2020 Democratic Nominee

[UTDD 362]

To be fair, it is possible that the circumstances from a more unknown Trump in 2016 - and Hillary as the opponent - versus a more known Trump now going into 2020 possibly necessitates different strategic measures to maximize the odds of the Democrats winning the 2020 general election.  I personally think only a few states (no more than 6 most likely) truly matter, and it's certainly plausible (and I think likely) that some candidates would do better overall nationally, but worse in the specific battlegrounds that might turn the electoral college.

[Js1 85110]

Quote

I personally think only a few states (no more than 6 most likely) truly matter

So basically every presidential election since 2000? 

This system is stupid af. 

[Fozzz 152]

To some degree, you have to admire how Kamala holds dem primary voters in such utter contempt.  She thinks they are all basically drooling retards.

 

 

[Js1 85110]

Errbody below the top 15, GTFO

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, UTDD said:

To be fair, it is possible that the circumstances from a more unknown Trump in 2016 - and Hillary as the opponent - versus a more known Trump now going into 2020 possibly necessitates different strategic measures to maximize the odds of the Democrats winning the 2020 general election.  I personally think only a few states (no more than 6 most likely) truly matter, and it's certainly plausible (and I think likely) that some candidates would do better overall nationally, but worse in the specific battlegrounds that might turn the electoral college.

In my opinion, you need to nominate the candidate in a vacuum without considering how they match up against Trump.   People also want something new.  Americans have been kinda programmed to gravitate to the shinny new object.  It’s why Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump won.  Conversely, it’s why Hillary Clinton and GHWB lost.  People grew tired of them and wanted something new.  

It is impossible to see what the electoral college will look like this far out with candidates that have never run for president before.  That’s why “electability” is such a false and misleading metric at this juncture.  It’s impossible to know how well a Buttigieg, Harris, or Warren will play in the electoral college because most voters are not familiar with these candidates.  

The primary process should be about selecting the strongest candidate that inspires a growing movement to build on for the general election. 

Another deceptive metric is trying to match candidates policy positions to public opinion.  Those measurements only indicate the candidates ability to follow public opinion and ignores their potential to lead a movement to change public opinion through persuasion.  Bernie’s 2015/16 run is a good demonstration of how his radical agenda became mainstreamed.  Prior to 2015, Bernie would have been considered an extremist with no chance.   

In conclusion, the best candidate isn’t the best simply because  they can beat Trump.  Trump will lose because his opponent is an awesome candidate.  

[BradInATX 9208]

do you not remember the microsoft case?

I don't. I was young. I'll read up on it.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Biden's burn rate lol

[F250 28689]

59 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

To some degree, you have to admire how Kamala holds dem primary voters in such utter contempt.  She thinks they are all basically drooling retards. 

That's because most voters are drooling retards and she knows she can get away with saying one thing while doing another.

[Js1 85110]

Kirkland & Ellis has like 1,000 partners.   And she ripped the ones who handled Epstein (not these 6).  If she said nothing, you'd still have a lot of criticism for it.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Here's an idea for Dems:
Just stop hanging out with, gladhanding, and fundraising from the elite class.

Crazy thought. Wild idea.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Kirkland & Ellis has like 1,000 partners.   And she ripped the ones who handled Epstein (not these 6).  If she said nothing, you'd still have a lot of criticism for it.

Did the DOJ officials whom she requested to recuse themselves personally handle Epstein's work?  Why are you defending this trash?

[Js1 85110]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Biden's burn rate lol

Also, love your girl Marianne, but she would fall into my "drop out" category since Tulsi beat her.

I'm ready to impose a hard $2mm minimum donation for the next debates.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Pictured is how much more sitting-Congresswoman Gabbard raised in Q2 than Orb Mom in Q2:

lol that's it

Gillibrand's campaign LOST money (raised $2M, spent $4M)

ORB MOM! ORB MOM! ORB MOM! ORB MOM!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[UTDD 362]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In my opinion, you need to nominate the candidate in a vacuum without considering how they match up against Trump.   People also want something new.  Americans have been kinda programmed to gravitate to the shinny new object.  It’s why Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump won.  Conversely, it’s why Hillary Clinton and GHWB lost.  People grew tired of them and wanted something new.  

 Agree that all things being equal, a candidate of change/excitement is often better than not.

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It is impossible to see what the electoral college will look like this far out with candidates that have never run for president before.  That’s why “electability” is such a false and misleading metric at this juncture.  It’s impossible to know how well a Buttigieg, Harris, or Warren will play in the electoral college because most voters are not familiar with these candidates.

 

The primary process should be about selecting the strongest candidate that inspires a growing movement to build on for the general election. 

Another deceptive metric is trying to match candidates policy positions to public opinion.  Those measurements only indicate the candidates ability to follow public opinion and ignores their potential to lead a movement to change public opinion through persuasion.  Bernie’s 2015/16 run is a good demonstration of how his radical agenda became mainstreamed.  Prior to 2015, Bernie would have been considered an extremist with no chance.   

In conclusion, the best candidate isn’t the best simply because  they can beat Trump.  Trump will lose because his opponent is an awesome candidate.  

I don't think electability is the same metric as the ability to appeal to specific voting groups in specific states.  This specific criteria can be independent of overall movement nationally but of course I would agree for right now it's too early to accurately forecast a model that can be relied upon yet based on current candidate conditions as it is still very fluid.  I do believe you may be able to predict this better once you are down to two candidates.  There will be a lot of data internally - and some public - that will probably show some strengths and weaknesses down to specific counties that matter the most.  Of course this data could be wrong as it definitely incorrectly forecasted Trump's strength in the Midwest and I wouldn't underestimate his strength again no matter what polls say beforehand with poorly educated whites in the Midwest.  You better assume the polls are off with that demographic and fight hard to overcome a bigger margin or get a bigger surplus than the polls say.  But I think Trump is in more trouble with non-Midwest states like Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado.  The Democrats have to win Pennsylvania at all costs.  I would say Michigan as well.  Unless they flip Florida.  (that might be hard given the recent gov race but it's way too early)  

Electability is a general metric that really is meaningless in that it doesn't strategize and/or specify specific voting targets to win the electoral college.  All that matters is the electorcal college and you should play to win.  Electability is just a catchall that is pretty generic.  It's great of course if a candidate is inspirational (a character metric I consider WAY more important to actually win than policies) because most voters I believe gravitate - and turnout is impacted - towards an emotional appeal (that inspires some level of a call to action) versus an intellectual one.  I agree that policy positions are way less important than leadership and inspirational qualities.  The ugly truth too is that Trump actually is inspirational to a not insignificant minority of certain people and those people are out there, as scary as it is to me personally to be frank.  

This is why I believe Obama was an incredibly dominant candidate no matter his positions - he ultimately was not really a hard left President to be frank but kind of a corporate/statist slight left/centrist in a lot of ways - and why Hillary was incredibly weak, even notwithstanding her character issues.  She simply was not an inspirational type of candidate, she oozed the exact opposite I would argue.  The Bob Dole of Democrats in recent memory.  But a candidate that inspires 5,000,000 more voters nationally to come out and vote for the first time isn't necessarily going to be as important as the candidate that can actually swing 500,000 votes by any means necessary in the states that matter.  Obama picking Biden for VP was a very brilliant strategic decision over Bayh given the specific strategies and strengths and weakness of Obama for that election.  He probably would have won anyway, but his pick still helped.  Even the VP pick will matter, although not nearly as much as the general election candidate's ability to basically win probably less than say 1-2 million key votes cast out the entire country.  You would much rather have a candidate that can swing votes in Wisconsin and Michigan than one who can draw out more turnout in California as those two things can be mutually exclusive to some extent.  

You can kind of predict the general weaknesses of the candidates now, but a lot can change that may influence these current conditions.  Unfortunately, I don't see an Obama - in terms of inspirational power - in this crop of candidates, but they can still win if they don't do something really, really, stupid.










































































































 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, UTDD said:

Unfortunately, I don't see an Obama - in terms of inspirational power - in this crop of candidates

Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate and he had a lot of situational advantages that catapulted him to the presidency.  For one, his real opponent was Hillary Clinton, who was just as bad then.  Also, the wars, the economy crash, and the natural cycle of a population ready for change. 

However, despite being the best president of my lifetime, I do not consider Obama a great president.  

There is no inspirational “hope and change” candidate in this democratic field.  Pete Buttigieg probably comes the closest but IMO we don’t need another Obama right now.  At a minimum, we need an uncompromising ruthless fighter to tackle our current challenges.  It’s hard to package that into an inspirational attractive candidate but there are a few that could pull it off. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Tulsi doing her best Nancy Pelosi impression:

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

ORB MOM NO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

Sorry, @bad_teammate. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13132]

Jesus Christ, Kamala, get a fucking story and stick to it.

[Js1 85110]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

ORB MOM NO!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yuck. 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

Kamala is happy to tell everyone she is for Medicare For All. But then you find out Kamala is just coming up with her own versions, which isn't M4A and the details change daily. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45495]

I'll be happy to vote for whomever's plan involves beating the dotard and taking steps to shore up our floundering democracy.  If there's a healthcare overhaul of some kind in that plan, so be it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26283]

As long as it lowers aggregate cost, pressures overhead spending, structurally lowers the % spent on administration and covers all Americans irrespective of employment I don’t really care what form universal healthcare takes.
But, the first well defined version of M4A I see from anyone will be the first one I’ve seen, and it’s the least clear to me how M4A would do those things other than cover everyone, vs other UHC schemes.

[6th Street 6357]

21 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a losing message for her. Pick a side and stick with it, for better or for worse.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Kamala is happy to tell everyone she is for Medicare For All. But then you find out Kamala is just coming up with her own versions, which isn't M4A and the details change daily. 

Everyone is going to have their own versions of MFA but the end goal should be a single payer/universal coverage guaranteed with a transition/implementation process.  Bernie’s MFA plan IIRC will take at least four years to transition. BT can back me up on that.

The framing of the healthcare debate by the media and some of the candidates has been so deceptive and dishonest it makes me puke.  

The best a candidate can do without getting into the weeds or easily sandbagged is the Bernie line, “Healthcare is a right and should be guaranteed to all citizens. Full stop. That’s what we are fighting for.”

Every time I hear a TV douchebag say they want to eliminate private health insurance or take away the health insurance of 180 million Americans I want to throw my television into the sun.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

It sounds like Kamala is basically for Medicare For All Who Want It, which is a position many other candidates have taken. But she wants progressives to think she's bold and for M4A, but then backtracks or changes constantly. 

All Kamala does is tell people what they want to hear. She needs to be called out a lot more for this flip-floppy bullshit. 

 

 

 

This was the reporting on her during the debate. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone is going to have their own versions of MFA

Probably not me or the person who wins the 2020 election, but yes, a bunch.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

"Kamala had an incredible debate performance!"

 

Moderator: Which of you would abolish private insurance? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It sounds like Kamala is basically for Medicare For All Who Want It, which is a position many other candidates have taken. But she wants progressives to think she's bold and for M4A, but then backtracks or changes constantly. 

All Kamala does is tell people what they want to hear. She needs to be called out a lot more for this flip-floppy bullshit. 

 

 

 

This was the reporting on her during the debate. 

 

This is also on the media for framing it as being anti-health insurance instead of pro-healthCARE.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone is going to have their own versions of MFA

Not good enough. Let's have a standard, easily understandable, and fully publicized definition of Medicare For All. That way, candidates can properly identify where they stand, and voter polling on the popularity of M4A is actually legitimate. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is also on the media for framing it as being anti-health insurance instead of pro-healthCARE.

She's talking out of both sides of her mouth. This particular instance is not the media's fault. It's on Kamala. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not good enough. Let's have a standard, easily understandable, and fully publicized definition of Medicare For All. That way, candidates can properly identify where they stand, and voter polling on the popularity of M4A is actually legitimate. 

It isn’t easy.  You have too many moving parts and complex networks of interests involved to make it easily explainable.  The health insurance industrial complex has intentionally made it this way.   

It’s easy to explain the end goal of single payer but the nuts and bolts of how you get there are insanely complicated. 

[henrygandorf 29177]

it also doesn't help that the message from the other side is, "elect someone who supports m4a and you'll lose your employer insurance the day after they take office."

even the whole "abolish private insurance" doesn't seem accurate, depending on how you view the timetable and process of implementing the policy.

we've been discussing it here for 2-3 months and i don't even fully understand the full details of each candidate and where they overlap/differ.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

Bernie’s giving a speech about Medicare 4 All tomorrow. Hopefully it’s clear enough to give us an established baseline.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Why are talking about Bernie's Medicare for All plan like it isn't already an entire bill you can read?

With a summary?

And a whitepaper on financing it?

Come on, people. This isn't a guy who just has his policy staff write a bunch of Medium posts.

Edited July 16, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9208]

I mean isn't "Medicare for all" by its very definition Medicare for everyone, meaning it gets rid of private insurance? I think it's pretty clear that the line in the sand for the term M4A is that it gets rid of private insurance and moves everyone to Medicare or some form of it.  Is that still up for debate?

Edited July 16, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13132]

Look at the Republican pretending to be confused.

No one is advocating outlawing private insurance.

Edited July 16, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Look at the Republican pretending to be confused.

No one is advocating outlawing private insurance.

Wasn't talking to you, and I've already told you I'm not engaging you in anything serious, so kindly fuck off, please.

Edited July 16, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13132]

Literally no candidate is advocating the abolition of all private insurance. I'm sure this clears it up for you and you won't ever concern-troll about it ever again.

 

lol

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Literally no candidate is advocating the abolition of all private insurance. I'm sure this clears it up for you and you won't ever concern-troll about it ever again.

 

lol

that's my point.

what you just said is clear to you, and to some on this board, but nobody else seems to get it - especially when you consider the debate exercise where bernie raised his hand.

and to answer your earlier question, it wasn't about bernie's policies.  not everyone has everything laid out that neatly.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

what you just said is clear to you, and to some on this board, but nobody else seems to get it - especially when you consider the debate exercise where bernie raised his hand.

Lots of people get it but pretend not to get it, because they are operating in bad faith for various reasons...

- They're a Democratic supporting a candidate who doesn't support M4A
- They're a Republican pretending to be a Democrat supporting a candidate who doesn't support M4A
- They're being paid by the Biden campaign to misrepresent M4A after having argued in favor of M4A a couple of years before.
- They're a lobbyist.

and on and on

Many do not know, you're right. Many do, however, and lie. This thread has examples of both options.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

that's my point.

what you just said is clear to you, and to some on this board, but nobody else seems to get it - especially when you consider the debate exercise where bernie raised his hand.

and to answer your earlier question, it wasn't about bernie's policies.  not everyone has everything laid out that neatly.

Don't encourage b_t's bullshit. Nobody thinks any candidates literally want to get rid of private insurance. We all know it will become supplemental to Medicare. But "M4A" means that Medicare or a government program replaces private insurance as it exists today, for the base-level of health insurance. Bernie's plan, and I quote, "What it does ban is any private health coverage that duplicates the coverage offered by the government". But the gist of it is that your private insurance and mine, as they exist today, are going to be removed as an option by the government in an M4A plan. That's the line in the sand that the media and general public has set for M4A, and that's perfectly fair.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Nobody thinks any candidates literally want to get rid of private insurance.

13 minutes ago...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean isn't "Medicare for all" by its very definition Medicare for everyone, meaning it gets rid of private insurance? I think it's pretty clear that the line in the sand for the term M4A is that it gets rid of private insurance and moves everyone to Medicare or some form of it.  Is that still up for debate?

The way it’s being framed is as if Democrats are proposing to outlaw private heath insurance.  That is not what is happening.   

A logical byproduct of MFA is private insurance companies will go out of business or be forced to adapt/downsize because their services are no longer in demand. 

That is not the same thing as eliminating private health insurance. 

An analogy would be if private auto insurance companies were currently selling citizens packages that allowed them to drive on roads in addition to automobile coverage.  A leader comes along and says the roads should be free to use for everyone.  Access to roads should be a right for all citizens. 

That doesn’t mean those companies charging citizens will be banned, they will just have to change their business model and adapt if they want to remain profitable.

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Lots of people get it but pretend not to get it, because they are operating in bad faith for various reasons...

- They're a Democratic supporting a candidate who doesn't support M4A
- They're a Republican pretending to be a Democrat supporting a candidate who doesn't support M4A
- They're being paid by the Biden campaign to misrepresent M4A after having argued in favor of M4A a couple of years before.
- They're a lobbyist.

and on and on

Many do not know, you're right. Many do, however, and lie. This thread has examples of both options.

 

wasn't it you who used to rabble on about attacking the person, not the message?  here you are labeling people as liars or republicans.  nice.

bernie (and others) raised their hands when asked about abolishing private insurance.  there's not always going to be someone standing there to say, "what he really means is..." or "well the way it really works is..."  you think the american people really understand the difference?

shit, there's a candidate in the top 5 who still can't define her own stance on the matter.

like i said - because of the way he defines his issues - and the way you squawk about them, i already get what bernie is trying to do.  not everyone else is quite as clear, and i think it's ok to have a discussion about who stands where, without it boiling down to "bernie's fucking plan is outlined here you dishonest concern troll!"

sometimes it's actually a discussion, not a conspiracy.

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

13 minutes ago...

Several weeks ago

"Many people watching at home have health insurance through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?" 

Bernie: Raises hand

 

Blame your failing candidate if there's confusion out there instead of spewing your man-child shit all over this board.

Edited July 16, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26283]

Not good enough. Let's have a standard, easily understandable, and fully publicized definition of Medicare For All. That way, candidates can properly identify where they stand, and voter polling on the popularity of M4A is actually legitimate. 
 

Why? It’s a great brand. Why limit it to one thing? Let one hundred flowers blossom!