2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Bernie still has a lot of support and a loyal base. This is far from over.  However, the stars do seem to be aligning for Liz as the anti-Biden but not Bernie candidate. 

Bernie’s best shot was when his only opponent was Hillary Clinton. This go around he has the name recognition advantage but the disadvantage of being a known quantity.  

[bad_teammate 13,224]

2 hours ago, 406W30th said:

Where does that premium money (i.e. the $14K paid by my employer) go?

I'm only going to speak for the actual M4A, the Sanders proposal.

The answer to this question depends on the employer and employee organizational situation. Sanders has said that he will make sure unions negotiate how it is handled for their members. Obviously non-unionized workforces will probably get screwed and it will be important for them to organize to demand their fair slice of the pie.

Quote

After all, that benefit is one of the reasons I took my job.

Yep. One of the fundamental problems with linking healthcare to work is that it screwed with basic wage calculations. It's going to require labor/management negotiation and Sanders is pushing and will push unionization rights very strongly so that this sort of issue can be sorted out.

Quote

And how much do my taxes go up by opting into Medicare for my family?

This is a good question and one that I find annoying because it shouldn't be "opt-in" with all these considerations. Everyone should just have it.

If anything, 4 years is too short of a phase-in.

Quote

What are my out of pocket costs?

A maximum of $200/year/person for prescription drugs.

I don't know about cosmetic dental.

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Of course you're downplaying it.

What's the proper level of "playing" it? I don't think it matters that much and I don't think it's reflective of the WFP membership's desires so it doesn't represent some seismic grassroots shift. It represents that white professional class people love Warren, which is on trend with the past few months.

As I linked, the party bosses were given 50% of the vote and the membership was given 50%. They released the 2015 membership total, which went 87% to Sanders. This year, they are refusing to release the membership total.

So you have a choosing process where the boss's vote is worth 10+x as much as the member's vote. I don't care about the result of that kind of process because it doesn't actually represent anything.

Enjoy pretending it matters, I guess, but it doesn't matter.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I just can't get around Bernie's flat polling for the last 6 months on this chart:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html.

It's fine when you're way out in first place, like Biden, but if not, how can you argue that nothing needs to change?  I guess if you think you can win Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe things will snowball, but Warren’s playing hard for those states while also steadily rising in national polls. 

remember several months ago when some criticized warren for her high burn rate and decision to spend such a lopsided amount in those two states?

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I just can't get around Bernie's flat polling for the last 6 months on this chart:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html.

It's fine when you're way out in first place, like Biden, but if not, how can you argue that nothing needs to change?  I guess if you think you can win Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe things will snowball, but Warren’s playing hard for those states while also steadily rising in national polls. 

The only conclusion is Warren's campaign outworked and out-organized Bernie to win this endorsement. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie’s everybody's best shot was when his only opponent was Hillary Clinton. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

remember several months ago when some criticized warren for her high burn rate and decision to spend such a lopsided amount in those two states?

Yep.  And she was supposedly in crisis when her financial chair left the campaign after she decided not to do high-dollar fundraisers.  Aside from what one thinks about her policy views, the way she's run this campaign is just so damn impressive. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Enjoy pretending it matters, I guess, but it doesn't matter.

Sure thing. Bernie and his campaign would be rightfully championing the WFP if he had won the endorsement again. 

Sanders said of the party in 2016, “The WFP is the closest thing there is to a political party that believes in my vision of democratic socialism. The WFP shares my view of a society and an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.”

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Sure thing. Bernie and his campaign would be rightfully championing the WFP if he had won the endorsement again.

And if he had gotten their endorsement would you have come in with some powerfulbrain punditry about how Liz should drop out? No. You're looking for things to confirm your emotional attachments and assigning extra weight to things that confirm your emotional attachments.

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

And if he had gotten their endorsement would you have come in with some powerfulbrain punditry about how Liz should drop out? No. You're looking for things to confirm your emotional attachments and assigning extra weight to things that confirm your emotional attachments.

Where did I say Bernie should drop out? 

I said he needs to start differentiating himself from Warren. She's drinking up his milkshake. And you know it. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The only conclusion is Warren's campaign outworked and out-organized Bernie to win this endorsement. 

Totally.  I mean, let's assume that the WFP members wanted Bernie (which I don't know).  That makes it all the more impressive that she swooped in and stole the endorsement away.   And it's another encouraging data point for the candidate running as the most progressive option who can actually get shit done politically. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Where did I say Bernie should drop out? 

I said he needs to start differentiating himself from Warren. She's drinking up his milkshake. And you know it. 

 

To that point, Bernie is now shaking up his NH staff to counter Warren: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-new-hampshire-1497448

He's probably also waiting to see the results of Biden attacking Warren more. 

[HRSchenker 2,273]

Bernie and Warren have impressive numbers or at least impressive enough that if either of them drops out, the other one will likely jump to the top of the polls ahead of Biden. 

[DixonHur 11,364]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie’s best shot was when his only opponent was Hillary Clinton.

Yep.  He got fucked by the DNC in my opinion.  If not for DWS and the Super-delegates, Bernie would be president right now...IMHO.  

The linked article (in spoiler) was written months before the convention, and has held up.

Spoiler

It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee, its Wall Street and corporate backers and the major media—most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations—have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton.

Bottom line: they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern.

 

Here are 10 ways the establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go.

1. Major Media Blackout

When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition and trailed Clinton by 60 to 70 points in national polls. The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. This was partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent.

 

In December, the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders; on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders. While Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today, Clinton often passes on press conferences.)

2. They’re Debating When?

Ironically, unlike the Republican National Committee, the DNC manipulated its debate schedule to have the fewest number of debates at the worst times, intended to minimize voter viewing, including setting them on holiday weekends and the Saturday night before Christmas.

 

The goal was to restrict voter exposure and side-by-side comparison with other candidates who offered a significant alternative to Clinton, which served to keep name recognition off Sanders and his prescription for change artificially low. Additional debates were only added much later after widespread condemnation of the DNC.

3. Sanders Booms, Media Works to Marginalize

 

As the votes began coming in for Bernie, especially with his big win in New Hampshire, Clinton surrogates were given extra time as TV analysts to downplay the results, and the media narrative shifted.

The media paradigm typically is crafted inside the Washington Beltway and New York boardrooms, with other reporters compelled by their own editors or self-censorship to follow along, a practice also known as pack journalism.

 

A parade of big-name liberal columnists, editorial writers and TV analysts vilified Sanders’ visionary program, especially Medicare-for-all and free college tuition, while promoting Clinton’s “pragmatic” (lower your expectations) message that minimized the ongoing crisis felt by the millions left behind without health care, unemployed or stuck in low-paying jobs, facing mountains of student debt and all the other pervasive disparities Sanders described.

The next storyline depicted Sanders as a narrow candidate because the majority of his support came from students, working-class white voters, independents, and low- to moderate-income voters, largely ignoring that Clinton’s own base failed to include any of those groups who would be critical to winning a general election in November. Or that Clinton continues to fail to move support among those constituencies.

4. Vote Rigging

 

After Sanders’ sweeping win in New Hampshire, the DNC went into hyper drive to break his momentum, starting in the next voting state Nevada.

Concerned Sanders would win Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader and most powerful elected official in Nevada, as it later emerged, arranged a plan with owners of Las Vegas casinos, where many caucuses were being held, and other employers, to ensure Clinton would win. The Nevada caucuses were then rigged with massive voting irregularities such as casino owners orchestrating which workers would be allowed to vote and, in clear intimidation, openly monitoring how they voted.

Vote tampering also occurred in other states, most recently in Arizona where on election day, polling locations were sharply cut forcing many voters to stand in line for up to five hours in the heat, with some leaving before casting a vote.

 

Voter suppression laws, rampant now across the country, disproportionately disenfranchise students and young voters, a group that has voted for Sanders by margins of up to 80 percent. The laws, passed by right-wing legislatures and governors, also target African Americans and Latinos, which will ultimately harm any Democratic nominee in November.

5. The Sexism Canard

Desperate for attack lines against Sanders, the Clinton camp and her adherents have tried to paint him as a sexist, employing the same tactic of exaggerated small slights they used against Barack Obama in 2008 (remember “you’re likeable enough”). Add in the clumsy effort of Clinton surrogates Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright to criticize young women who vote for Sanders.

Memo to Clinton and company: Bernie Sanders is not Donald Trump. He has a near perfect voting record on such issues as women’s reproductive rights and pay equity, and most of his proposals, especially Medicare-for-all, free college tuition, and expanding Social Security would disproportionately help women.

 

As the 90 percent female organization of nurses NNU has stated, we would love to break the glass ceiling, but this election is unprecedented in its opportunity to shatter the class ceiling.

6. Undemocratic Primaries

Sanders has won the overwhelming majority of independent voters in “open” primaries or caucuses that allow them to vote.

Many Clinton surrogates have fulminated that any independent voters are allowed to participate in the Democratic Party nominating process. As if only the two major parties should be allowed to decide who can run for office while a record 43 percent of U.S. voters are now independents in a corrupted system. Winning the independents’ votes is decisive in general elections, suggesting they should have a voice in determining who are the strongest candidates.

 

Because of the media blackout, many voters do not gain sufficient information about Sanders until shortly before election day. Early voting reflects lower name recognition for Sanders, benefiting Clinton and enabling her to win some close races.

That contributes to the meme of her inevitability, but does not indicate she is the stronger candidate. In competitive states, Sanders has won a majority of those who voted on election day. When voters have more time to compare candidates based on sufficient information, they tend to choose Bernie.

7. Superdelegates Toe the Line

Enormous pressure was brought to bear on the some 700 superdelegates, mostly Democratic elected officials and other high-profile DNC members, to fall in line behind Clinton, facing intimidation or promises well honed by a Clinton machine that has had 25 years of practice.

 

An additional factor is the DNC decision to step up raking in cash from Wall Street and other corporate donors, and their implicit pledge to use those funds only for Democratic candidates who play ball by supporting Clinton.

These officials believe that the way to win elections is through big donor fundraising and shapeshifting positions. The Sanders’ campaign, supported by millions of small donors engaged in a movement mobilization, is foreign in their eyes and threatening to their donor base.

The overwhelming tilt of superdelegates for Clinton has fueled the narrative that Sanders can’t win, a line that the superdelegates, who have a wider audience as members of Congress and often as supposedly neutral TV analysts, parrot relentlessly, along with the other Clinton/DNC/major media attacks.

The DNC created the undemocratic superdelegate system to confer the power on the Democratic Party hierarchy to handpick their preference and blunt the ability of insurgents to win the nomination after outsiders George McGovern and Jimmy Carter shocked the party establishment by winning nominations in the 1970s.

 

8. Who’s Most Electable, Who Is Not

It’s repeated over and over by her superdelegates and the media—Clinton is the most electable candidate, and Democrats must rally behind her to beat Trump. The line has been so drummed into the narrative that many voters in exit polls cite it as the reason they voted for Clinton.

One problem: it’s not true. Virtually every poll for months has shown Sanders faring better against Trump, Cruz and Kasich than Clinton, often by a wide margin, even as the media has already played out the attack lines Republicans would use against Sanders.

Additionally, the media largely ignores the salient point that Clinton has nearly the highest unfavorable ratings of any leading Democrat to run for president. By contrast, Sanders, widely praised by voters as the most honest and trustworthy candidate most have ever seen, has among the lowest unfavorable ratings, despite the media shock that anyone would trust, much less vote for a Democratic socialist.

The media consistently downplays a key Sanders point: how the enthusiasm he generates—evident in the more than 800,000 people who have packed his campaign rallies—that is largely absent from Clinton’s campaign is critical for the nominee to win, as well as to help in down-ballot races for Democrats.

9. The Math, the Math

The final defense for the Clinton camp and the major media, spinning out from the eastern media centers to local news outlets, is that Clinton is too far ahead in delegates so the race is over.

To strengthen the case, Clinton’s big margin among superdelegates is added to the total of delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Even though, unlike pledged delegates, superdelegates are not committed to their position. They can flip at will, as they did from Clinton to Obama in 2008.

Next time you hear a pundit say Sanders needs to win 60 percent of the remaining delegates, “and that just can’t happen,” consider his 80 percent margin in Idaho and Utah.

In state after state, especially those that are not closed to independents, where Sanders has had time to campaign so voters get to know him, his platform, consistent record and unimpeachable character, and when the voting process is allowed to move forward without open rigging, Sanders does increasingly well.

The result often is wins, as in Michigan and recent caucus states, or effective ties in votes and delegates, as in Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. Even in states where Clinton ultimately won because of voters who voted early by mail, Sanders increasingly won the majority of those who turn out on election day.

10. Forward to Victory

Sanders himself says the path to his nomination is challenging, but still within range. States that were the biggest hurdle, in the South where the Clintons have a long history and Sanders was a complete unknown, are all past.

The remaining states, including the two largest, California and New York, which have a base more favorable to Sanders, can be won with lots of delegates to be awarded. National polls have already shown substantial movement toward Sanders the past two months, and his edge over Clinton in head to head matchups with the remaining Republicans continues to grow.

The challenge, of course, is not just to Clinton, but to the movement, including nurses and the activist army that has shattered all records in campaign contributions to Sanders and creates the overflow crowds at his rallies.

Enthusiasm for the Sanders campaign, the transformative program he presents, which is the program NNU and grassroots activists have long championed, is off the charts and continuing to grow.

It’s on to California, and what promises to be an explosive convention in Philadelphia.

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Where did I say Bernie should drop out? 

I said he needs to start differentiating himself from Warren. She's drinking up his milkshake. And you know it.

walking it back lol

"The writing is on the wall. Either Bernie starts actively differentiating himself over Warren or he's done."

If the membership vote went against Bernie, then I definitely would see some evidence that he's losing the grassroots to Liz. That's not how the WFP vote works.

The 30 state/board people get 50% of the vote.
The thousands of actual members get 50% of the vote.

87% of WFP members voted for Sanders in 2015. (Not that he got 87% of the vote, but 87% of the people chose him.)
We don't know what percentage voted for him this time, because they're keeping that secret this time.

I wonder why they're keeping it secret this time around.

For all we know, Liz got 90% of the executives and Bernie got 75% of the people. If that's the case, then why would I be worried about his grassroots strength?

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Totally.  I mean, let's assume that the WFP members wanted Bernie (which I don't know).  That makes it all the more impressive that she swooped in and stole the endorsement away.   And it's another encouraging data point for the candidate running as the most progressive option who can actually get shit done politically. 

Love to be the best progressive by getting the endorsement of a party by ingratiating myself to the executive class within that party and not actually winning over the members!

 

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

walking it back lol

"The writing is on the wall. Either Bernie starts actively differentiating himself over Warren or he's done."

 

Are you ok?  Saying "he's done" doesn't mean "he should drop out". It's saying he can't win the nomination. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

I'm fine, Hank, I'm not the one pretending that the secretive endorsement of a regional party (one that endorsed Crowley over AOC, by the way) is the final portent of doom for a candidate who is smashing basically every donor and volunteer record you could name.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I pray AOC doesn’t endorse Warren anytime soon.  Gonna be interesting watching the Berners turn on her.

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm fine, Hank, I'm not the one pretending that the secretive endorsement of a regional party (one that endorsed Crowley over AOC, by the way) is the final portent of doom for a candidate who is smashing basically every donor and volunteer record you could name.

It's not the final portent of doom, it's just yet another sign that Warren is overtaking Bernie's progressive lane for the D candidate nomination. 

He's taken the brunt of criticism from the establishment detractors which has allowed Liz to get to this point. Do you not agree? 

It's pretty incredible that when it comes to Medicare for All, the underlying tone with Bernie is"he is a radical socialist and must be stopped" but with Liz it's like "isn't it great that she's for M4A, she's so progressive!"? 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

11 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It's not the final portent of doom, it's just yet another sign that Warren is overtaking Bernie's progressive lane for the D candidate nomination. 

"Yet another"? You're acting like there's some parade of evidence that Sanders is losing the grassroots to Warren and even this WFP endorsement isn't evidence of that, much less it being a "yet another".

Warren's base is shown time and time again to be highly-educated white professionals and Bernie's base is shown time and time again to be multi-ethnic working class. I don't know what milkshake, specifically, Warren is drinking.

Quote

He's taken the brunt of criticism from the establishment detractors which has allowed Liz to get to this point. Do you not agree? 

100% true. I don't know what that means in the context of his strength among the progressive grassroots, though. Seems unrelated.

If anything, a Liz stan might be worried that it took months of fawning media and shielding from criticism to climb up to the spot where her name recognition should've already had her. What happens when she has to stand on her own two legs? (Hopefully, for all our sakes, good things.)

Quote

It's pretty incredible that when it comes to Medicare for All, the underlying tone with Bernie is"he is a radical socialist and must be stopped" but with Liz it's like "isn't it great that she's for M4A, she's so progressive!"?

She's starting to get some heat from centrists and other garbagelibs like Pete, but yes, people know that Bernie is the energy and mind behind the progressive movement right now so he receives the focus of their fire. Even when Bernie's not on stage, he's the center of the conversation.

The media class is still fully enamored of Liz, so that might actually sustain indefinitely. But again, that has nothing to do with her strength in the grassroots or the drinking of any Bernie milkshakes.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

liz and her campaign are perfectly positioned for the 2020 run.

she has bernie shielding her and attracting a lot of the "i'm progressive but not that progressive" voter criticism.  she's able to gain favor with people who agree generally with her (and bernie's) ideas, or more importantly, don't want someone like biden.

it's kinda like ordering the 2nd cheapest bottle of wine on the menu.  oh, i'm not cheap, that one just looked good to me (secretly hoping the waitress doesn't think i'm cheap).

liz is a compromise most seem willing to make.  i would assume, if this plays out to where warren wins, that the bros would be on board.  i would worry a lot more about the bros if biden was the candidate.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,534]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Remember from 2008 through 2012 how the Shaggy political board spent an inordinate amount of bandwidth on Ron Paul and how libertarian purists were the wave of the future on the right?   Bernie is this board’s Ron Paul.  

Several of those "libertarians" went full MAGA, sadly. Makes me wonder what an Evil Left Wing Populist could do. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Agreed. 
Personally, I think it's too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube regarding the guns that are out there.  I'd suggest going Beto's original idea...from that same day, I think....make it a financial issue.  I think he was specifically talking about credit card usage at gun shows, etc., but I'd expand the idea so that all guns must be registered, licensed, and insured....just like cars.  I'd imagine the rates for an AR-15 would be pretty high, given the risks.  And if you are caught without any of the three components, your gun would be impounded and you would be fined, or jailed.
Obviously a lot of the details would have to be worked out, but that's kind of an overview of my thoughts.

And all of those proposals you mentioned are part of Beto’s plan too. And Republicans would still be calling him a gun grabber even if he hadn’t said he wants mandatory buybacks of assault weapons.

Obama did next to nothing to restrict anything surrounding guns and yet that didn’t stop the nutters from screaming about him coming for their guns.

If you’re gonna be branded a gun grabber no matter what you do or say, might as well go ahead and do it.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

18 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Remember from 2008 through 2012 (or hell, maybe even until 2015) how the Shaggy political board spent an inordinate amount of bandwidth on Ron Paul and how libertarian purists were the wave of the future on the right?   Bernie is this board’s Ron Paul.  

You are highly delusional regarding this board's support for Bernie. There are maybe 3 people here who are Bernie proponents. Pete has more fans here than Bernie.

This is Warrenville, overall.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Several of those "libertarians" went full MAGA, sadly. Makes me wonder what an Evil Left Wing Populist could do. 

Full god damn communism, inshallah

[DixonHur 11,364]

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And all of those proposals you mentioned are part of Beto’s plan too.

Great, but the key words are "Beto's plan"...what he did in the debate was cast that as the Democratic platform.  That's the part I have a problem with.  He can say he believes all gun owners should be killed for all I care, just don't say "we".

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And Republicans would still be calling him a gun grabber even if he hadn’t said he wants mandatory buybacks of assault weapons.

Obama did next to nothing to restrict anything surrounding guns and yet that didn’t stop the nutters from screaming about him coming for their guns.

Here the key phrase is "Republicans would still be calling him a gun grabber".  Who cares what those still in the Republican party think...they're not voting a Dem no matter what.  But I belong to the oft forgotten independents, who make up 37% of the electorate.  These are the people the Dems need to focus on, and Beto's words were not helpful.

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

If you’re gonna be branded a gun grabber no matter what you do or say, might as well go ahead and do it.

Because, IMO, it's bad strategy to hand out talking points to the opponents that might resonate with folks in the middle.  We will decide the election, not the Dems or GOP.

On a side note...there is no way in hell I'd vote for Trump...just so we're clear.

Edited September 16, 2019 by DixonHur

[bad_teammate 13,224]

In 2016, some unions endorsed Hillary in almost the exact same scenario (bosses for Hillary, workers for Bernie) and it was greeted by the exact same rationalizations ("actually, it's good that the workers went for a different candidate but Hillary still got the endorsement, because it shows how good Hillary is at playing the game!").

Then Hillary lost the rust belt lol

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Perhaps you are highly delusional about your own posting volume?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Lmao

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Latest Morning Consult, all post-debate:   https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Biden, Sanders, and Warren are essentially tied for the second choice of each other's supporters.  But Liz is the only candidate who has gained any ground since May, since which she's more than doubled her support.   Also, she is by far the second choice of Harris supporters (28% vs Biden 18, Bernie 12) and basically tied with Biden as second choice of Pete supporters (25% vs Biden 23, Harris 13).  

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Andddddd Pete today -

That “beep beep” you hear is Pete supporters reversing course.

[tantric superman 4,667]

couldn't care less

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

lol @ this fucking woodchuck idiot thinking people are going to riot in the streets when they get better, cheaper healthcare with the same doctors and hospitals

Healthcare lobbyists at the gala lib events, but no gun manufacturers. Pete raising more than anyone at (by far) the highest $/donation and can't even get close to double digits in the polls.

All a coincidence.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

I want to like Tulsi but I ... she just makes it so hard

But she's against war, so that makes her better than most of the other candidates.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,534]

lol @ this fucking woodchuck idiot thinking people are going to riot in the streets when they get better, cheaper healthcare with the same doctors and hospitals
Healthcare lobbyists at the gala lib events, but no gun manufacturers. Pete raising more than anyone at (by far) the highest $/donation and can't even get close to double digits in the polls.
All a coincidence.

He’s right though. Bernie’s plan (though no doubt sincerely presented) is absurd and the only thing that makes Elizabeth Warren tolerable to me on this issue is that she’s clearly left herself enough room to weasel out of it and come around to something that will actually cover everybody and deal with the core problems of the healthcare economy.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

forcing everyone onto a better, cheaper healthcare plan with the same doctors and hospitals = no-brainer, genius policy.

providing an option to switch to a better, cheaper healthcare plan with the same doctors and hospitals = woodchuck idiot?

stupid (but honest) question incoming - since i know m4a is not an overnight solution, and that the rollout is a process, what are the big differences in what these two plans will look like in the first 4 years?  i seriously don't know the answer.

Edited September 16, 2019 by henrygandorf

[bad_teammate 13,224]

What are the "core problems of the healthcare economy"?

[bad_teammate 13,224]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

forcing everyone onto a better, cheaper healthcare plan with the same doctors and hospitals = no-brainer, genius policy.

providing an option to switch to a better, cheaper healthcare plan with the same doctors and hospitals = woodchuck idiot?

The "woodchuck idiot" part is him stepping up with some bullshit right-wing talking points to my beloved Grandfather and Grandmother. Fucking nerd needs to keep their names out of his overbite unless he's praising them for being better than him. America's Macron can watch himself.

Quote

stupid (but honest) question incoming - since i know m4a is not an overnight solution, and that the rollout is a process, what are the big differences in what these two plans will look like in the first 4 years?  i seriously don't know the answer.

VOX explainer on the two best plans, M4A Sanders (Senate) and Jayapal (House). (Other, worse plans are included.)

M4A is a 4-year rollout tiered by age groups. On the 4th year 100% of Americans are on it automatically.

Compared to Pete's plan? Dude I don't know because he's too cool for having plans. He's saying inane bullshit like, “I do think we need to build up the idea of caring about the future as a value.”

Sanders also proposes forgiving all medical debt, which is awesome.

[Js1 85,563]

But why?

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,534]

What are the "core problems of the healthcare economy"?

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

[DixonHur 11,364]

51 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "woodchuck idiot" part is him stepping up with some bullshit right-wing talking points to my beloved Grandfather and Grandmother. Fucking nerd needs to keep their names out of his overbite unless he's praising them for being better than him. America's Macron can watch himself.

VOX explainer on the two best plans, M4A Sanders (Senate) and Jayapal (House). (Other, worse plans are included.)

M4A is a 4-year rollout tiered by age groups. On the 4th year 100% of Americans are on it automatically.

Compared to Pete's plan? Dude I don't know because he's too cool for having plans. He's saying inane bullshit like, “I do think we need to build up the idea of caring about the future as a value.”

Sanders also proposes forgiving all medical debt, which is awesome.

Cancelling medical and student debt would be a huge boon for the economy. 

[Incredulity 11,683]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Cancelling medical and student debt would be a huge boon for the economy. 

So would writing every citizen a 100k check.

viva la sociofuckyourmother.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Change in net favorability after the last debate -



Yay Beto.

Yikes Castro.

[Hank Kingsley 21,049]

wtf

[Chuckie Finster 22,728]

Change in net favorability after the last debate -



Yay Beto.

Yikes Castro.

Lol, fucking Biden.

[DixonHur 11,364]

11 hours ago, Incredulity said:

So would writing every citizen a 100k check.

viva la sociofuckyourmother.

Not sure I get the comparison.  Student debt is the result of an investment that benefits our labor force, and medical debt is something foreign to citizens of virtually every other industrialized nation.

How about instead of tax cuts for the wealthy, which never trickle down, we help those who will actually put the money back into the economy. 

[Incredulity 11,683]

Well how about the debt holders? Are they taking the over Trillion dollar hit? Or is the government(taxpayers) going to make them whole?

[DixonHur 11,364]

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well how about the debt holders? Are they taking the over Trillion dollar hit? Or is the government(taxpayers) going to make them whole?

Reverse Trump tax cuts...unless you're being disingenuous and suggesting tax payers should be on the hook to support socialism for the rich, but not those who actually need it.

[Js1 85,563]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Reverse Trump tax cuts...unless you're being disingenuous and suggesting tax payers should be on the hook to support socialism for the rich, but not those who actually need it.

That's EXACTLY what they believe.  Socialism for farmers, corporations and the rich.  Everyone else can get fucked. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Well how about the debt holders? Are they taking the over Trillion dollar hit? Or is the government(taxpayers) going to make them whole?

From what I understand, the government would pay off the debts in each scenario. 

[Celery Man 20,996]

Mah tax dollars