2020 Democratic Nominee

[Todd Gack 418]

13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There are huge price distortions and it costs too fucking much, among other things.

I'd argue that the core problem is that the richest country in the history of ever doesn't cover every person who gets sick when the health and longevity of the populace is a cornerstone of a well-functioning society.  If you believe healthcare is a right (I do), you should start there and then figure out how to pay for it.  Kinda like the way we did it with the bank bailouts.  Kinda like thousands of families all over the country who find out that their child has just been diagnosed with leukemia.  There is no decision to make, only strategies for how to cover the costs.

The current problem with the "how to pay for it" discussion is that it's hard to even get a handle on what the academic research says.  The main study that Bernie cites is a somewhat Koch -funded study that shows M4A will save $2 trillion over 10 years.  Factcheck.org casts some doubt on that, as does the person who did most of the research.  It would be nice if the media dove deeper into these things.  But all things considered, other countries have figured this shit out, we should be able to as well.  

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[bad_teammate 13116]

You forgive medical debt because they never should've had to take it on in the first place. You forgive student debt because they never should've had to take it on in the first place. There are lots of other really good reasons (it's economically stimulative, etc...), but justice is a good enough reason on its own.

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 hour ago, Todd Gack said:

But all things considered, other countries have figured this shit out, we should be able to as well.  

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

Basically I and almost every other millennial I know's point. I understand private insurance isn't completely eliminated in most other developed nations, but it's grotesque to have any system where they wield this much power over your life. If we're still tying health insurance to employment (possibly because a single payer "option" isn't properly funded and not everyone pays into) then we're taking the most incremental of steps towards improvement.

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

1 hour ago, Todd Gack said:

I'd argue that the core problem is that the richest country in the history of ever doesn't cover every person

...because in our healthcare economy there are huge price distortions and it costs too fucking much. 

The access problem is a moral imperative. But the cause is a broken market. And look, M4A as Sanders describes it would be better and cheaper than what we have today. But not only would it not apply enough price pressure to the point of "sale", it's also far too politically exposed because of the long ramp time. And the transition mechanism itself is unrealistic. 

There are reasons why the kind of monopsony Sanders advocates is almost extinct in the western world. It just doesn't deliver an optimal balance of value/cost because it's not as responsive to market forces or cost effective as the increasing hybridization seen in France, UK, Canada, Germany and the rest of the first world. 
 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[bad_teammate 13116]

M4A isn't a nationalized healthcare system. The operators are private entities in competition against each other to earn the customer and to maximize efficiencies to earn profits.

So let's avoid right-wing talking points as much as possible.

[bad_teammate 13116]

I want candidates on the ground marching with these people. Bernie better be stocking up on the Ricola lozenges and Liz better start asking around about what it's like to be on a picket line.

This is huge.

Solidarity forever.

[bad_teammate 13116]

Harris at 6% in a California poll. YIKES

 

[Js1 85009]

I cannot take Emerson seriously after the showed Warren losing 49-51 in New Hampshire to Trump but Andrew f'n Yang winning with 54%

[bad_teammate 13116]

New details on the firing of South Bend Police Chief Boykins show that Pete's campaign was very closely involved with the racist/crooked cops being recorded. They had a plan to get rid of Boykins, which Pete them helpfully executed for them.

 

-------------

“Young inquired what was the plan, and Wells stated it involved the ‘money people.’ Young asked Wells ‘What do you mean by money people. Wells stated ‘Hensley and Urbanski’, people that are putting money in Buttigieg’s campaign. Wells stated Corbett said they [are] planning to get rid of Boykins and that they had plans to make changes.”

“Hensley” was Sam Hensley, city streets commissioner under then-Mayor Steve Luecke. Urbanski was the city contractor Corbett had gone to bat for in 2006. Phoned for comment, both Hensley and Urbanski denied knowing of such a plan.

Told about the police discussions in the documents, Henley said, “I don’t know where they got that idea, but that is absolutely false.”

Asked about conversations with Buttigieg about removing Boykins, Urbanski told TYT, “I’ve got no rec--knowledge of that.” In response to a followup question, Urbanski said, “Have a nice day,” and hung up.

...

Buttigieg discusses Urbanski in his book, thanking him in the acknowledgments and naming him as a source of golden-hued reminiscences about South Bend’s glory days. When it comes to the donor of “some office space” for his 2011 mayoral campaign, however, Buttigieg refers only to an unnamed “booster.” That booster appears to have been Urbanski.

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

M4A isn't a nationalized healthcare system. The operators are private entities in competition against each other to earn the customer and to maximize efficiencies to earn profits.
So let's avoid right-wing talking points as much as possible.

Everything I Don’t Iike is a Right-Wing Talking Point
-A Bad_Teammate guide to political discourse

[bad_teammate 13116]

Would you like to acknowledge that M4A doesn't actually represent a medical monopsony? The choice of purchase is made by the hundreds of millions of individuals seeking medical care (they are not assigned doctor/clinic/hospital), dollars for which the private providers will need to compete. Also, cash-only services are allowed and will compete with Medicare.

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

New details on the firing of South Bend Police Chief Boykins show that Pete's campaign was very closely involved with the racist/crooked cops being recorded. They had a plan to get rid of Boykins, which Pete them helpfully executed for them.

 

-------------

“Young inquired what was the plan, and Wells stated it involved the ‘money people.’ Young asked Wells ‘What do you mean by money people. Wells stated ‘Hensley and Urbanski’, people that are putting money in Buttigieg’s campaign. Wells stated Corbett said they [are] planning to get rid of Boykins and that they had plans to make changes.”

“Hensley” was Sam Hensley, city streets commissioner under then-Mayor Steve Luecke. Urbanski was the city contractor Corbett had gone to bat for in 2006. Phoned for comment, both Hensley and Urbanski denied knowing of such a plan.

Told about the police discussions in the documents, Henley said, “I don’t know where they got that idea, but that is absolutely false.”

Asked about conversations with Buttigieg about removing Boykins, Urbanski told TYT, “I’ve got no rec--knowledge of that.” In response to a followup question, Urbanski said, “Have a nice day,” and hung up.

...

Buttigieg discusses Urbanski in his book, thanking him in the acknowledgments and naming him as a source of golden-hued reminiscences about South Bend’s glory days. When it comes to the donor of “some office space” for his 2011 mayoral campaign, however, Buttigieg refers only to an unnamed “booster.” That booster appears to have been Urbanski.

 

 

TYT has tried their best for months to find a smoking gun on Mayor Pete without any success.  A whole lot of words with no proof of nefarious activity by Buttigieg. 

When Buttigieg was sworn in as mayor in 2012, he re-appointed Boykins as SB police chief after interviewing him and 2 other candidates.

Afterwards, Pete found out about the FBI investigation and asked for Boykin's resignation. He resigned, then rescinded his resignation, then was demoted to Captain where he served on the SB police force until his retirement in 2017. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

I've seen a lot of experts rail on Emerson Polling over the last couple of years. Here's an example. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13116]

Who cares if its a good poll, just enjoy the dunk on Kamala.

nerds

[Js1 85009]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I've seen a lot of experts rail on Emerson Polling over the last couple of years. Here's an example. 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who cares if its a good poll, just enjoy the dunk on Kamala.

nerds

Only noting it because Emerson churns out A LOT of polls. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

I wish more candidates would talk about democratic & constitutional reform. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Harris at 6% in a California poll. YIKES

Harris also underwater in this one.

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

I'm really confused by Kamala's campaign. She had a successful 1st debate and has racked up some good endorsements. Outside of that, I'm not exactly sure what she's doing.

Prior to 1st debate, she seemed to be purposely lurking in the background. Then she went after Biden in the debate and quickly surged. Since then, it's been consistently going downhill. 

She hasn't been in Iowa since August 12th. She hasn't been to SOUTH CAROLINA since JULY 8th. How is that fucking possible? 

It it just a campaign with no clear vision, organization, and guidance? 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

I'm sure this may have been posted in this thread or elsewhere, but if you want to contribute to Stacey Abrams' attempt to actually have a functioning democracy, here you go:

https://votesaveamerica.com/fairfight2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I'm really confused by Kamala's campaign. She had a successful 1st debate and has racked up some good endorsements. Outside of that, I'm not exactly sure what she's doing.

Prior to 1st debate, she seemed to be purposely lurking in the background. Then she went after Biden in the debate and quickly surged. Since then, it's been consistently going downhill. 

She hasn't been in Iowa since August 12th. She hasn't been to SOUTH CAROLINA since JULY 8th. How is that fucking possible? 

It it just a campaign with no clear vision, organization, and guidance? 

Her campaign has been primarily Trump focused.  It hasn’t gone great. She doesn’t have an issue that really defines her except being an alternative.  Tulsi hurt her in the second debate but things were already heading down hill before then.  Her online defenders went to war with the Berners and they both kinda lost.  Her messaging hasn’t been good either.  Does she even have a slogan beyond, “Dude gotta go”?

She’s also flip flopped a little on healthcare.  I had high hopes for Kamala eating into Biden’s support but it’s been a disaster thus far. 

She can still turn it around.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Js1 85009]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I'm really confused by Kamala's campaign. She had a successful 1st debate and has racked up some good endorsements. Outside of that, I'm not exactly sure what she's doing.

Prior to 1st debate, she seemed to be purposely lurking in the background. Then she went after Biden in the debate and quickly surged. Since then, it's been consistently going downhill. 

She hasn't been in Iowa since August 12th. She hasn't been to SOUTH CAROLINA since JULY 8th. How is that fucking possible? 

It it just a campaign with no clear vision, organization, and guidance? 

She's scheduled to be back in Iowa this weekend. 

It's pretty organized.  I'd say the vision kind of went cross-eyed - she didn't know if she wanted to run at Biden or to the left of Biden but to the right of Bernie.  It's like she wanted to run Warren's entire campaign, but Liz just ran it better/more focused. 

Now she's been frozen out because Warren has sucked all of the energy and media attention out of the race. 

She might as well stay on through Super Tuesday and then drop out and endorse Warren. 

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

She's scheduled to be back in Iowa this weekend. 

It's pretty organized.  I'd say the vision kind of went cross-eyed - she didn't know if she wanted to run at Biden or to the left of Biden but to the right of Bernie.  It's like she wanted to run Warren's entire campaign, but Liz just ran it better/more focused. 

Now she's been frozen out because Warren has sucked all of the energy and media attention out of the race. 

She might as well stay on through Super Tuesday and then drop out and endorse Warren. 

I appreciate the level-headed response. Just genuinely mystified how she quickly lost all that momentum. 

Strategically, I'm not sure how it can be argued why she hasn't stepped foot in SC in over two months. It's a state she should have a TON of focus on, and recent polling there has shown her fading fast. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26188]

She's very smart. My guess is that she knows she isn't really in this and is playing for AG. 

[Js1 85009]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Her campaign has been primarily Trump focused.  It hasn’t gone great. She doesn’t have an issue that really defines her except being an alternative.  Tulsi hurt her in the second debate but things were already heading down hill before then.  Her online defenders went to war with the Berners and they both kinda lost.  Her messaging hasn’t been good either.  Does she even have a slogan beyond, “Dude gotta go”?

She’s also flip flopped a little on healthcare.  I had high hopes for Kamala eating into Biden’s support but it’s been a disaster thus far. 

She can still turn it around.

First it was "let's speak truth"

Then "that little girl was me" 

Then it kind of morphed into "dude gotta go" when she said it at an event

Then it's kind of like "let's prosecute the case" 

[tantric superman 4667]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

First it was "let's speak truth"

Then "that little girl was me" 

Then it kind of morphed into "dude gotta go" when she said it at an event

Then it's kind of like "let's prosecute the case" 

“Dude gotta go” is the best of the bunch. 

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

[Js1 85009]

Quote

Just 9% of Dem primary voters say their minds are definitely made up

Wow

Quote

Also in the poll: 56% of Dem primary voters prefer a nominee who proposes large-scale policies, even if they cost more and are harder to pass.

Dem horserace among these voters: Warren 32%, Biden 21%, Sanders 19%

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20597]

3% black voters for Pete? 

 

[Js1 85009]

Though if Joe is really winning the black vote 49-13 (Liz)-10 (Harris) by March, it's still over.  He will clean up in the South. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

That very uncomfortable number for Biden is going in the wrong direction.  Opposite for Warren.  

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Though if Joe is really winning the black vote 49-13 (Liz)-10 (Harris) by March, it's still over.  He will clean up in the South. 

Can’t emphasize the importance of the trend versus the momentary snap shot.  The only sure thing is these numbers are going to move before Super Tuesday. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Wait, Bernie is at 5% among blacks?   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Kamala, yeesh 

 

[Js1 85009]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can’t emphasize the importance of the trend versus the momentary snap shot.  The only sure thing is these numbers are going to move before Super Tuesday. 

I mean, Hugo, I know you love Liz, but Biden's numbers amongst blacks have barely budged except maybe when Harris surged.

Otherwise, look, I like Liz too.  But her events are whiter than an A&M midnight yell practice.  If it doesn't change, Biden is going to win it all.  I trust @Pancho when he says the black community is sticking to Biden because they just want to see Trump gone.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, Hugo, I know you love Liz, but Biden's numbers amongst blacks have barely budged except maybe when Harris surged.

Otherwise, look, I like Liz too.  But her events are whiter than an A&M midnight yell practice.  If it doesn't change, Biden is going to win it all.  I trust @Pancho when he says the black community is sticking to Biden because they just want to see Trump gone.  

Maybe entertain why that number hasn’t moved for Biden.  They’re not breaking down the doors for him and Biden hasn’t won over 50% of the black vote in any poll I’ve seen.  Moreover, according to this poll, Liz is now in second among black voters.  It’s a distant second but it’s still second.  She’s making progress inch by inch.  

@Pancho hasn’t said the the black community is opposed to Warren, she just needs to win them over by proving she’s more formidable than Biden against Trump, IIRC. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pancho 44186]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I appreciate the level-headed response. Just genuinely mystified how she quickly lost all that momentum. 

Strategically, I'm not sure how it can be argued why she hasn't stepped foot in SC in over two months. It's a state she should have a TON of focus on, and recent polling there has shown her fading fast. 

 

 

But are you really though?  I posted on this thread (or her thread, not sure) weeks ago about how mind-bottling her campaign has been and how the campaign has given off a "WTF are you doing" vibe every step throughout minus that one line at BIden. 

There are many reasons why she's not at the top but also not at the bottom.  I do believe, though, that she thought Blacks would just migrate towards her with no problem and they/we haven't. 

As @Js1 said, her campaign wishes with was the EWarr's campaign.  But Kamala is new.  I think she'll steady stay in the 4th/5th slot and is now looking for a VP slot.  She's not even leading her own state.  At least Beto is 2nd here, and I don't think Harris is even in 2nd in California. 

[Pancho 44186]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe entertain why that number hasn’t move for Biden.  They’re not breaking down the doors for him and Biden hasn’t had over 50% of the black vote in any poll I’ve seen.  Moreover, according to this poll, Liz is now in second among black voters.  It’s a distant second but it’s still second.  She’s making progress inch by inch.  

@Pancho hasn’t said the the black community is opposed to Warren, she just needs to win them over, IIRC. 

Blacks are steady and holding on Biden, but open to Warren and Beto.  (Beto because he's been the only candidate IMO that has explicitly talked about Black issues.)

Where I think Warren could improve is to get a prominent Black surrogate to be part of her campaign like BIden has done and I believe Beto has as well. Even Sanders has well known Black activists/vote getters on his staff.  I can't say the same about Warren. 

[BradInATX 9208]

23 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Wait, Bernie is at 5% among blacks?   

He's always been the candidate of poor whites. The Democratic yin to Trump's yang.

Edited September 17, 2019 by BradInATX

[Js1 85009]

17 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

But are you really though?  I posted on this thread (or her thread, not sure) weeks ago about how mind-bottling her campaign has been and how the campaign has given off a "WTF are you doing" vibe every step throughout minus that one line at BIden. 

There are many reasons why she's not at the top but also not at the bottom.  I do believe, though, that she thought Blacks would just migrate towards her with no problem and they/we haven't. 

As @Js1 said, her campaign wishes with was the EWarr's campaign.  But Kamala is new.  I think she'll steady stay in the 4th/5th slot and is now looking for a VP slot.  She's not even leading her own state.  At least Beto is 2nd here, and I don't think Harris is even in 2nd in California. 

It’s weird that she has the most congressional endorsements, even neck and neck with Joe among the CBC, but it hasn’t transferred to voters. It’s like Pete’s Money and polling. 

Otherwise she’ll make a great VP or AG or neither and she hangs on to her safe Senate seat until she makes another run.   She’s only 54. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Js1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[Pancho 44186]

And I've said this before about Warren--she's starting to make some noise with Black women, especially educated Black women.  You get Black women on your side?  Child, watch out. 

Here's a good video about Kamala's struggles:

 

[Js1 85009]

27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Blacks are steady and holding on Biden, but open to Warren and Beto.  (Beto because he's been the only candidate IMO that has explicitly talked about Black issues.)

Where I think Warren could improve is to get a prominent Black surrogate to be part of her campaign like BIden has done and I believe Beto has as well. Even Sanders has well known Black activists/vote getters on his staff.  I can't say the same about Warren. 

Auntie Maxine, where ya at? Though I don’t see her doing that to her home state Senator.  Interesting to me that Ayanna Pressley hasn’t endorsed her home state Senator Warren yet. That would be a prominent black woman endorsement for her. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Diamond and Silk are not fans of Elizabeth Warren

 

Posted tweet, decided against it. It was too stupid. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
Retraction

[Zonahorn 8072]

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/california-2020-biden-sanders-warren-in-statistical-tie-in-democratic-primary-harris-struggles-in-home-state

imagine getting outpolled in your own state by Yang.

[bad_teammate 13116]

Tepid response then silence.

Eat a bag of shit, bitch.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Pete would make an awesome Republican.  So smooth with his bullshit and framing. 

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete would make an awesome Republican.  So smooth with his bullshit and framing. 

You probably shouldn't go running around saying that the desire to give people more choices and freedom vs. less is a Republican trait.