Mojo Hand

It's a distinction, but I'm not sure it makes a difference in this discussion. Maybe Merck thinks Pete will owe them and push their interests as payback. Or maybe Merck thinks Pete is already aligned with their interests and would support him even if it were anonymous. Either way, the issue is Pete's perceived alignment with the interests of major pharmaceutical companies. Which may or may not actually be an issue for you; many people don't give a shit about drug prices, patents, etc. Cool, as long as we recognize the situation for what it is, and don't attack the source of the reporting or act like the $2800 maximum individual donation is material.

I'm not a Bernie supporter; that's not hard for me to accept at all. I don't dispute the current polling and support levels. What I question is the notion that public opinion is static and the result of careful, informed analysis of the options by each American. I think most people have no clue whether single payer is better than a public option and are defaulting to the least amount of change because change is scary. When powerful, inspiring voices push M4A, the public gets swept along, and when other powerful voices push back the other way, the public defaults to minimal, incremental disruption. But the reason that the M4A brand is so strong as to mislead is that Medicare itself is so popular. It is mainly fear of the unknown that makes people reluctant to dive in all the way. That's a real thing that M4A proponents have to deal with, but I don't think the opposition on that basis is written in stone. Leadership means overcoming those fears and getting people to buy into your vision. Which is Warren's challenge right now.

I'm not assuming the worst about Pete. I'm assuming what's most reasonable about the powerful corporate lobbying interests who seem to be pumping money into his campaign, which is that they're doing it with the reasonable expectation that he'll be promoting their interests. That's what they exist for, right? I mean, I'd take his record into account if he had one on most issues of national significance. I'm open to other explanations, though. Why do you think pharmaceutical execs are bundling for him at high-dollar Geneva fundraisers? They like his plan to make the Supreme Court less political?

No, not particularly. Just pointing out that bundlers are much more powerful than their $2800 max donations. The question, as always, is what the bundler is buying.

Well, you care enough to attack the messenger despite apparently having no factual issue with what he is reporting. It's not the $2800 that matters; it's the bundling of much more significant amounts by the host. Chasten didn't fly to Geneva for $2800.

So a Merck gov relations exec didn't host a high-dollar fundraiser for Pete in Geneva last week? That's good to hear.

My guess is that people are reacting more to the narrative that M4A is a loser in the general. The election is, first and foremost, about defeating Trump, and the anti-M4A message really ramped up when Warren starting passing Biden in polls. Overcoming it will be a big test of Warren's leadership.

Highly recommend. It was fucking awesome and Eddie was outstanding.

If she's retired, maybe try explaining it in the context of Medicare, which she already has.

Remember when some people argued here that the House shouldn't announce an impeachment inquiry because there's no point with a Republican Senate, and several us argued that, at minimum, it would help the Dems in their legal efforts to get documents and testimony from the WH?

No, they're both doing the exact same thing: mocking Sanders/Warren's wonkish reputations by focusing on frivolous things rather than the actual basis for those reputations. It's the standard "leftist giveaway" narrative. But whatever you think of their merits, M4A, student debt forgiveness, free higher education, a wealth tax, etc. are serious proposals addressing major issues in our country. The core is not about one-upping with small numerical differences or giving away ponies.

The author isn't touting it as wonkish seriousness; he's mocking it.

Great point, if anyone were basing claims of wonkish seriousness on those things instead of, you know, the entire detailed policies that each has produced.

Yeah, having health care or an education without crushing debt is just as frivolous as having a pony.

This misses the point. Imagine if he had said that his proposed process would add "neutrals" who "think for themselves" and depoliticize the Court, like Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. All cool, because he isn't proposing adding those guys under the current system? Or maybe a problem because of who he chose as examples of neutral, free-thinking, depoliticizing judges that his ideal system would add as "neutrals?" This isn't about Pete's pie-in-the-sky reform proposal that will never happen. It's about his characterization of Kennedy and what it says about Pete's level of knowledge and judgment.

Why didn't he go? Was he invited?

I'm ok with a Dem candidate who isn't that informed but defers to those who are informed. That's why most Dems running follow the party line when they give examples of ideal Justices. It's when you break from that and run on your own viewpoint of remaking the Court that it becomes decisive, because you'll be picking Justices from a different rubric. Pete is explicitly running as a Supreme Court reformer. The examples he's floating are not the Dem party line, but freaking Kennedy and Souter. With party line-crossing as his marker for good jurisprudence. His comments show me that he is in way over his head and doesn't even realize it. That's why it's disqualifying.

Sure it can. He's not a robot or a piece of software. He doesn't literally poll-test every single word and then only repeat those words. His positions seem to be increasingly shaped by poll-testing. And he shows his ass sometimes in free-flowing conversations, like any other human. Only this topic is highly important for the next president.

No. I think Pete knows virtually nothing about the Supreme Court before he became an adult, greatly limiting the examples the he can draw on. I think he knows very little about the Justices in recent years, outside of a few cases that he's paid attention to, so he doesn't really know much about Kennedy's voting record. And I think Pete confuses "breaking with political party" with thoughtful jurisprudence. The first two are disqualifying on grounds of ignorance. The third is disqualifying on grounds of incompetence.

Yes. It's the same reason awful Republican Rob Portman now supports gay marriage. It affects him personally. It doesn't excuse either ignorance of or a lack of empathy for others outside of your personal situation.

Right, you're falling for the spin that a vague allusion to his values somehow negates or modifies his identification of Justice Kennedy as the kind of justice we need to "get more" of because they "think for themselves." It either shows a shocking level of ignorance of who Justice Kennedy is, and the shift in the Court that would make him a swing vote on any social issues, or an agreement with that state of affairs. Each of those options is disqualifying to me for someone who is running to remake the Supreme Court.

Or, you sure do love to fall for the spin to clean it up.

Embarrassing couple of days for the libs who stuck up for Tulsi.

Texas went for Donald Trump and probably will again. It'll take awhile to recover from that taint. I'd go with Virginia. Good mix of demographics, North/South, and urban/rural, and it didn't go for Trump.

Damn... Followed shortly after by