2020 Democratic Nominee

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

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?

No and yes, respectively. Most versions would not move most people.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

33 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?

 

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

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

Classic Brad. 

 

[bad_teammate 13519]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

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.

I like to attack the person AND the message, if possible.

Quote

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?

No, someone watching that in that moment and not paying attention was profoundly misled by a stupid question in a stupid format. I agree with you there 1000000%.

But that's not the person I'm talking to/about.

Quote

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.

Serious question: Do you think Brad's intentions are good-faith discussions regarding genuine confusion?

 

 

 

[henrygandorf 29225]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Serious question: Do you think Brad's intentions are good-faith discussions regarding genuine confusion?

maybe he likes attacking the person and the message, if possible.

[Js1 87181]

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Classic Brad.       

 

"Literally". When you and b_t, if you are actually different people, are reduced to playing semantics games, you know you're flailing. Per usual.    

And of course b_t is totally wrapped up in the exact semantics of what I said while decrying debate questions to his hero as misleading. All in one post. Lol. It must be hard work to be so intellectually pliable.

 

 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21780]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Look at the Republican pretending to be confused.

No one is advocating outlawing private insurance.

Thanks for the link. So it looks like Bernie's plan wouldn't allow private insurance to cover anything that Medicare For All covers. So electives like cosmetic plastic surgery could be done with private insurance. Am I reading that correctly? 

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

On 7/16/2019 at 4:18 PM, 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. 

 

Of the major candidates I think only Warren and Bern would stick to their current stance on M4A after winning the nomination.  Most of these others would move back towards the middle.  That's obviously just a guess but I can't shake that feeling.  Hell, Kamala can't even keep from back tracking before the primary.  LOL

Edited July 18, 2019 by ChiTownDoc

[berlinerbaer 692]

The Dem Primary according to Daily Kos readers.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/16/1872163/-Daily-Kos-Democratic-presidential-primary-straw-poll-One-year-out-from-the-convention-edition

Edited July 17, 2019 by berlinerbaer
added link

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

40 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Literally". When you and b_t, if you are actually different people, are reduced to playing semantics games, you know you're flailing. Per usual.    

And of course b_t is totally wrapped up in the exact semantics of what I said while decrying debate questions to his hero as misleading. All in one post. Lol. It must be hard work to be so intellectually pliable.

 

 

 

 

 

Semantics. Debate. Laughing, not mad. Intellect. Brad. Republican. 

 

[bad_teammate 13519]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Thanks for the link. So it looks like Bernie's plan wouldn't allow private insurance to cover anything that Medicare For All covers. So electives like cosmetic plastic surgery could be done with private insurance. Am I reading that correctly? 

Yes.

Medicare 4 All covers basically everything medically necessary. You can buy concierge cash services for anything. You can get private insurance for things M4A doesn't cover.

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

maybe he likes attacking the person and the message, if possible.

A tacit admission that you know Brad is being a disingenuous concern troll.

[bad_teammate 13519]

538 is best when it has data to work with and not Nate's garbage punditry

 

 

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

“Medicare 4 All covers basically everything medically necessary. You can buy concierge cash services for anything. You can get private insurance for things M4A doesn't cover.“

Sounds great, sign me up. Simple and to the point. Would get everybody covered, reduce overhead, and treat people in the most cost effective way possible....not the er for a cold. The bed wetters over death panels can still buy supplemental insurance. My biggest frustration with politics in America is that we can’t get this done and continue to bash our heads in with an incredibly shitty system, even if you do have insurance.

[Js1 87181]

I know the DNC said no single issue debates on climate change but can we, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, get the top 5 on a stage and have a healthcare debate/discussion of their various UHC plans. 

[Fozzz 152]

16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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

 

Dave must want to take a break from being scolded by his guests as a mutant who will spend eternity burning in Hell.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

58 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I know the DNC said no single issue debates on climate change but can we, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, get the top 5 on a stage and have a healthcare debate/discussion of their various UHC plans. 

At some point they should do one vs one round robin debates between the top five and eliminate the bullshit Chuck Todd gotcha questions. 

Just give them a topic like healthcare, immigration, or climate change and let them go at it.  Doing it this way would demonstrate the candidates knowledge of the issues and we'd probably end up with better policy ideas in the national conversation.  

But we aren't going to do anything like that because we are fucking stupid. 

 

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

We have no attention span. After Bernie hits minute two of explaining his healthcare policy proposal everybody would be changing the channel. Gotcha questions and Kamala attacking Biden keeps people watching. We get the government we deserve.

[Fozzz 152]

Cop Lady has been spending too much time around Hugo.

 

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

The problem is that the Dems are letting Trump and the Reps brand them as socialists.  And to the common man, socialism = communism and communism=red-scare-type reaction.  The reality of the situation won't matter. 

The Dems are going to let Trump dictate the terms of this election and the choice will be  Commie Dems v. Trump.  And when the curtain closes in that booth, the a large number of independents will vote Trump.  Hell, they might even tell people they voted D but in their scared hearts, racist Trump is still >>>> Commie.  I know the Dems aren't commies and you know they're not but there are a metric shit-ton of people who just can't/won't make the distinction and only pay attention beginning a couple of months before the election.  

I believe the key swing states are especially prone to that kind of rhetoric.  IOW, we're fucked and get ready for 4 more years of Trump...unless the Dems impeach...oh,  hahahahahahahaha...never mind. 

 

[Js1 87181]

18 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Cop Lady has been spending too much time around Hugo.

 

 

They didn't create it, but they spread it.  They did similar with BLM. 

[bad_teammate 13519]

10 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The problem is that the Dems are letting Trump and the Reps brand them as socialists. 

Honest question that I would love an answer to:
How could the Dems stop Trump/GOP from branding the Dems as socialists?

Bill Clinton was decried as a Communist. Barack Obama was decried as a Communist. There is literally nothing the Democrats can do to avoid it.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Honest question that I would love an answer to:
How could the Dems stop Trump/GOP from branding the Dems as socialists?

Bill Clinton was decried as a Communist. Barack Obama was decried as a Communist. There is literally nothing the Democrats can do to avoid it.

Uh, they can just be Republicans you stupid commie. 

[Js1 87181]

Just now, Hank Scorpio said:

Uh, they can just be Republicans you stupid commie. 

This is the right answer.  Its Republicans or socialists.  There's no in-between for those voters.

Might as well own it - considering most of the "SOCIALIST!!!11!!!!" ideas are over 50% support. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

13 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Why are we acting like private insurance for things M4A doesn’t cover - elective plastic surgery - is (a) even a thing (try to get BlueCross to cover elective plastic surgery for you) or (b) a meaningful form of private insurance that people want and are envisioning as their supplemental insurance option when you argue they could still have supplemental insurance under M4A?

Because it is a meaningful form of private insurance. And I say that as somebody who does not think that a true single payer system for basic non-elective service has a practical migration path from our current state or offers any meaningful advantages over any of the other universal coverage schemes. 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

How is it a meaningful thing?  Do you really think voters, when they hear supplemental private insurance is available under Bernie’s plan, are envisioning private insurance that only covers a nose job?  And to reiterate the other question, do you really think private insurance would even be available for that anyway?  It’s an elective procedure that isn’t medically necessary.  It’s an adverse selection nightmare for the private insurer.  “Geez, I just can’t understand why literally all of our insureds quickly have claims for plastic surgery we have to cover!  Man, just bad luck, I guess.”

You'd have to consult with the entire supplemental insurance industry in countries like Canada. It's not a small industry. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

One of the very many impracticalities of Bernie's "plan" is that it covers too much for no good reason including routine, low cost things that should only be covered by insurance for the very poor or the very lazy who want to essentially prepay, because insurance adds cost to those cheap, predictable things.  That's why I don't get wound around the axle about what M4A means precisely. It means 9 different things. And even if it did mean something, it won't make it through the sausage grinder with much intact other than the name "Medicare for all".

Edited July 17, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The problem is that the Dems are letting Trump and the Reps brand them as socialists.  And to the common man, socialism = communism and communism=red-scare-type reaction.  The reality of the situation won't matter. 

The Dems are going to let Trump dictate the terms of this election and the choice will be  Commie Dems v. Trump.  And when the curtain closes in that booth, the a large number of independents will vote Trump.  Hell, they might even tell people they voted D but in their scared hearts, racist Trump is still >>>> Commie.  I know the Dems aren't commies and you know they're not but there are a metric shit-ton of people who just can't/won't make the distinction and only pay attention beginning a couple of months before the election.  

I believe the key swing states are especially prone to that kind of rhetoric.  IOW, we're fucked and get ready for 4 more years of Trump...unless the Dems impeach...oh,  hahahahahahahaha...never mind. 

 

1. they will be branded socialists regardless.  and that goes for biden all the way to bernie.  no way to combat it.  just have to explain the ideas and hope the people with half a brain listen.  the ones who won't listen were never going to.  trump will make this an election of buzzwords, because he has no policy or achievement to point to.  he'll point and namecall and repeat a million times.  the dems aren't "letting" trump do anything.  it's just something that's happening.

2. re: impeachment, i can't tell what you're implying, but that was never a way to get him out of office.  at this point, i'm not sure it would help or hurt.  my gut tells me neither.  his numbers are where they are and won't ever move.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Honest question that I would love an answer to:
How could the Dems stop Trump/GOP from branding the Dems as socialists?

They could go hard as fuck messaging Trumpublicans for being full blown fascists.  It’s an easy sell at this point with the concentration camps, the love affair with military might/law enforcement, the anti-free press rhetoric, the corruption with the corporate overlords, the overt racism, the intimidation tactics with ICE raids, military parades, love affair with other fascist governments.  I mean, if we’re going to play the nomenclature game, the democrats really have the upper hand if they wanted to make a pejorative label stick.

Socialism vs Fascism America, these are your choices. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

1. they will be branded socialists regardless.  and that goes for biden all the way to bernie.  no way to combat it.  just have to explain the ideas and hope the people with half a brain listen.  the ones who won't listen were never going to.  trump will make this an election of buzzwords, because he has no policy or achievement to point to.  he'll point and namecall and repeat a million times.  the dems aren't "letting" trump do anything.  it's just something that's happening.

2. re: impeachment, i can't tell what you're implying, but that was never a way to get him out of office.  at this point, i'm not sure it would help or hurt.  my gut tells me neither.  his numbers are where they are and won't ever move.

Was talking about trying to impeach him, if he got re-elected.  

[David Dennison 19536]

42 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

One of the very many impracticalities of Bernie's "plan" is that it covers too much for no good reason including routine, low cost things that should only be covered by insurance for the very poor or the very lazy who want to essentially prepay, because insurance adds cost to those cheap, predictable things.  That's why I don't get wound around the axle about what M4A means precisely. It means 9 different things. And even if it did mean something, it won't make it through the sausage grinder with much intact other than the name "Medicare for all".

M4A should mean: take the current healthcare system that applies to people 65 and over and apply it to everyone.

Bam. Done.

 

[bad_teammate 13519]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

How is it a meaningful thing?  Do you really think voters, when they hear supplemental private insurance is available under Bernie’s plan, are envisioning private insurance that only covers a nose job?  

And to reiterate the other question, do you really think private insurance would even be available for that anyway?  It’s an elective procedure that isn’t medically necessary.  It’s an adverse selection nightmare for the private insurer.  “Geez, I just can’t understand why literally all of our insureds quickly have claims for plastic surgery we have to cover!  Man, just bad luck, I guess.”

That's up to the market, not the legislation. It shouldn't be the job of government to put barriers to life-necessary services up to ensure a profit avenue for the elites.

[Revolution512 1518]

https://www.econlib.org/why-both-liberals-and-conservatives-will-lose-on-health-care-in-the-short-run/

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

M4A should mean: take the current healthcare system that applies to people 65 and over and apply it to everyone.

Bam. Done.

 

define "apply"

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

6 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

And to reiterate the other question, do you really think private insurance would even be available for that anyway?  It’s an elective procedure that isn’t medically necessary.  It’s an adverse selection nightmare for the private insurer.  “Geez, I just can’t understand why literally all of our insureds quickly have claims for plastic surgery we have to cover!  Man, just bad luck, I guess.”

I answred your main question above, but the answer to this one is yes, of course it would. And it's not an "adverse selection nightmare", either, not anymore than routine healthcare coverage is. That's just a silly thing to say. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[UTDD 362]

10 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The problem is that the Dems are letting Trump and the Reps brand them as socialists.  And to the common man, socialism = communism and communism=red-scare-type reaction.  The reality of the situation won't matter. 

The Dems are going to let Trump dictate the terms of this election and the choice will be  Commie Dems v. Trump.  And when the curtain closes in that booth, the a large number of independents will vote Trump.  Hell, they might even tell people they voted D but in their scared hearts, racist Trump is still >>>> Commie.  I know the Dems aren't commies and you know they're not but there are a metric shit-ton of people who just can't/won't make the distinction and only pay attention beginning a couple of months before the election.  

I believe the key swing states are especially prone to that kind of rhetoric.  IOW, we're fucked and get ready for 4 more years of Trump...unless the Dems impeach...oh,  hahahahahahahaha...never mind. 

 

Yeah, it's clear they are going to argue - assuming economy remains where it is now later on - the current economy and that things are working vs. socialism.  The word socialism is a very scary word to the most important voting bloc that might matter - independents.  It's also very hard right now to argue the economy is tanking so they are going to try and paint that contrast with a broad brush.  I think they will play ads showing every Dem candidate raising their hand to provide health insurance to illegals (I think this is a losing issue for Dems for moderates and independents) and things of that nature to show they are trying to "socialize" everything in the country.

I think the Dems should fight very dirty back and paint Trump over and over on his character and what it means to be presidential and the leader of the country so that an average child can look up to the office respectfully.  The connections to dictators and how he views the role of power and especially harp over and over that he really lacks empathy (Do you honestly believe Trump cares for you or does he care about himself? type of stuff.  Keep painting over and over -- "I mean really, would you want your children to end up like Trump, and that is the kind of person you are proud  to tell your children about and/or to have leading your country, or do you want something different?"  I think they can win independents and suburban white females in swing states harping on the bigger themes of character and integrity if they have the right candidate.  Keep harping on healthcare (this is a winning issue for Democrats, I think even some conservatives are more open to a different direction on healthcare than people think) and it's ok to discuss reasonable taxes on the wealthy and what it would help with specifically (I think even a lot of Republicans are open to more taxes on the wealthy, but many more would revolt against estate taxes/wealth taxes versus income tax raises)  

I also don't know why the Dems don't keep pounding in the Midwest that he is a NYC elite rich kid that has no clue what it means to be an ordinary American.  This is why he lacks empathy, etc.

I personally don't think ideas will be all that powerful in 2020 versus having the right contrast against Trump the person (like it or not, the election probably rests on Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump feelings more than any specific Dem candidate and their ideas) in a great candidate that is a strong character/inspirational type of candidate that others can clearly see is someone they just trust more to take care of their families going forward.  That is really in a lot of ways an emotional gut feel.  That could even tweak some Midwestern poorly educated whites that broke for Trump in 2016 to go back the other way.

Edited July 18, 2019 by UTDD

[BradInATX 9208]

6 hours ago, UTDD said:

Yeah, it's clear they are going to argue - assuming economy remains where it is now later on - the current economy and that things are working vs. socialism.  The word socialism is a very scary word to the most important voting bloc that might matter - independents.  It's also very hard right now to argue the economy is tanking so they are going to try and paint that contrast with a broad brush.  I think they will play ads showing every Dem candidate raising their hand to provide health insurance to illegals (I think this is a losing issue for Dems for moderates and independents) and things of that nature to show they are trying to "socialize" everything in the country.

I think the Dems should fight very dirty back and paint Trump over and over on his character and what it means to be presidential and the leader of the country so that an average child can look up to the office respectfully.  The connections to dictators and how he views the role of power and especially harp over and over that he really lacks empathy (Do you honestly believe Trump cares for you or does he care about himself? type of stuff.  Keep painting over and over -- "I mean really, would you want your children to end up like Trump, and that is the kind of person you are proud  to tell your children about and/or to have leading your country, or do you want something different?"  I think they can win independents and suburban white females in swing states harping on the bigger themes of character and integrity if they have the right candidate.  Keep harping on healthcare (this is a winning issue for Democrats, I think even some conservatives are more open to a different direction on healthcare than people think) and it's ok to discuss reasonable taxes on the wealthy and what it would help with specifically (I think even a lot of Republicans are open to more taxes on the wealthy, but many more would revolt against estate taxes/wealth taxes versus income tax raises)  

I also don't know why the Dems don't keep pounding in the Midwest that he is a NYC elite rich kid that has no clue what it means to be an ordinary American.  This is why he lacks empathy, etc.

I personally don't think ideas will be all that powerful in 2020 versus having the right contrast against Trump the person (like it or not, the election probably rests on Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump feelings more than any specific Dem candidate and their ideas) in a great candidate that is a strong character/inspirational type of candidate that others can clearly see is someone they just trust more to take care of their families going forward.  That is really in a lot of ways an emotional gut feel.  That could even tweak some Midwestern poorly educated whites that broke for Trump in 2016 to go back the other way.

They tried the children/role model angle with Trump last time and it failed. The messaging should be about Trump's failure to be the "blue collar advocate" he advertised himself being. Superimpose him playing golf costing us $100mm+ with headlines/clips of coal plants and other manufacturing facilities closing. 

The immorality angle is a mirage. Anyone who has a functioning EQ and understands who Trump is (and isn't willing to ignore it in favor of $$ or the catharsis of seeing Mexicans in cages), is voting against him already. There are only three states that matter - focus there and focus on how "his economy" (lol, but whatever) has seen the stock market and wall street make a bunch of money, but have those people seen a marked increase in their well-being? Etc. It's always the economy, stupid.

[bad_teammate 13519]

This doesn't work. Trumpkins cannot be shamed morally.

 

[horncyclist 1391]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't work. Trumpkins cannot be shamed morally.

 

The problem is that it's a "feature, not a big" for most of his supporters. It's the "he talks like us effect." These are awful people and they're being given a voice. The rest of his support are Machiavellian republicans who tolerate it because of the tax cuts and judges. That's his coalition, which Hillary pinpointed back in 2016. It's probably stronger today unfortunately and the way to win is to get everyone who's outside that coalition to vote. 

[bad_teammate 13519]

Yep, you beat Trump by activating non-voters to get into the process by promising to actually fix their problems.

Throw some moralism in there, fine, but the actual way to win is to go to the poor and working class and say, "I am going to deliver healthcare and free college for your kids."

[Bojack 2091]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't work. Trumpkins cannot be shamed morally.

 

True that it won't work with his die-hard supporters but ads like that were probably pretty effective last time around and that was just with the Trump demo tapes.  He's put out 4 albums worth of shit since.  It's a way to reach voters that otherwise don't hear the truly awful things he says through mainstream media, let alone Fox and Friends.  We can hit him much harder on all the sex crimes because he won't be running against the wife of Bill Clinton.  We'll largely negate that again if we nominate Joe Biden. 

[UTDD 362]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

The problem is that it's a "feature, not a big" for most of his supporters. It's the "he talks like us effect." These are awful people and they're being given a voice. The rest of his support are Machiavellian republicans who tolerate it because of the tax cuts and judges. That's his coalition, which Hillary pinpointed back in 2016. It's probably stronger today unfortunately and the way to win is to get everyone who's outside that coalition to vote. 

That ad was very good actually in isolation but it's almost meme worthy and hilarious that it was Hillary of all people running it which is why I think it was actually more negative than positive versus a different candidate hitting these themes.  You also have much more data on Trump now and there will be no Hillary running this time.  The Trump troglodytes that will never shift are not the target -- it's suburban white women and blue collar Midwest voters that generally have a lot of decency and can be influenced against a coastal elite NYC rich silver spoon kid type persona being hit on over and over.  (which no one did last time very much)  

[UTDD 362]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

They tried the children/role model angle with Trump last time and it failed. The messaging should be about Trump's failure to be the "blue collar advocate" he advertised himself being. Superimpose him playing golf costing us $100mm+ with headlines/clips of coal plants and other manufacturing facilities closing. 

The immorality angle is a mirage. Anyone who has a functioning EQ and understands who Trump is (and isn't willing to ignore it in favor of $$ or the catharsis of seeing Mexicans in cages), is voting against him already. There are only three states that matter - focus there and focus on how "his economy" (lol, but whatever) has seen the stock market and wall street make a bunch of money, but have those people seen a marked increase in their well-being? Etc. It's always the economy, stupid.

They couldn't hit Trump the same way last time because 1) Hillary was arguably a much more concerning issue on character to a lot of voters and 2) Trump has much more history from 2016 to 2020 to hit upon and 3) it is highly likely the Dem candidate will be in a position of strength to contrast this morality as a good issue (along with healthcare which I think should be the primary issue hit on over and over as the primary issue of the election substantively) against the specific demographics in the specific counties that matter in the Midwest.  Hitting Wall Street is good too in tying Trump as a NYC coastal rich kid that doesn't empathize and understand the plight of ordinary people (again this is all coming down to only (you say three states, I say six) in a few key states.  It does not matter if millions of voters are energized to vote in non-competitive states, it only matters if enough voters flip or come out in the actual swing counties that will determine the electoral college.  I would hit character/healthcare/out of touch elite (not one to empathize and help ordinary Americans) as key things over and over and over and not get bogged into details constantly.  Emotion and passion will win, even though I personally would be convinced entirely by intellectual arguments, I do not believe that is the way to actually win.

I would avoid the economy quite a bit but touch on it where I could strategically, because I think this is the core issue that will ultimately be pegged as the reason Trump won if he does in fact win.  The economy is generally a positive issue for Trump in my opinion, and it's positive where it matters most and Trump knows this too which is why he has been meddling so much in specific states to "save jobs" and so forth versus ignoring essentially 40+ other states entirely.  

[Js1 87181]

It's been under the radar, but the ACA lawsuit with the Fifth Circuit - assuming they strike it down - will swing the election.  Senate Republicans have zero plan for when this happens.  None, zilch, nada.   

[BradInATX 9208]

14 minutes ago, UTDD said:

They couldn't hit Trump the same way last time because 1) Hillary was arguably a much more concerning issue on character to a lot of voters and 2) Trump has much more history from 2016 to 2020 to hit upon and 3) it is highly likely the Dem candidate will be in a position of strength to contrast this morality as a good issue (along with healthcare which I think should be the primary issue hit on over and over as the primary issue of the election substantively) against the specific demographics in the specific counties that matter in the Midwest.  Hitting Wall Street is good too in tying Trump as a NYC coastal rich kid that doesn't empathize and understand the plight of ordinary people (again this is all coming down to only (you say three states, I say six) in a few key states.  It does not matter if millions of voters are energized to vote in non-competitive states, it only matters if enough voters flip or come out in the actual swing counties that will determine the electoral college.  I would hit character/healthcare/out of touch elite (not one to empathize and help ordinary Americans) as key things over and over and over and not get bogged into details constantly.  Emotion and passion will win, even though I personally would be convinced entirely by intellectual arguments, I do not believe that is the way to actually win.

I would avoid the economy quite a bit but touch on it where I could strategically, because I think this is the core issue that will ultimately be pegged as the reason Trump won if he does in fact win.  The economy is generally a positive issue for Trump in my opinion, and it's positive where it matters most and Trump knows this too which is why he has been meddling so much in specific states to "save jobs" and so forth versus ignoring essentially 40+ other states entirely.  

Agreed with just about everything. I'm not as big on hammering the character stuff as you are as I think we've already reached saturation on that. And when I say the economy, I don't mean the stock market or unemployment numbers etc. I  mean connecting with the blue collar voters in the states we need by showing all of the coal/manufacturing/etc. that's closed down under his watch. You can play the economy as prejudiced - yeah, wall street is doing great, but is Ohio? Is rural Pennsylvania? Which goes right into what you said about NYC coastal rich kid/ordinary people/etc.

And you're completely right about not getting bogged down in detail. It should be a few key messages. Factories closing. Health care like you said. And I think the first time around they should have absolutely hammered him repeatedly on hiring immigrants at his golf courses and manufacturing his stuff overseas. I mean just ad nauseum. Destroy his "hug the flag" BS.  But I'm not sure that will play anymore.

A couple of the front runners scare me a bit, because I'm not sure they won't get bogged down in the details (ala HIllary) while Trump wins the soundbite wars. I see one or two candidates that seem to know how to win the media cycle/soundbite stuff right now. But, long way to go.

Edited July 18, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

For example, I like this tweet a lot:

 

[Fozzz 152]

Marianne is great in this interview.  In my personal rankings, I'd put her third after Bernie and Tulsi.

 

[Hank Kingsley 21780]

Oof, this Kamala interview with CNN. Watch what happens when she's not the one asking questions. 

She has absolutely no clue what she's talking about re: healthcare. 

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Js1 87181]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

This primary should come down to Warren vs. Mayor Pete in a just world.   

Pete feels like an afterthought at this point.  Raised a lot of money and...…………?

The love for him is really weird. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 7/16/2019 at 4:28 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

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. 

Distributors/middlemen, absent significant technological changes, usually have enough economic power to prevent a significant loss in their business and will always fight like hell to prevent it. See narco dealers as an example. Unfortunately government is the only thing powerful enough, again absent legal technological change, to overcome that. Which they will pay untold millions to prevent. 

[David Dennison 19536]

Yeah, telling the American people that M4A doesn't require a tax hike is straight up lying.

But guess what, those tax hikes will be offset by lower premiums and deductibles. Just ask your mom, dad, or grandparents.

Medicare for All means moving the entire population to what already exists for those 65 and older. It happens every day in this country without a hitch.