too... which is music to the ears of a taxpayer like me, personally.
>he then trying to push other dem candidates to lock themselves
>into details now? because he knows it will give him and others
>ammunition to attack them on. in my view, unfairly. these
>details should be worked out once the policy is actually being
>voted on. laying them out now just puts you in a position to
>be attached. right now and if you have to make concessions
>once the policy is being put in place.
>thats why i didnt like how he kept pushing. its clear that
>facts and details dont matter in our elections. warren should
>have recognized that. oh well. best case she learns from this
>and is able to hit back better and be ready when trump tries
>the same. worst case, shes out and were looking at bernie vs
>whoever survives the "electability" contest and wins the
>how is the public option going to be defended vs trump? how do
>you think trump will attack it?
Ya I hear where you're coming from, and I think I just disagree. Strongly. It's cool tho.
And re: how 45 might attack Pete's public option, I don't know lol. I think it's got pretty solid armor tho, tbh. He's not trying to sunset an industry, he's not raising anyone's taxes, he's expanding coverage to the uninsured vs Repubs trying to take coverage away from people, and it will be funded in part due to prescription drug pricing reform which even 45 himself has endorsed.
Tbh I think Pete doesn't offer that many attack lines for 45 to pursue, in contrast to some of the stuff from Bernie's past that could make 45 actually look good in comparison. They're just so different. But I also suspect 45 might opt to go more personal if it came to Pete. Which I think might only inspire folks' sympathy?? Lol. Who knows tho.
13359297, hopefully moderates are prepared to throw their full support|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-13-19 04:22 PM
behind bernie or warren if they get the nomination.
as much as pete annoys me as of late i have no question that i would support him if he got the nomination. cant bring myself to imagine biden winning it lol
do you think the candidates have explained their policies enough at this point? is there something you are looking for them to address further before you vote?
13359006, lol I can't believe dude used Delaney|
Posted by Stadiq, Wed Dec-11-19 01:38 PM
and thought no one would notice and/or call him on it.
13358788, McKinsey gives him permission to disclose clients|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Mon Dec-09-19 10:25 PM
Will it stop the "democratic activists'" criticism of him for it? Doubt it.
13358800, Goodbye Kamala!|
Posted by Kira, Tue Dec-10-19 04:26 AM
She was appalled that someone asked her if she supports beneficial policy solely towards native black Americans then supported benefits for Indians and the LGBT community. Hmmm... *thinks*
We didn't fall for it. Now she's back to her Indian and Asian roots. Embrace your Jamaican heritage as well and apologize. She no longer has to pretend empathize with the sole community she doesn't like evident in her policy.
13358884, ADOS is overdoing it with her|
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-10-19 03:12 PM
13358894, You mean Yvette and Antonio|
Posted by Kira, Tue Dec-10-19 03:45 PM
If Kamala refused to expressed disdain at the idea of pushing forth meaningful policy towards the LGBT or Jewish communities what would happen? She somehow alienated the biggest most supportive Democratic voting Bloc quickly.
Relax because the political operation ADOS lead by Tone and Yvette have pivoted to the Democratic platform... FBA/NBA/DOAS are lineage-based leaderless and not subjected to the same arguments or problems...
13358901, Yeah those two|
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-10-19 04:09 PM
>If Kamala refused to expressed disdain at the idea of pushing
>forth meaningful policy towards the LGBT or Jewish communities
>what would happen? She somehow alienated the biggest most
>supportive Democratic voting Bloc quickly.
I understand why they had a problem with Kamala but she is out the race now.
>Relax because the political operation ADOS lead by Tone and
>Yvette have pivoted to the Democratic platform... FBA/NBA/DOAS
>are lineage-based leaderless and not subjected to the same
>arguments or problems...
It's good that FBA/NBA/DOAS are not going down the same road, because Tariq is doing too much.
13358907, yang is in the december debate|
Posted by mista k5, Tue Dec-10-19 04:26 PM
tulsi is boycotting a debate she hasnt qualified for
so that makes 7
13358920, Who the fuck is Tom Steyer? His commercials just started...|
Posted by ThaTruth, Tue Dec-10-19 07:38 PM
popping up on tv recently, at first I thought he was running for some local then he said “for President”
13358922, What ?|
Posted by Lurkmode, Tue Dec-10-19 07:55 PM
>popping up on tv recently, at first I thought he was running
>for some local then he said “for President”
You don't know who Tom Steyer is ?
Beginning in October 2017, Steyer spent approximately $10 million for a television ad campaign advocating the impeachment of President Donald Trump
13359197, RE: Who the fuck is Tom Steyer? His commercials just started...|
Posted by wluv, Thu Dec-12-19 10:32 PM
>popping up on tv recently, at first I thought he was running
>for some local then he said “for President”
Lol i said the same shit when i first saw his commercials. I thought he was running for local office. Didnt get it til he start talking about Trump. Then i thought he was some random 3rd party candidate. Interesting to see if he has any traction at all.
13359164, UK News: Boris Fucking Johnson wins majority government.|
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Dec-12-19 06:17 PM
U.K. General Election 2019: Conservatives Headed for a Majority, Exit Poll Shows
Bernie supporters take note. Labour has decided to go with the young voters and exciting their base, and now it's a hollow fucking shell, unable to even gain seats against Boris Fucking Johnson.
13359169, worst defeat since 1924.|
Posted by Soldado, Thu Dec-12-19 06:34 PM
the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running on a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda here.
similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
american history has been crystal clear about what happens to prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority older white center right) electorate.
even biden (as well as clinton) is running even further left than obama (especially on immigration). that comes with its set of risks in crucial rust belts states and nc, fl, etc.
13359229, if Trump can beat Bernie, he will easily beat the rest...|
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Dec-13-19 12:03 PM
...Bernie is our best bet by far
13359253, meh I don't think the panic is necessary|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-13-19 01:37 PM
>the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical
>upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running on
>a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda
Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate number one.
Number two, the metldown I am seeing is amusing because very few people used the *US* elections last month this much to forecast trouble for the GOP to this level.
VA turning blue? media= "oh, cool but how can Dems keep it going? They better be careful!"
UK results? media= "democrats are fucked!! Is it too late to convince Romney to run as a Dem?"
I do think we all need to be very wary of polls- yes polls that show Bernie beating Trump, but also polls showing Biden beating Trump.
>similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
Again, I don't think we use results in different countries with completely different political systems to freak out.
I have underestimated Bernie's campaign, as have you.
I don't know if nominating him is the smartest move necessarily, but I don't think its the apocalypse if it happens.
I think if he keeps leaning into this FDR democrat thing it will help. And a VP who will ease some fears (not sure who that is...Kamala? someone from the midwest like Baldwin? )
>american history has been crystal clear about what happens to
>prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority older
>white center right) electorate.
Yeah man the problem with this line of thinking is no one can pinpoint what "too far left" even means.
Instead, it is used as reasoning to nominate/vote/support the centrist candidate.
Anything to the left of the preferred candidate is suddenly "too far left"
>even biden (as well as clinton) is running even further left
>than obama (especially on immigration). that comes with its
>set of risks in crucial rust belts states and nc, fl, etc.
This is more dem party panic thinking.
The entire country has moved to the left of Obama on a lot of issues, like immigration and gay marriage.
'08 Obama is actually a decent look at what a Bernie nom could look like to me.
I know certain folks want to revise what Obama presented himself as, but dude was promising to walk picket lines with folks. Talked trade reform. Etc.
He was far more progressive than Hillary, and far more left than McCain was to the right.
McCain was the moderate, the bipartisan "maverick"
Rewind 4 years. Dems nominated a "safe" moderate candidate and got their asses fucking kicked.
The sky isn't falling in the US because the UK just *might* be more fucked up than we are.
Only lesson here is to not trust polls.
13359325, "There isn't a 'red' America and a 'blue' America..."|
Posted by stravinskian, Fri Dec-13-19 06:37 PM
"There's 'The United States of America!'"
Corny and untrue as it was, THAT is how Barack Obama won.
>>the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical
>>upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running
>>a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda
>Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate number one.
Not really. There are certainly differences between them, but there are also differences between the countries, as you point out when it becomes convenient. Mainstream political thought in the UK is generally to the left of mainstream political thought in the US. So even if "Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate" that wouldn't necessarily mean Corbyn is farther from the mainstream in the UK than Bernie is in this country.
>Number two, the metldown I am seeing is amusing because very
>few people used the *US* elections last month this much to
>forecast trouble for the GOP to this level.
>VA turning blue? media= "oh, cool but how can Dems keep it
>going? They better be careful!"
That's not what the coverage has been at all. It's been "Does this presage another Blue Wave? The Republicans had better be careful!"
>UK results? media= "democrats are fucked!! Is it too late to
>convince Romney to run as a Dem?"
I know you're joking, but NOBODY has been saying democrats are fucked. Democrats SHOULD be in a good position. The question is whether they're squandering their advantages by failing to run presidential campaigns that match the successful (and much more centrist) local campaigns.
>I do think we all need to be very wary of polls- yes polls
>that show Bernie beating Trump, but also polls showing Biden
Sometimes people don't like polls because they don't like data, especially when the data contradicts their beloved preconceptions.
>>similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
>Again, I don't think we use results in different countries
>with completely different political systems to freak out.
>I have underestimated Bernie's campaign, as have you.
Nobody has seen Bernie's general election campaign, because he's never run one. We have seen plenty of campaigns that are analogous to Bernie's general election campaign. The UK catastrophe is one of them, the Australian Labor collapse is another.
>I don't know if nominating him is the smartest move
>necessarily, but I don't think its the apocalypse if it
>I think if he keeps leaning into this FDR democrat thing it
>will help. And a VP who will ease some fears (not sure who
>that is...Kamala? someone from the midwest like Baldwin? )
>>american history has been crystal clear about what happens
>>prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority older
>>white center right) electorate.
>Yeah man the problem with this line of thinking is no one can
>pinpoint what "too far left" even means.
Just because it might be hard to do doesn't mean we don't have to do it. The voters will pinpoint what "too far left" means, whether we like it or not.
>Instead, it is used as reasoning to nominate/vote/support the
Yes. As it should be. Because, again, history has been crystal clear that centrist candidates do better in general elections.
>Anything to the left of the preferred candidate is suddenly
>"too far left"
Exactly. And for Republicans, anything to the right of their best candidate is too far right.
This isn't about shutting down the left. It's about winning.
>>even biden (as well as clinton) is running even further left
>>than obama (especially on immigration). that comes with its
>>set of risks in crucial rust belts states and nc, fl, etc.
>This is more dem party panic thinking.
And more importantly, it's true.
>The entire country has moved to the left of Obama on a lot of
>issues, like immigration and gay marriage.
>'08 Obama is actually a decent look at what a Bernie nom could
>look like to me.
Does this look like a Bernie speech?
>I know certain folks want to revise what Obama presented
No. Maybe you misunderstood what Obama presented himself as. He definitely benefited from the fact that everyone sees in him what they want to see. And apparently a lot of people still do.
But he WAS running as a moderate. He didn't just say we needed to get out of Iraq. He said we needed to get out of Iraq so that we could increase our presence in Afghanistan. He said we could have health care reform without an individual mandate.
He was trying to become the first Black president. Job #1 was ALWAYS "don't scare anyone!"
>but dude was promising to walk picket lines with
>folks. Talked trade reform. Etc.
Oh, he supported unions. Like every Democrat since FDR. He "talked trade reform", like every Presidential candidate in the history of the republic.
>He was far more progressive than Hillary, and far more left
>than McCain was to the right.
You're inventing this because it makes you feel good.
>McCain was the moderate, the bipartisan "maverick"
That's what McCain was *trying* to run as, and that's why, at first, Obama was mostly running against the Bush record, and the fact that at that point Bush was not seen as any sort of moderate. Bush was popular when he was running as a "compassionate conservative." He was not popular when the deregulation that every Republican in the world supported caused the entire financial system to collapse and he'd put us in an unnecessary and catastrophic war.
The fact that McCain had forcefully supported the Iraq war (even arguing that Rumsfeld was being too cautious!), was a key to how Obama was able to undermine the "maverick" image.
And then when McCain got forced by his base to choose Sarah Palin as a runningmate it put that "maverick" image right to bed.
Obama won that campaign specifically by looking more moderate than McCain (and, just as important, Bush).
>Rewind 4 years. Dems nominated a "safe" moderate candidate
>and got their asses fucking kicked.
You're talking about Bush/Kerry? The electoral vote was 286 to 251. The popular vote was 50.7 to 48.3. Hardly an asskicking, especially considering that the Iraq war was still popular at the time outside of the Democratic base.
And let's not forget a central feature of HOW Bush won. Kerry was trying to run as a war hero who'd then protested the Vietnam war. The Swiftboaters turned him, in the public imagination, into a "typical progressive," supposedly a coward in Vietnam, and then "unpatriotic" after he got home.
>The sky isn't falling in the US because the UK just *might* be
>more fucked up than we are.
Nobody's saying the sky is falling. We're saying that if a candidate can get stereotyped as beholden to your base then it makes them weak in a general election. To the extent that "political science" is really a science, there's no principle more fundamental than this.
>Only lesson here is to not trust polls.
I'm getting the distinct feeling that you want to "not trust polls" because it feels so much better to trust your imagination.
13359327, RE: "There isn't a 'red' America and a 'blue' America..."|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-13-19 07:48 PM
well, first up there is this, which is well said-
>"There's 'The United States of America!'"
>Corny and untrue as it was, THAT is how Barack Obama won.
No one is saying Bernie or anyone should run a divisive campaign.
Obama was great at being both.
He simply wasn't the moderate in either race he won.
How many Hill voters voted for McCain? That's a lot of 'progressive Hillary voters' moving to 'right wing' McCain.
Nah. Obama ran as a progressive/populist outsider with unity on top.
You know he did. Stop.
>>>the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical
>>>upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running
>>>a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda
>>Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate number one.
>Not really. There are certainly differences between them, but
>there are also differences between the countries, as you point
>out when it becomes convenient. Mainstream political thought
>in the UK is generally to the left of mainstream political
>thought in the US. So even if "Corbyn makes Bernie look
>moderate" that wouldn't necessarily mean Corbyn is farther
>from the mainstream in the UK than Bernie is in this country.
When convenient? I've never talked about the UK on here. Ever.
But it is pretty convenient for everyone who is freaking out right now to leave out that they have a completely different system.
Now, if someone said "a Bernie nom will lead to a 3rd party run by Bloomberg" I'd believe that.
>>Number two, the metldown I am seeing is amusing because very
>>few people used the *US* elections last month this much to
>>forecast trouble for the GOP to this level.
>>VA turning blue? media= "oh, cool but how can Dems keep it
>>going? They better be careful!"
>That's not what the coverage has been at all. It's been "Does
>this presage another Blue Wave? The Republicans had better be
Cmon, you get my point.
>>UK results? media= "democrats are fucked!! Is it too late
>>convince Romney to run as a Dem?"
>I know you're joking, but NOBODY has been saying democrats are
>fucked. Democrats SHOULD be in a good position. The question
>is whether they're squandering their advantages by failing to
>run presidential campaigns that match the successful (and much
>more centrist) local campaigns.
Yeah I was, but also pointing out how much more (relative) weight is being given to results in a different country than our own. Tongue in cheek? sure.
Glad you are getting better at picking up jokes though.
>>I do think we all need to be very wary of polls- yes polls
>>that show Bernie beating Trump, but also polls showing Biden
>Sometimes people don't like polls because they don't like
>data, especially when the data contradicts their beloved
Sure. Applied to everyone? Then we agree.
I'm just pointing out that a lot of folks were scratching their heads at Boris outperforming the polls.
Dems, no mattter who is the nom, shouldn't get too comfortable.
That's the panic I take from this.
>>>similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
>>Again, I don't think we use results in different countries
>>with completely different political systems to freak out.
>>I have underestimated Bernie's campaign, as have you.
>Nobody has seen Bernie's general election campaign, because
>he's never run one. We have seen plenty of campaigns that are
>analogous to Bernie's general election campaign. The UK
>catastrophe is one of them, the Australian Labor collapse is
Again, completely different systems. And, as you say, no one has seen a GE Bernie.
Maybe he picks a VP that makes certain people more comfortable, and leans into the FDR thing.
I'm not saying its the smartest/best play by any means- I'm all over the map.
I just don't think we should write him off at this point.
Especially considering Reeq and I both doubted Bernie would be this successful this time out. Context to my comments.
But, as usual, you jump in either not knowing the entire context or ignoring it all together.
>>I don't know if nominating him is the smartest move
>>necessarily, but I don't think its the apocalypse if it
>>I think if he keeps leaning into this FDR democrat thing it
>>will help. And a VP who will ease some fears (not sure who
>>that is...Kamala? someone from the midwest like Baldwin? )
>>>american history has been crystal clear about what happens
>>>prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority older
>>>white center right) electorate.
>>Yeah man the problem with this line of thinking is no one
>>pinpoint what "too far left" even means.
>Just because it might be hard to do doesn't mean we don't have
>to do it. The voters will pinpoint what "too far left" means,
>whether we like it or not.
Okay, sure. You mean, in the primaries? Then I agree completely.
I'm just saying right now, we shouldn't all run to the center because Corbyn lost. Thats it. Thats my point.
>>Instead, it is used as reasoning to nominate/vote/support
>Yes. As it should be. Because, again, history has been crystal
>clear that centrist candidates do better in general elections.
LOL you never let this go no matter how many elections prove otherwise so its pointless but...
If you choose to see it the way you do, I guess.
But Obama wasn't a centrist just because he talked about unity.
And Trump was not the centrist.
If anything American loves an outsider, which is why I think Bernie's time in the senate is actually a bigger weakness than the socialist label. Well, at least as big imo.
>>Anything to the left of the preferred candidate is suddenly
>>"too far left"
>Exactly. And for Republicans, anything to the right of their
>best candidate is too far right.
>This isn't about shutting down the left. It's about winning.
I didn't say otherwise.
Megan McCain isn't voting for a Dem and you guys need to stop with that fantasy.
Also, independent doesn't necessarily = moderate.
But when talking heads say "we can't go too far left" before Iowa...it means "please Dem voters, vote for our preferred candidates".
>>>even biden (as well as clinton) is running even further
>>>than obama (especially on immigration). that comes with
>>>set of risks in crucial rust belts states and nc, fl, etc.
>>This is more dem party panic thinking.
>And more importantly, it's true.
>>The entire country has moved to the left of Obama on a lot
>>issues, like immigration and gay marriage.
>>'08 Obama is actually a decent look at what a Bernie nom
>>look like to me.
>Does this look like a Bernie speech?
LOL cmon man. I can cherry pick too.
>>I know certain folks want to revise what Obama presented
>No. Maybe you misunderstood what Obama presented himself as.
>He definitely benefited from the fact that everyone sees in
>him what they want to see. And apparently a lot of people
>But he WAS running as a moderate. He didn't just say we needed
>to get out of Iraq. He said we needed to get out of Iraq so
>that we could increase our presence in Afghanistan. He said we
>could have health care reform without an individual mandate.
>He was trying to become the first Black president. Job #1 was
>ALWAYS "don't scare anyone!"
>>but dude was promising to walk picket lines with
>>folks. Talked trade reform. Etc.
>Oh, he supported unions. Like every Democrat since FDR. He
>"talked trade reform", like every Presidential candidate in
>the history of the republic.
>>He was far more progressive than Hillary, and far more left
>>than McCain was to the right.
>You're inventing this because it makes you feel good.
LOL what? No, I'm not. You just haven't gotten over your Hillary crush. Its odd how defensive you still get with her.
>>McCain was the moderate, the bipartisan "maverick"
>That's what McCain was *trying* to run as, and that's why, at
>first, Obama was mostly running against the Bush record, and
>the fact that at that point Bush was not seen as any sort of
>moderate. Bush was popular when he was running as a
>"compassionate conservative." He was not popular when the
>deregulation that every Republican in the world supported
>caused the entire financial system to collapse and he'd put us
>in an unnecessary and catastrophic war.
>The fact that McCain had forcefully supported the Iraq war
>(even arguing that Rumsfeld was being too cautious!), was a
>key to how Obama was able to undermine the "maverick" image.
>And then when McCain got forced by his base to choose Sarah
>Palin as a runningmate it put that "maverick" image right to
>Obama won that campaign specifically by looking more moderate
>than McCain (and, just as important, Bush).
He really didn't man. I know you want it to be true because it fits your current belief, but Obama sold himself as a change agent.
Change = progressive
Sure, he talked unity...as any candidate should.
Crazy how many 'progressive' Hillary voters voted for 'right wing' McCain in the general comparatively speaking.
>>Rewind 4 years. Dems nominated a "safe" moderate candidate
>>and got their asses fucking kicked.
>You're talking about Bush/Kerry? The electoral vote was 286 to
>251. The popular vote was 50.7 to 48.3. Hardly an asskicking,
>especially considering that the Iraq war was still popular at
>the time outside of the Democratic base.
>And let's not forget a central feature of HOW Bush won. Kerry
>was trying to run as a war hero who'd then protested the
>Vietnam war. The Swiftboaters turned him, in the public
>imagination, into a "typical progressive," supposedly a coward
>in Vietnam, and then "unpatriotic" after he got home.
Wait, what...the GOP waged...character attacks??? In an election?
Yes, I'm well aware. Kerry was also a career politician who inspired little hype.
To your point, he was definitely more moderate than W...why didn't he win?
A Dem losing the popular vote this century is an ass kicking, man.
And it tells you a lot about turnout on the Dem side.
>>The sky isn't falling in the US because the UK just *might*
>>more fucked up than we are.
>Nobody's saying the sky is falling. We're saying that if a
>candidate can get stereotyped as beholden to your base then it
>makes them weak in a general election. To the extent that
>"political science" is really a science, there's no principle
>more fundamental than this.
I've definitely seen panic about this.
You really love to take my wording literally when it suits you, which makes me think you just like to fight.
Who is more beholden to their base than Donald Trump??
Who could we possibly run that would make Trump look 'moderate'?
We should be golden either way based on your logic.
But your logic kind of changes when it needs to fit your narrative.
>>Only lesson here is to not trust polls.
>I'm getting the distinct feeling that you want to "not trust
>polls" because it feels so much better to trust your
Trust me, I get that your hobby is being a condescending asshole...but that isn't what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying we shouldn't get too comfortable no matter what the polls say.
Seems to me like you just want to feel so much better about supporting centrist candidates. *shrugs*
Maybe Hillary will jump in and you can tell us all how wrong we are about her again.
13359332, RE: "There isn't a 'red' America and a 'blue' America..."|
Posted by stravinskian, Fri Dec-13-19 10:21 PM
>well, first up there is this, which is well said-
It's not well said. It's fucking stupid, and rife with wishful thinking. So I can see why you like it so much.
>>"There's 'The United States of America!'"
>>Corny and untrue as it was, THAT is how Barack Obama won.
>No one is saying Bernie or anyone should run a divisive
He's incapable of running any other kind.
>Obama was great at being both.
>He simply wasn't the moderate in either race he won.
Yes, he was the moderate in both races. You think people saw Mitt "47%" Romney as the moderate in that race? The Republican with a car-elevator in his garage? He was breaking from the Republican base?
>How many Hill voters voted for McCain? That's a lot of
>'progressive Hillary voters' moving to 'right wing' McCain.
>Nah. Obama ran as a progressive/populist outsider with unity
Oh, with unity on top. Like he's an ice-cream sundae.
Unity was the campaign. The (false) promise that Republicans and Democrats would get along. The fact that the current president was (by then) overwhelmingly unpopular meant that "change" also meant unity.
I notice you didn't mention a SINGLE issue on which Obama took a position more progressive or populist than the mainstream of the Democratic party. He was against the Iraq war, but by that point every candidate wanted to claim they were against the Iraq war.
>You know he did. Stop.
Stop with the "stop." You say that all the time. As if we should all just know that the world really works the way it works in your head.
If your only argument is that "you know it happened the way I think it happened," then the time is long overdue for you to consider the possibility that maybe it didn't happen that way.
>>>>the labor (left) party in australia suffered a historical
>>>>upset (led *every* poll since 2016 and lost) while running
>>>>a campaign extremely similar to the 'progressive' agenda
>>>Corbyn makes Bernie look moderate number one.
>>Not really. There are certainly differences between them,
>>there are also differences between the countries, as you
>>out when it becomes convenient. Mainstream political thought
>>in the UK is generally to the left of mainstream political
>>thought in the US. So even if "Corbyn makes Bernie look
>>moderate" that wouldn't necessarily mean Corbyn is farther
>>from the mainstream in the UK than Bernie is in this
>When convenient? I've never talked about the UK on here.
>But it is pretty convenient for everyone who is freaking out
>right now to leave out that they have a completely different
>Now, if someone said "a Bernie nom will lead to a 3rd party
>run by Bloomberg" I'd believe that.
Jesus Christ. Is THAT the reason you're unsure about Bernie?! In a head-to-head race, Bernie versus Trump would be a catastrophe for progressives. Not because of Bloomberg, but because Trump would (AGAIN) be the moderate candidate.
>>>Number two, the metldown I am seeing is amusing because
>>>few people used the *US* elections last month this much to
>>>forecast trouble for the GOP to this level.
>>>VA turning blue? media= "oh, cool but how can Dems keep it
>>>going? They better be careful!"
>>That's not what the coverage has been at all. It's been
>>this presage another Blue Wave? The Republicans had better
>Cmon, you get my point.
>>>UK results? media= "democrats are fucked!! Is it too late
>>>convince Romney to run as a Dem?"
>>I know you're joking, but NOBODY has been saying democrats
>>fucked. Democrats SHOULD be in a good position. The question
>>is whether they're squandering their advantages by failing
>>run presidential campaigns that match the successful (and
>>more centrist) local campaigns.
>Yeah I was, but also pointing out how much more (relative)
>weight is being given to results in a different country than
>our own. Tongue in cheek? sure.
In what sense is more weight being given to results in a different country than to results in our own?
You're SEVERELY misunderstanding the recent Democratic wins if you think the candidates won by being progressive.
>Glad you are getting better at picking up jokes though.
>>>I do think we all need to be very wary of polls- yes polls
>>>that show Bernie beating Trump, but also polls showing
>>Sometimes people don't like polls because they don't like
>>data, especially when the data contradicts their beloved
>Sure. Applied to everyone? Then we agree.
>I'm just pointing out that a lot of folks were scratching
>their heads at Boris outperforming the polls.
I haven't seen anybody scratching their heads about that. Anyone who knows anything about polls knows that it's much harder to poll in the UK than in the US. Maybe you're following the wrong sources if you thought people knew how that race would turn out.
>Dems, no mattter who is the nom, shouldn't get too
>That's the panic I take from this.
Polls are much easier in the US, though, and are historically quite accurate. Including 2016. If that's what you're taking from this, you're taking the wrong message, and forgetting, at the worst possible time, that the UK system is different.
>>>>similar results await us if bernie sanders is the nominee.
>>>Again, I don't think we use results in different countries
>>>with completely different political systems to freak out.
>>>I have underestimated Bernie's campaign, as have you.
>>Nobody has seen Bernie's general election campaign, because
>>he's never run one. We have seen plenty of campaigns that
>>analogous to Bernie's general election campaign. The UK
>>catastrophe is one of them, the Australian Labor collapse is
>Again, completely different systems. And, as you say, no one
>has seen a GE Bernie.
>Maybe he picks a VP that makes certain people more
>comfortable, and leans into the FDR thing.
Wishful thinking. The only people who care about FDR anymore are guaranteed Democratic voters anyway. But no need for us to argue over this.
>I'm not saying its the smartest/best play by any means- I'm
>all over the map.
>I just don't think we should write him off at this point.
>Especially considering Reeq and I both doubted Bernie would be
>this successful this time out. Context to my comments.
>But, as usual, you jump in either not knowing the entire
>context or ignoring it all together.
I jump in when you say something stupid. And that's what you did.
>>>I don't know if nominating him is the smartest move
>>>necessarily, but I don't think its the apocalypse if it
>>>I think if he keeps leaning into this FDR democrat thing it
>>>will help. And a VP who will ease some fears (not sure who
>>>that is...Kamala? someone from the midwest like Baldwin? )
>>>>american history has been crystal clear about what happens
>>>>prez candidates who run too far left of the (majority
>>>>white center right) electorate.
>>>Yeah man the problem with this line of thinking is no one
>>>pinpoint what "too far left" even means.
>>Just because it might be hard to do doesn't mean we don't
>>to do it. The voters will pinpoint what "too far left"
>>whether we like it or not.
>Okay, sure. You mean, in the primaries? Then I agree
Why don't you agree if we're talking about the general election? You know that the general election is the only election mandated in the Constitution, right? You know that the general election is the one where the president is actually elected, right?
The general election is the election I'm talking about.
The primary election is the election where narcissistic idiots shoot themselves in the foot.
>I'm just saying right now, we shouldn't all run to the center
>because Corbyn lost. Thats it. Thats my point.
Yeah, it's such a dumb and wrong point that I couldn't help pointing it out.
Corbyn's loss is a reminder of something that we should have fucking learned 20 years ago. New Labour happened for a reason. And the "New Democrats" happened for a reason. New Labour provided the longest-sustained Progressive Government in the UK for the last 100 years. That's what you can do when you try to govern the whole country.
>>>Instead, it is used as reasoning to nominate/vote/support
>>Yes. As it should be. Because, again, history has been
>>clear that centrist candidates do better in general
>LOL you never let this go no matter how many elections prove
>otherwise so its pointless but...
You haven't listed a single one that proves otherwise.
>If you choose to see it the way you do, I guess.
Thank you. I choose to see reality. You should have a look yourself some time.
>But Obama wasn't a centrist just because he talked about
No, he was a centrist because his entire campaign was designed to make him out as the centrist candidate. He won by attaching John McCain to George Bush and Sarah Palin.
>And Trump was not the centrist.
Yes, he was. The fact that you find it unfathomable doesn't make it untrue.
Right now, Donald Trump has the whole fucking Republican Party thinking that Russia is an honored ally and Ukraine is a den of corruption. Trump is not bound in any fucking way by the beliefs of his base. No Republican before him said they were gonna pull out of trade deals. No Republican before him said they were gonna raise taxes on the rich. No Republican before him said they were gonna end wars in the middle east. Of course he was lying, but that didn't matter then and it won't matter in 2020. He ran against his base and he won. The Bernie supporters act like there are hordes of socialists out there who never vote but would love to have a candidate that they can believe in. But Trump actually did get nonvoters out to the polls, and he did it in exactly the same way that Obama did, by going against preconceptions.
>If anything American loves an outsider, which is why I think
>Bernie's time in the senate is actually a bigger weakness than
>the socialist label. Well, at least as big imo.
>>>Anything to the left of the preferred candidate is suddenly
>>>"too far left"
>>Exactly. And for Republicans, anything to the right of their
>>best candidate is too far right.
>>This isn't about shutting down the left. It's about winning.
>I didn't say otherwise.
>Megan McCain isn't voting for a Dem and you guys need to stop
>with that fantasy.
I'm not talking about Megan fucking McCain. I'm talking about winning back the millions of voters who voted for Obama twice and then switched to Donald fucking Trump.
>Also, independent doesn't necessarily = moderate.
No, but functionally, it does. Independent could also mean doctrinaire socialist, or "Natural Law Party" member, or some other crackpot philosophy that refuses compromise and can therefore never build a politically relevant coalition. But those voters are literally throwing their votes away, so we can ignore them.
Apart from them, independent does indeed mean moderate. What are you envisioning? Do you think there are hardcore, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty right wingers who would vote Democratic if only the Democratic candidate seems really, really, really sincere? No.
For all practical purposes, independent == moderate.
>But when talking heads say "we can't go too far left" before
>Iowa...it means "please Dem voters, vote for our preferred
If so, it's because those talking heads are informed, and they want to win.
>>>'08 Obama is actually a decent look at what a Bernie nom
>>>look like to me.
>>Does this look like a Bernie speech?
>LOL cmon man. I can cherry pick too.
I'll take that as a concession that you were completely fucking wrong. This was Obama's first major national speech. It was where he made his name as a national figure. It was the event on which his entire political life was built. This is only cherry-picking if there was only one cherry on the tree.
Find me a single, even vaguely comparable, example of him taking a position significantly to the left of his own party.
>>>I know certain folks want to revise what Obama presented
>>No. Maybe you misunderstood what Obama presented himself as.
>>He definitely benefited from the fact that everyone sees in
>>him what they want to see. And apparently a lot of people
>>But he WAS running as a moderate. He didn't just say we
>>to get out of Iraq. He said we needed to get out of Iraq so
>>that we could increase our presence in Afghanistan. He said
>>could have health care reform without an individual mandate.
>>He was trying to become the first Black president. Job #1
>>ALWAYS "don't scare anyone!"
>>>but dude was promising to walk picket lines with
>>>folks. Talked trade reform. Etc.
>>Oh, he supported unions. Like every Democrat since FDR. He
>>"talked trade reform", like every Presidential candidate in
>>the history of the republic.
>>>He was far more progressive than Hillary, and far more left
>>>than McCain was to the right.
>>You're inventing this because it makes you feel good.
>LOL what? No, I'm not. You just haven't gotten over your
>Hillary crush. Its odd how defensive you still get with her.
Did I even mention Hillary? You brought up Hillary. Obama won because he convincingly ran as a moderate. Hillary lost because she wasn't able to keep her base in line without caving to them.
>>>McCain was the moderate, the bipartisan "maverick"
>>That's what McCain was *trying* to run as, and that's why,
>>first, Obama was mostly running against the Bush record, and
>>the fact that at that point Bush was not seen as any sort of
>>moderate. Bush was popular when he was running as a
>>"compassionate conservative." He was not popular when the
>>deregulation that every Republican in the world supported
>>caused the entire financial system to collapse and he'd put
>>in an unnecessary and catastrophic war.
>>The fact that McCain had forcefully supported the Iraq war
>>(even arguing that Rumsfeld was being too cautious!), was a
>>key to how Obama was able to undermine the "maverick" image.
>>And then when McCain got forced by his base to choose Sarah
>>Palin as a runningmate it put that "maverick" image right to
>>Obama won that campaign specifically by looking more
>>than McCain (and, just as important, Bush).
>He really didn't man. I know you want it to be true because
>it fits your current belief, but Obama sold himself as a
This is not opinion versus opinion. You're wrong.
>Change = progressive
Change = the opposite of Bush
Were you even following politics at the time?
>Sure, he talked unity...as any candidate should.
And as no candidate dares to do right now.
>Crazy how many 'progressive' Hillary voters voted for 'right
>wing' McCain in the general comparatively speaking.
Crazy, perhaps, and completely irrelevant.
>>>Rewind 4 years. Dems nominated a "safe" moderate candidate
>>>and got their asses fucking kicked.
>>You're talking about Bush/Kerry? The electoral vote was 286
>>251. The popular vote was 50.7 to 48.3. Hardly an
>>especially considering that the Iraq war was still popular
>>the time outside of the Democratic base.
>>And let's not forget a central feature of HOW Bush won.
>>was trying to run as a war hero who'd then protested the
>>Vietnam war. The Swiftboaters turned him, in the public
>>imagination, into a "typical progressive," supposedly a
>>in Vietnam, and then "unpatriotic" after he got home.
>Wait, what...the GOP waged...character attacks??? In an
Character attacks that marked him as: not a moderate!
>Yes, I'm well aware. Kerry was also a career politician who
>inspired little hype.
And I'm definitely not trying to say he was a good candidate. Our selection in that cycle was almost as shitty as this one. But he didn't lose because he couldn't excite the base. The base always shows up, at least as much as we need them to show up. He lost because the people who don't think about politics every day couldn't take him seriously. They couldn't take him seriously because he was successfully smeared as "too progressive."
>To your point, he was definitely more moderate than W...why
>didn't he win?
My point is that he was NOT seen as more moderate than W. He was ahead when he was seen as more moderate. Then as his optics changed his position declined.
>A Dem losing the popular vote this century is an ass kicking,
>And it tells you a lot about turnout on the Dem side.
Sure. It tells you that Kerry wasn't able to turn out enough moderate voters.
>>>The sky isn't falling in the US because the UK just *might*
>>>more fucked up than we are.
>>Nobody's saying the sky is falling. We're saying that if a
>>candidate can get stereotyped as beholden to your base then
>>makes them weak in a general election. To the extent that
>>"political science" is really a science, there's no
>>more fundamental than this.
>I've definitely seen panic about this.
>You really love to take my wording literally when it suits
>you, which makes me think you just like to fight.
Oh, you mean I should take you "seriously but not literally."
That's a fucking dodge when the Trump supporters say it and it's a fucking dodge here. Say what the fuck you want to say.
>Who is more beholden to their base than Donald Trump??
EVERYBODY. Donald Trump controls his fucking base. His base believes whatever the fuck he says. Seven years ago Republicans believed (accurately, in retrospect) that Russia was America's greatest geopolitical threat. Now they want to disband NATO because the Germans are freeloaders or something. Ten years ago North Korea headed an "axis of evil" that threatened the entire free world. Now to the average Republican they're with us because (supposedly) they're with Trump.
>Who could we possibly run that would make Trump look
That's the problem. Right now, Trump is a moderate compared to every single fucking candidate we have.
>We should be golden either way based on your logic.
>But your logic kind of changes when it needs to fit your
No, you just choose to ignore the reality.
>>>Only lesson here is to not trust polls.
>>I'm getting the distinct feeling that you want to "not trust
>>polls" because it feels so much better to trust your
>Trust me, I get that your hobby is being a condescending
At this point, my hobby seems to be arguing with the willfully naive.
>but that isn't what I'm saying at all.
>I'm saying we shouldn't get too comfortable no matter what the
So your point is dumb, trite, and exactly the opposite of what progressives need right now.
We need to know where the electorate stands, and polls are the only tool we have to measure where the electorate stands.
>Seems to me like you just want to feel so much better about
>supporting centrist candidates. *shrugs*
>Maybe Hillary will jump in and you can tell us all how wrong
>we are about her again.
If you still think the mainstream Democratic candidate wasn't a progressive, I hope that three years of the Trump presidency has already shown you how completely fucking wrong you were.
Labour is digging through its ranks right now looking for someone who can run a "New New Labour" campaign after Boris Johnson exits the EU, kills the NHS, and invites the dissolution of the UK. For the good of the world, and about 70 million Brits, we can only hope they succeed.
13359270, it isn't running left. it's running unprepared|
Posted by Dr Claw, Fri Dec-13-19 02:29 PM
Obama ran "left" (populist left of center) in 2008.
because he organized his ass off and was a better salesman than the rest.
and the media tolerated all kinds of lies and bullshit about him because it wasn't supposed to be his "turn".
the only thing someone running "too far left" has to fear is not getting out the vote and not having the right responses to the media bullshit.
it basically was Bill Clinton 2.0. (so was his presidency, sans impeachment)
Hillary lost because she came with baggage, treated the GOTV effort lackadaisically, and underestimated the ability of the right wing to congeal around a joke candidate like Trump.
this is the wrong take from the UK situation.
their voting wasn't necessarily for Boris. it was in response to what people thought was a betrayal of democracy, that the Tories easily exploited. it also was buttressed by a whole lot of lies from the media. this took the "Crooked Hillary" nonsense to an even lower point.
it was the Bidens and Buttigiegs in the UK that turned Labour the wrong way, not the "far left" politics
13359201, that mayor pete + lizzo cross promotion smh|
Posted by Soldado, Fri Dec-13-19 02:12 AM
our entire media apparatus is basically one big cow milking algorithm.
Posted by My_SP1200_Broken_Again, Fri Dec-13-19 12:01 PM
13359257, working over-time for Pete too|
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Dec-13-19 01:43 PM
>our entire media apparatus is basically one big cow milking
The Dems and the media did it man. Didn't think it was possible.
They found a candidate I like less than Biden.
13359273, Shit, I can think of at least three I hate more than Biden|
Posted by navajo joe, Fri Dec-13-19 02:33 PM
and I can't stand Biden in this race
13359285, im not too sure its the media for me|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-13-19 03:48 PM
pete has a very smug attitude. the more he talks the more it comes across. not sure thats going to go well for him.
hes the dude at work that i would avoid. say hi to someone right before and after them. lol
Posted by Dr Claw, Fri Dec-13-19 02:24 PM
>our entire media apparatus is basically one big cow milking
13359307, Democratic candidates threaten to skip debate amid labor fight|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Dec-13-19 04:46 PM
All seven Democratic candidates who have qualified for the PBS NewsHour/POLITICO Debate at Loyola Marymount University next week threatened on Friday to skip the event, asserting they would not cross the picket line of campus workers locked in a labor dispute.
UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing 150 cashiers, cooks, dishwashers and servers at the university, said in a statement that it had not yet reached a resolution in negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with Sodexo — a global services company that employs the workers and is subcontracted by the university to handle food service operations.
Local 11 began talks with Sodexo in March, but said the company last week canceled scheduled contract negotiations after workers and students began picketing on campus in November.
"We had hoped that workers would have a contract with wages and affordable health insurance before the debate next week," Susan Minato, co-President of Local 11, said in the statement. "Instead, workers will be picketing when the candidates come to campus."
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Local 11 "is fighting for better wages and benefits—and I stand with them. The DNC should find a solution that lives up to our party's commitment to fight for working people. I will not cross the union's picket line even if it means missing the debate."
Half an hour later, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted: "I stand with the workers of @UNITEHERE11 on campus at Loyola Marymount University fighting Sodexo for a better contract. I will not be crossing their picket line."
Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang also tweeted that he would not cross the Local 11 workers' picket line to attend the debate. "We must live our values and there is nothing more core to the Democratic Party than the fight for working people. I support @UNITEHERE11 in their fight for the compensation and benefits they deserve," he wrote.
"I won't be crossing a picket line," former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted. "We’ve got to stand together with @UNITEHERE11 for affordable health care and fair wages. A job is about more than just a paycheck. It's about dignity."
Billionaire envrionmental activist Tom Steyer tweeted that if the dispute between Local 11 and Sodexo "is not resolved before the debate, I will not cross the picket line. I trust the DNC will find a solution ahead of the debate, and I stand with @LoyolaMarymount workers in their fight for fair wages and benefits."
"I take the debate stage to stand up for workers’ rights, not to undermine them," tweeted South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. "I stand in solidarity with the workers of @UNITEHERE11 at Loyola Marymount University and I will not cross their picket line."
Speaking at a roundtable of labor leaders in Miami, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said: "I don't believe we should cross a picket line. So I would encourage the DNC to try to work this out to find a new location, or they're going to have to figure out how to resolve this."
The California Labor Federation, which is made up of 1,200 affiliated unions, had urged the White House contenders to not participate in the debate amid the protests, tweeting: "Every democratic candidate has vowed to fight for working people. It's time to put those words into action."
A source familiar with the negotiations between the Democratic National Committee and Loyola Marymount University said neither the party organization nor the university were made aware of the dispute until after Local 11 made their intention to picket the debate known in a letter. The DNC is now looking into the matter, the source said.
The planned demonstrations and candidates' ultimatums mark the second time a campus labor fight has upended plans for the December debate, slated to be the final party-sanctioned televised forum of the year.
After announcing the University of California, Los Angeles, as the debate's initial venue in late October, the DNC backtracked two weeks later, deciding the university would not host the event.
AFSCME Local 3299, the University of California's largest employee union, had demanded a boycott of speaking engagements at the university after being locked in a dispute with the the 10-campus system for nearly three years.
"In response to concerns raised by the local organized labor community in Los Angeles, we have asked our media partners to seek an alternative site for the December debate," DNC senior adviser Mary Beth Cahill said in an emailed statement in November.
UCLA said in a statement it had "agreed to step aside as the site of the debate rather than become a potential distraction during this vitally important time in our country’s history."
Seven candidates have met the qualifying thresholds necessary to take part in the PBS NewsHour/POLITICO Debate — the smallest assembly of competitors set to appear on one debate stage thus far in the primary cycle.
13360259, cbs poll: biden choice for 50% of black dems in super tuesday states|
Posted by Reeq, Sun Dec-22-19 11:55 AM
CBS News poll: Biden is first choice for 50% of black Democrats in Super Tuesday states
if biden is still running up them margins among black voters...just hand him the nomination smh.
the winner of super tuesday has won 16 of last 17 nominations (both parties).
if bernie/liz/pete win the overwhelmingly white initial states...but biden does well in the states more reflective of the actual party...thats says a lot.
this graphic should be pretty troubling for bernie/liz.
if 40% of *democrats* believe youre gonna raise their taxes...thats an issue in a gen elec (and extremely easy to run against).
13360264, btw i think we are gonna end up with a messy brokered convention.|
Posted by Reeq, Sun Dec-22-19 12:31 PM
with biden winning by a small margin and bernie and possibly liz refusing to drop out. and bernies folks are gonna make it really ugly.
i cant even think of a unity ticket off hand with a 'progressive' vp thats black (which i think we absolutely need this time around). and i think 'progressives' are gonna want a major concession like that (everything else is pretty much already in the party platform to some degree).
13360269, I think so too re:convention. But re:vp pick...is that just "DemThink"??|
Posted by kfine, Sun Dec-22-19 02:58 PM
>i cant even think of a unity ticket off hand with a
>'progressive' vp thats black (which i think we absolutely need
>this time around).
^This idea that 'race' is the only way to diversify, I mean.
It just seems like minority voters haven't been all that animated by representation, you know?
Like, look at the candidates who black demographics have been lining up behind... Biden with older black people, the whole Marianne Williamson-ADOS thing, and Bernie... who has the most racially diverse coalition despite it being mostly millenials/gen z (plus there's the stat about him leading the field in latin american support). These dynamics have played out in THE most diverse field of Democratic candidates in US history, right? In fact I think Yang might be the only minority candidate who really resonated with his own demographic (there's some poll crosstabs out there somewhere supporting this, I'm too lazy rn lol).
So ya. Is 'representation' all that compelling in post-Obama Dem politics?? Or did it disillusion folks? I mean I just made up the word DemThink but it's what comes to mind when I think of how HRC made her horrible, horrible, wtf-is-that-guy vp pick stating few other reasons than to appeal to white men (and it didn't help her at all). I'm not saying I don't think a diverse ticket would be a good thing.. just wondering whether the nominee might be better served to consider other ways to diversify too.. like with gender, ideology, age, etc.
But either way, I really think/hope the vp pick is someone who brings an established base with them and, preferrably, is one of the current frontrunners. Like omg after such a long and competitive primary? People have contributed tens of millions to some of these people running, invested time and energy, etc. The smartest thing to do would be to harness energy from multiple camps, imho.
ESPECIALLY if the dems don't end up with a nominee until their convention. I mean its crazy how that would literally leave them only a few months until the GE. Better a running mate who's also been out there campaigning, coalition-building, and fundraising up to that point, I think. Bc the two of them are gonna have to rapidly multiply support and hit the pavement mad hard to win this thing. The bigger and more compatible/harmonious that base is with the general electorate the better.
13360272, RE: btw i think we are gonna end up with a messy brokered convention.|
Posted by Stadiq, Sun Dec-22-19 04:20 PM
>with biden winning by a small margin and bernie and possibly
>liz refusing to drop out. and bernies folks are gonna make it
>i cant even think of a unity ticket off hand with a
>'progressive' vp thats black (which i think we absolutely need
>this time around). and i think 'progressives' are gonna want
>a major concession like that (everything else is pretty much
>already in the party platform to some degree).
Ayanna? She brings squad energy, a progressive,
backs Warren, and plays nicer with the party than
She could also bring balance by being a fresh face.
I don’t think Biden will pick a progressive though.
I doubt he thinks be needs to.
13360837, and most of the Black votes are from Southern states that are red|
Posted by legsdiamond, Thu Jan-02-20 10:54 AM
Same thing I said about Hillary. Who gives a shit if she wins SC, GA and Miss. We aren’t winning those states in the general.
13360262, Feels like Klobuchar is the media favorite of the week|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Sun Dec-22-19 12:17 PM
They're off Pete this week and are pushing Amy as the one to look out for.
It would be the news media's worst nightmare for this field narrow down early. They need the horse race to survive
13360263, Her candor is refreshing|
Posted by Walleye, Sun Dec-22-19 12:23 PM
Just a dead-eyed assurance to poor and working people that they don't deserve better and should stop asking unless they want another stapler hurled at them.
13360265, serious question: why do you think she does so well in minnesota?|
Posted by Reeq, Sun Dec-22-19 12:39 PM
she posts huge margins and easily out-ran obama in 2012 and gov walz in 2018.
why do you think she has such broad appeal to urban, suburban, rural/farm, etc voters?
13360268, She works her ass off and the DFL has built a strong coalition|
Posted by Walleye, Sun Dec-22-19 01:09 PM
On the first point, she's not only a productive senator but she's great at maintaining a relationship with her constituents. Finding people in Minnesota who feel like they've received personal, responsive face time with her is incredibly easy. My wife's family and like half of their weird town talk about Klobuchar like she's their most successful friend from college. It's charming and unnerving at the same time, but the end result is that she comes across as both steady and reliable in the senate and deeply attuned to the needs of her own personal voters. No way to do that for three elections except work.
On the second point, the coalition of suburban centrists and non-dogmatic leftists has worked really well in Minnesota. It's not always successful, all the time, but I think it's done a pretty good job of keep psychotic chuds from getting enough foothold to seek national office. Michele Bachmann notwithstanding. And I don't think carpetbagging is going to work in Minnesota, so if serious challengers don't come out of the state GOP structure they're hard to find.
It's probably also helpful that the state has a pretty high standard of living (and has for awhile) that's made it hard for any of the far ends of the political spectrum to gain a small foothold. Doesn't mean nobody like that ever gets elected, but if there's no broad dissatisfaction with the current order then the political center looks more appealing - folks who can nibble and improve at the margins.
If any of that's true (which, shrug - it's been awhile since I've lived there but we go back a few times a year) then people can decide on their own whether what she's done is a useful analogy for other elections. Though I do wish they'd consider the abuse-of-staff thing as something more serious than just scandalcraft. Nobody should be allowed to treat workers that way.
13360824, Down goes Castro.|
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Jan-02-20 10:09 AM
Not so surprising. He always seemed to be running for runningmate.
But have no fear! We still have Yang, Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren (for now), Castro (for now), Bennet (I think), Klobuchar, Biden, and a couple clueless billionaires that everyone hates. One of those people must be electable, right?
13360829, surprised he managed to stay in this long|
Posted by mista k5, Thu Jan-02-20 10:23 AM
i would have liked if had been given more of a chance but oh well.
13360904, Lol. I know you're being snarky but you forgot Booker, Gabbard, Williamson,|
Posted by kfine, Thu Jan-02-20 06:42 PM
Delaney,Bullock... I think that's it?? edit: oops, I missed you said couple clueless billionaires lol
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how things pan out with some of these lower-polling folks. There are some that I expected to drop out by now/soon but are rebounding in terms of fundraising and/or ballot access... For example, I've seen recent news that Booker might have had his best fundraising quarter to-date despite not making the last debate. And of the lower-polling candidates, Marianne Williamson has some of the most consistent but barely detectable support.. like she's on the most ballots out of the low-polling candidates (https://twitter.com/BallotTracker/status/1211769777733156866), only missing one state and she's even one of the handful that gathered enough support to make the Democrat Abroad ballot. She *must* have a strong core of geographically distributed supporters to be meeting these filing criteria/deadlines. I'm wondering if that's still all ADOS?
Anyway, it's getting kind of hard to try to predict how the field will winnow based on just one parameter like polls, or fundraising, or ballot access, etc.
It's almost like the people that were "actually" serious about building coalitions and running for the people (eg. Kamala, Beto, Castro) are the folks dropping out after realizing their numbers weren't sustainable for a real presidential campaign. Meanwhile, many in the remaining field seem to not even be taking the first ballot all that serious. Maybe because a brokered convention is looking increasingly likely? Or maybe for leverage to push for appointments/favors at the convention?? But how, when a lot of them wouldn't make the 15% threshold for delegates?? Ugh who knows.
Posted by stravinskian, Thu Jan-02-20 07:01 PM
when I typed "Castro (for now)" I meant "Corey (for now)"
And yeah, I guess Delaney is another clueless billionaire that everyone hates. But he's not as overtly trying to buy the election.
Apparently the Williamson campaign isn't long for this world. I just saw an article that said they're laying off staff nationwide. So at least there's a little good news.
Posted by kfine, Thu Jan-02-20 07:04 PM
13360901, Deval P doesn't make MI ballot after submitting forged(?) signatures |
Posted by kfine, Thu Jan-02-20 06:17 PM
Smh, kinda wild. Imagine jumping super late into a historicaly crowded primary only to consistently poll in the low single-digits and pull moves like this lol. I mean... why?
Lansing — Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's campaign for president failed to collect enough valid signatures to make Michigan's March 10 primary ballot, according to a report this week from state election officials.
The Michigan Department of State report said Patrick, a Democrat, missed the required number of petition signatures by at least 2,685 signatures. The report also flagged 474 signatures for being of "dubious authenticity."
"... (T)he signature appeared to be written in handwriting that was substantially the same as handwriting for multiple petition entries appearing on the same petition sheet," a footnote in the state's report said of the "dubious" signatures.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers will meet at 10:30 a.m. Friday in Lansing to consider whether Patrick should make the ballot
Aleigha Cavalier, communications director for Patrick's campaign, said Michigan residents "deserve to be able to choose from their full range of choices for president."
"We’re weighing our options to ensure that Deval Patrick is on the ballot in Michigan," she added.
Patrick launched his presidential campaign on Nov. 14 after initial ballot lists were prepared by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Because of his late decision to join the race, Patrick had to collect 11,345 valid petition signatures.
His campaign submitted 13,777 signatures on Dec. 13, but after state officials examined the signatures, they reported finding only 8,660 that were potentially valid. Other signatures had incomplete addresses, featured date errors or were of "dubious authenticity."
In one instance, a single petition sheet featured five duplicate signatures, "where one individual signed three times using the exact same name, address and date of signing for each entry, and another individual signed under the identical name and address two times," according to the Michigan Department of State's report.
The Patrick campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.
Four Republican candidates and 18 Democratic candidates made Benson's initial ballot lists for the March 10 primary. Those candidates didn't have to submit petition signatures.
13361144, Julián Castro endorses Elizabeth Warren for president|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Jan-06-20 10:47 AM
not sure why this surprised me. maybe just how quickly he did after dropping out.
(CNN)Former 2020 candidate Julián Castro endorsed Elizabeth Warren on Monday morning, announcing just days after ending his own bid for the White House that he believes Warren is the "one candidate I see who's unafraid to fight like hell to make sure America's promise will be there for everyone."
The news marks one of the Massachusetts senator's most high-profile endorsements to date, coming just weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses and at a moment when her political momentum has slowed. Castro, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Barack Obama and was formerly mayor of San Antonio, Texas, will appear with Warren at a campaign rally in Brooklyn, New York, Tuesday night, a campaign aide told CNN.
Warren, Castro said in an endorsement video, "will make sure that no matter where you live in America or where your family came from in the world, you have a path to opportunity too. That's why I'm proud to endorse Elizabeth Warren for President."
It's not just the polls that show Biden and Sanders leading the primary
It's not just the polls that show Biden and Sanders leading the primary
Castro was the lone Latino candidate for president in 2020. He was outspoken on issues related to immigration, including fighting for decriminalizing illegal border crossings -- and advocated for more diversity in politics. He spoke out against the current primary system that has voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire vote first, saying those states did not fully represent the diversity of the rest of the country.
Castro's decision to formally back Warren is in many ways not surprising. The two shared a publicly complimentary relationship as 2020 rivals, publicly complimenting each other's' ideas and policy positions. During his run, Castro repeatedly criticized candidates like former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden, but remained on good terms with Warren and her campaign.
Castro and Warren spoke about the endorsement after he suspended his campaign last week, according to a Castro aide. Castro then traveled to Boston to record the endorsement video.
A number of Castro campaign staffers have already made the jump to Warren's team, and Castro plans to campaign with and without Warren in the coming weeks and months, the source said.
In the video, Castro starts off by discussing his family story. Notably, in his backing of the top female candidate in the 2020 race, he points to the "strong women who came before me."
Today I'm proud to endorse @ewarren for president.
Elizabeth and I share a vision of America where everyone counts. An America where people—not the wealthy or well-connected—are put first. I'm proud to join her in the fight for big, structural change. pic.twitter.com/xDvMEKqpF3
— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) January 6, 2020
"My story wouldn't be possible without the strong women who came before me. My grandmother, Victoria, came to the United States at 7 years old. She taught her family the value of hard work as she cleaned houses and worked as a maid," Castro says. "She passed on those values of hard work and perseverance to my mother, a single mom to myself and my twin brother, Joaquin."
In the video, Castro can be seen visiting Warren at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Warren tells Castro: "You did so many things in this campaign. And it continues to matter. It's not just in the past tense -- it matters."
Castro describes his Cabinet position in the Obama administration and his presidential run as an "honor."
13361160, It actually makes sense on a craven careerist level.|
Posted by stravinskian, Mon Jan-06-20 11:50 AM
And I've been on record all along as liking Castro, so I'm not saying this as a criticism, though I do find it disappointingly predictable.
I think he's thinking about the VP spot. He's more interested in the executive branch (certainly doesn't want to come into conflict with his brother's career), he knows a Democrat won't win the Texas governorship anytime soon, but he wants a step up from being a cabinet secretary, and VP is the obvious step up.
He knows that whether we like it or not, the effort to hold our tenuous coalition together means that bare, simplistic demographics will make the call (as they really always have for most of our adult lives). If one of the male candidates wins the nomination, Castro knows that the runningmate will be a woman, so his shot ends there. Of the female candidates, we have (unless I'm forgetting somebody) Klobuchar, Williamson, and Warren. Klobuchar would have to name some young, millennial, "new progressive" dimwit to satiate the instagram activists. Williamson would name a space alien, which (according to some) might give Castro a shot. But I'm guessing Castro isn't actually a space alien; he's just kinda funny looking and has a cylon copy in the House. That leaves Warren.
13361161, this is hilarious|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Jan-06-20 11:57 AM
wish i could laugh out loud at it
i think amy would go full blown moderate and dismiss all progressives. not really worth spending more time thinking about what she would do if she won the nomination though.
there does seem to be a trend of "establishment" moving towards warren lately.
i dont like how shes been handling things lately, more manufactured and reactionary. i still like her as the candidate but not super excited at the moment.
not sure why she keeps putting so much emphasis on this whole selfie thing lol
13361487, This is the definitive article of this moment|
Posted by reaction, Wed Jan-08-20 03:28 PM
Everyone Is Getting On the Bernie Train - It is time to unify. This is a historic opportunity. Don’t be a fence-sitter.
13361701, Fuck Bernie|
Posted by Tw3nty, Fri Jan-10-20 11:56 AM
He hasn't done shit in his 28 years
13361711, A short list of some of Bernie's accomplishments|
Posted by reaction, Fri Jan-10-20 12:23 PM
Providing 9 million more Americans with primary health care, 2 million more with dental care and 860,000 more with mental health services through a $12.5 billion expansion in community health centers.
Raising the wages of 350,000 Amazon workers and 60,000 Disney workers to at least $15 an hour.
Restoring $320 million in pension benefits to 130,000 IBM workers.
7 states and over 40 cities passed $15 an hour minimum wage laws.
Passage of veterans legislation with John Mccain providing $5 billion to hire more doctors and nurses at the VA
Passage of legislation ending American our involvement in the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen.
Passage of the first and only audit of the Federal Reserve in 2010.
Passage of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.
Preventing Social Security cuts to seniors and disabled veterans.
Stopping the Postal Service from closing up to 15,000 post offices and over 100 mail processing plants, ending Saturday mail and slashing over 100,000 jobs.
Passing more roll call amendments than anyone in a Republican Congress
Passage of $3.2 billion in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy grants.
Raising wages of federal contractors to at least $10.10 an hour in 2014.
Banning the credit card interest rate bait and switch scam.
Doubling funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Creating the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
Stopping bailed-out banks from replacing U.S. workers with low-wage guest workers.
Prohibiting the importation of goods made by forced or indentured child labor.
Mandating free credit reports for all Americans.
Not taking one cent in corporate PAC money
13361775, I'm nowhere near the Bernie Bro you are, but ...|
Posted by Brew, Fri Jan-10-20 03:04 PM
... I mean you are 100% right here. "Fuck Bernie" and "what has he done" is so brainless and disingenuous it's not funny.
13361633, New 538 analysis: Biden likely nominee. Then Sanders. Then Pete/Warren|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Thu Jan-09-20 05:30 PM
Not putting any stock in this right now, but I like numbers/charts are fun to look at
13361637, its most likely gonna come down to black voters like it did in 2016.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Jan-09-20 05:48 PM
or really every year since jesse jackson ran.
black voters are increasing their share of the primary electorate each time out and expected to cast 1 of every 4 votes this year. and biden is dominant with this group.
in overwhelmingly white states...the crowd at the top of the field is usually pretty close among 2-4 candidates. with proportional delegate apportionment...they would all walk away with the same or similar amounts of delegates regardless of where they actually place. but in states with the largest black populations wherevbiden is beating everyone pretty handily...he can run up the score there.
13361643, We always discount the Latinx vote - which is a big demographic |
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Jan-09-20 07:47 PM
but to your point - the Black vote can (and often does) shift the entire landscape of Democratic primaries.
Biden certainly has the lead with the Black vote - but Sanders has put together a very impressive coalition and support-base among both Black & Latinx voters.
New Morning Consult confirms the aggregate polling trends showing Sanders leading with the Latinx vote (36%) to Biden's 24% and Warren's 11%.
Sanders also is strongly in second place with Black voters (23%) to Warren's 11%.
The Primary can't come soon enough for Biden, who is still clinging to his national poll lead - albeit by a thinner margin as each day goes by.
13361640, extremely bad favorability numbers for sanders/warren in fl.|
Posted by Reeq, Thu Jan-09-20 06:11 PM
Terrible numbers for Warren and Sanders in newly-released Mason Dixon Florida poll.
Sanders: -17 net fav
Warren: -11 net fav
Trump: -1 net fav
Biden: +4 net fav
our choice is prolly gonna come down to a moderate with a hypothetically broader base but poor/uninspiring campaign...
...and a further left of center candidate who has very little chance of winning potential tipping point states like fl, az, nc, etc while hurting down ballot candidates as well (like senate).
young voters arent coming out in droves for biden. 'progressives'/activists wont be too enthused as well (a lot of overlap there).
but the 2017-2019 dem waves are overwhelmingly powered by black voters (especially in the south) and the accelerated shift of moderate/indie suburban voters. and those are segments where super lefty candidates give up a lot of ground.
even tho warren is still my personal fave right now...if i had to pick a candidate based strictly on potential to win...id prolly go with biden at this point...with all of his flaws and vulnerabilities.
races like the va gov, mi gov, nv gov/sen push me in that direction. they werent very inspiring candidates and had some pretty notable missteps during their campaigns. but the sheer broad electorate numbers (particularly in the suburbs) drove them to victory. a further left of center candidate couldnt replicate those (we saw that in the difference between gov/sen races in places like tx, az, etc).
13361645, The only way a democrat wins is with good anti-Trump turnout|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Thu Jan-09-20 08:10 PM
Because ain't no one getting hyped up to pull the lever for Joe Biden lol
And a lot of Democrats would have to hold their noses when voting for Sanders or Warren.
The only chance Democrats have is coalescing around a common "end the madness" sentiment.
13361680, Stop saying Biden is the 'most electable'. Trump will run rings round him|
Posted by reaction, Fri Jan-10-20 10:34 AM
>if i had to pick a candidate based strictly on potential to win...id
>prolly go with biden at this point...with all of his flaws and
13361683, nah... there is a real thin group of voters in most toss up states|
Posted by legsdiamond, Fri Jan-10-20 10:38 AM
and I doubt anyone on the far left can win them over.
I think most of the Dem and R base are locked in regardless of who the nominee is..
13361688, RE: nah... there is a real thin group of voters in most toss up states|
Posted by reaction, Fri Jan-10-20 11:11 AM
>and I doubt anyone on the far left can win them over.
>I think most of the Dem and R base are locked in regardless of
>who the nominee is..
Bernie does really well in Wisconsin and Michigan, here's a little older poll that has Bernie as the only candidate that beats Trump in 3 out of 4 swing states https://twitter.com/bern_identity/status/1191438915263090689 I wouldn't underestimate the strength of the Bernie movement and the enthusiasm of the volunteer base. Yesterday we made over 300,000 calls in one day.
13361681, Man... I’ve always believed Biden has the best shot |
Posted by legsdiamond, Fri Jan-10-20 10:35 AM
because old white people in the middle of those toss up states will vote for him.
13361684, i was very hopeful that the debate performances would affect him|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 10:44 AM
it hasnt, at least not enough.
id say this next debate will really start moving things. we will start to see some shift. dont know what will happen but i dont expect the vote results to be a close match of current polling. mostly some of these last minute voters will start making up their mind so some candidates will see a boost.
13361687, Then what?|
Posted by Walleye, Fri Jan-10-20 11:09 AM
As an exercise, don't be a pundit. Just ask yourself who wants to accomplish by politics a world that you want to live in, and then consider voting for that person? You got student loans? Any medical debt? Family or friends in the military that you don't want put in harm's way?
Obviously, you don't need to answer those questions (or any other pressing material question about your own life) here, publicly. But there are already plenty of people who are paid to predict how these things are going to turn out, but it's not entirely clear that:
a)they're doing it to educate us, so much as entertain us
b)they're really any good at it
"Electability" doesn't have to be a category that's bestowed by remote dorks. If you want something, and think a candidate wants to give you that thing, decide to vote for him or her and that person has suddenly become (ever so slightly) more electable. Then tell your family and friends, and they're that much more electable.
Just look at the broad strikes occurring in France and India as regular people deciding, beyond the narrow confines of the ballot box, to take positive steps toward depriving capital of its power. The idea that our only political power is in voting was already a detestable lie. But if we permit even that feeble power to be further narrowed by a brow-furrowing, chin-stroking class of officially sanctioned serious people, then we're all enormous fucking suckers who deserve* whichever fascist succeeds President Biden. Think Trump is bad? Imagine his mask-off fascist cruelty with a subtle and competent administrator like Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton. Think they're not capable of harnessing the raw energy of the squealing racist pigs that pad Trump's base? Then imagine President Tucker Carlson.
*to be clear, we don't deserve it. but we're the ones who are going to pay for it.
13361722, So your suggestion is to live in a fantasy land.|
Posted by stravinskian, Fri Jan-10-20 12:55 PM
Putting aside the fantasy that anyone's lives would actually be noticeably different under any one of these Democratic candidates than any other...
The more egregious fantasy that you're putting forward is that if I openly give my heart and soul to the candidate who claims to plan on giving me what I want, then that "ever so slight" gain in their electability matters even when the other candidate has built-in advantages with the broader electorate. We dorks have another term for "ever so slight" in cases like this. That term is "negligible."
Imagine if there was an objective number to represent the "electability" of a candidate. (Yes, I know there isn't any such thing, but this is a premise that you assumed when you talked about making someone "ever so slightly" more electable.) Comparing such electability numbers for two candidates, if A<B, and epsilon<<|B-A|, then (A+epsilon)<B. Making one candidate "ever so slightly" more electable than they used to be does NOT change the fact that they're less electable than the other guy. (In fact, if our goal was to use our personal charisma to make some candidate more electable than they used to be, it would do more good to throw that weight behind the candidate who is ALREADY more electable. If we could actually make a candidate more electable, then we should all become Biden Bros.)
Note: Bernie himself sees this. This is why at every campaign appearance he harps on the fact that we need a massive grass-roots political revolution to bring about the kind of change that he envisions. On that, I wholeheartedly agree. If anyone was ACTUALLY gonna do half the things Bernie promises, we'd need to find some way to change those built-in electoral advantages for a candidate like Biden into advantages for a candidate like Sanders.
But here's the thing: that revolution has not come. Even for Bernie himself. He's had five years to push the grassroots to make his promises more popular and more believable. And now, just as before, he commands the grudging support of a little less than half of a little less than half of the overall electorate.
If your candidacy is contingent on a revolution, as Bernie says every day that his is, and you CAN'T bring that revolution, then you have nothing.
Posted by Walleye, Fri Jan-10-20 01:06 PM
Despair is for Protestants and liberals.
You're right about the revolution thing too. Good work! I think you're starting to get it.
13361725, And reality should be for everybody!|
Posted by stravinskian, Fri Jan-10-20 01:14 PM
But sadly many self-described progressives are more comforted by their delusions.
>Despair is for Protestants and liberals.
13361653, Tom Steyer looking to swoop in and buy this thing. Surging in polls|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Thu Jan-09-20 09:50 PM
2nd in South Carolina. 3rd in Nevada
The explanation for Mr. Steyer’s surge is straightforward: uncontested dominance of the airwaves. According to FiveThirtyEight’s ad spending tracker, he has spent more on television advertisements than all other candidates combined — not counting the other billionaire in the race, Michael Bloomberg.
In contrast with Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Steyer’s advertisements are concentrated in the four early states, though his spending in Iowa and New Hampshire has not yielded a similar breakthrough. That’s probably because other candidates are spending there. There may be another reason: Perhaps there’s more to the claim than many assume that Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities at the top of the calendar more seriously than other states.
The Fox polls suggest that Mr. Steyer has made broad gains among Democratic voters, spanning most age, educational, racial and ideological groups. The breadth of his support is fairly impressive, given that the Democratic electorate has often split along factional lines so far this cycle. The depth of his support is untested, though.
13361674, dude made the debate again|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 10:05 AM
edit: im not too surprised by the polling but he has over 250k donors??
13361676, He is the only one I hear on urban radio in Charlotte. |
Posted by legsdiamond, Fri Jan-10-20 10:12 AM
Dude is doing an amazing job with the advertising. My wife came in and asked who Street was because his ad was on point.
I never heard of dude until I turned on the radio. He has some slick/personal radio ads.
13361697, Changing my vote to Biden|
Posted by Tw3nty, Fri Jan-10-20 11:50 AM
13361717, from whom?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 12:47 PM
13361727, No candidate is polling at >50%. Why not just support who one wants?|
Posted by kfine, Fri Jan-10-20 01:17 PM
Almost the entire field would have to drop out and endorse one of the front runners for the first ballot to produce a nominee. Even a frontrunner dropping out/endorsing/pooling support wouldn't necessarily push folks over the edge... unless perhaps Bernie dropped out and endorsed Biden :)
So why stress about one's choice and/or bully other people about theirs??
It's the superdelegates (former presidents, congressional leaders, party leaders, etc.) who will be casting the decisive votes after this initial ballot. I'm almost starting to look at this primary as one big poll for them.
I can see the sense in debating policy, but not votes lol. Just rep and defend your fave to attract support from the SDs *shrug*
13361732, you should definitely vote for who you want to in a primary|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 01:36 PM
who best aligns with your beliefs. who you think would do best in the position.
im hoping there is some clarity after super tuesday and that it starts looking like at least one person could get enough votes to win it clearly.
if it goes to the convention with progressives and moderates each having about 50% of the vote yikes.
would moderates come out and say they will support a progressive vs trump?
weve seen the opposite demanded, almost assumed to happen but i dont seem to see moderates saying they are willing to vote more progressive so that trump is not the president.
13361742, I'd argue exactly the opposite.|
Posted by stravinskian, Fri Jan-10-20 01:53 PM
On your first point, that is.
The general election selects the president. The primary just selects who will be running in the general election. Our job as a primary electorate is to pick the candidate we'll put forward with the general electorate.
Also, in a primary, vote splitting has a bigger effect simply because there are more candidates who could conceivably be taken seriously.
Both of these points imply that strategic voting is especially important in the primary.
13361753, its not absolute|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 02:05 PM
hopefully there is more than one candidate that checks off enough boxes for you. from there you can pick the one you think has the best chance of winning in the general.
what would be even better is ranked voting.
id say there are 3 "serious" candidates at the moment. biden, bernie and warren. i think any of those 3 has a serious chance to win the primary and well its arguable who would do best vs trump. i think biden would fail vs trump but most people seem to be saying hes the best chance of beating trump. i think he has show enough reason to be concerned about him to not believe that.
pete maybe can actual build enough momentum in later states but hes not there yet.
out of those 3/4 you should vote for who you would prefer. not who you think others would vote for.
if you prefer someone other than those then vote for her vex.
13361769, I'm reluctantly starting to see sense in a Biden-Bernie "unity" ticket|
Posted by kfine, Fri Jan-10-20 02:44 PM
I strongly dislike both as candidates... but if it's the only way folks can get them to stop running for office (lol) and their diametrically opposed constituencies can cast votes in the same direction, volunteer for one another, and beat 45, then whatever.
Bernie can be Biden's "left" ear. Biden can try translating some of the far-lefts demands into establishment-ese to foster compromise in Congress. Bernie would have a lot of leverage as VP/Senate Pres.
It might just work.
13361770, nothing but old white men running for president|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 02:47 PM
its the american way
i didnt want to speak it but i was thinking this today lol. would it be possible for there to be a moderate and progressive on the same ticket?
lets make it warren with biden as vp and ill sign off.
13361783, Lol! Reminds me of these guys:|
Posted by kfine, Fri Jan-10-20 03:19 PM
>its the american way
>i didnt want to speak it but i was thinking this today lol.
>would it be possible for there to be a moderate and
>progressive on the same ticket?
Only one way to find out I guess. There's precedent for a 2-party ticket (Lincoln-Johnson) which I guess sort of counts... but that obviously didn't end well for Lincoln or the country.
>lets make it warren with biden as vp and ill sign off.
Lol ya see my thing is... I think Biden would actually have to head the ticket because non-progressives probably wouldn't rally behind the progressive agenda (eg. the wealth taxes, sunsetting a private industry, etc) if it was Bernie or Warren at the top. I'm sure Bloomberg will run 3rd party if either of them are the nominee. And I bet Biden isn't trying to be anyone's VP again. Who knows tho
13361771, Does Bernie seem like he'd be content with a VP spot? lol|
Posted by PimpTrickGangstaClik, Fri Jan-10-20 02:50 PM
A Biden-Bernie unity ticket is as likely as a Trump-Clinton ticket
13361786, Lol no, not really. But at the same time, maybe a former VP is the only|
Posted by kfine, Fri Jan-10-20 03:33 PM
competitor he might consider serving as a VP for in the first place??
Ironically, even though his supporters trash Biden on a regular basis... I would say Bernie and Biden have an interestingly warm rapport during debates. Like they crack jokes etc.
I've said in another post Bernie does seem like he'd err towards being a pretty heavy-handed VP... Dick Cheney-esque.
If they tried it and won it would make for an interesting mix of appointees though, I'm sure.
13361790, i wonder what bidens answer would be to this question|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 03:59 PM
instead of being asked if he would consider a republican for VP.
13361739, marianne williamson was still in it...i guess?|
Posted by mista k5, Fri Jan-10-20 01:50 PM
13361879, Cory Booker out|
Posted by mista k5, Mon Jan-13-20 11:08 AM
It’s with a full heart that I share this news—I’m suspending my campaign for president. To my team, supporters, and everyone who gave me a shot—thank you. I am so proud of what we built, and I feel nothing but faith in what we can accomplish together.