2020 Democratic Nominee

[HRSchenker 2268]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

No he hasn't. Are you talking about the shill Norah O'Donnell question where she lumped "all" of his plans together and demanded a cost for all of it in 3 seconds and she started interrupting him as he tried to answer?

He's cited multiple studies showing that M4A would be ~$3.2T/year

Which is significantly lower than the overall cost of our current, complex public/private system.

Those studies don't really address my concerns. One of the big talking points I've seen with M4A is that single payer will remove the barrier between the physician and the patient. Makes sense. Right now there are middlemen who dictate treatment on the medical side and prescriptions on the pharmacy side. But those middlemen are what prevent Dr John from prescribing you Emgality ($800 monthly injection) for your migraine headaches before you try topiramate ($15 for a month) or amitriptyline ($5 for a month) first. If we get them out of the way then that "screening" if you want to call it that will go away. In a scenario like that playing out in every doctors office in every city in every state, how on earth would that projected spending be lower than our current system? There have got to be cuts to provider reimbursements right?

[Anastasis 23469]

4 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Those studies don't really address my concerns. One of the big talking points I've seen with M4A is that single payer will remove the barrier between the physician and the patient. Makes sense. Right now there are middlemen who dictate treatment on the medical side and prescriptions on the pharmacy side. But those middlemen are what prevent Dr John from prescribing you Emgality ($800 monthly injection) for your migraine headaches before you try topiramate ($15 for a month) or amitriptyline ($5 for a month) first. If we get them out of the way then that "screening" if you want to call it that will go away. In a scenario like that playing out in every doctors office in every city in every state, how on earth would that projected spending be lower than our current system? There have got to be cuts to provider reimbursements right?

Utilization management will not go away. If anything it becomes more ubiquitous. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Those studies don't really address my concerns. One of the big talking points I've seen with M4A is that single payer will remove the barrier between the physician and the patient. Makes sense. Right now there are middlemen who dictate treatment on the medical side and prescriptions on the pharmacy side. But those middlemen are what prevent Dr John from prescribing you Emgality ($800 monthly injection) for your migraine headaches before you try topiramate ($15 for a month) or amitriptyline ($5 for a month) first. If we get them out of the way then that "screening" if you want to call it that will go away. In a scenario like that playing out in every doctors office in every city in every state, how on earth would that projected spending be lower than our current system? There have got to be cuts to provider reimbursements right?

Medicare does exactly that too.

In fact, a lot of private insurance companies follow Medicare’s lead on those types of practices.

There will still be a gatekeeper between physician and patient - Medicare.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Lilly goes to the fucking gulag.

[Zavala 1384]

[TDunk 590]

21 minutes ago, Zavala said:

 

Iowa wrestling crowd:

Edited January 31, 2020 by TDunk
Those are actual Iowans.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 rich guy down, 2 to go

[406W30th 1111]

I mean fuck that guy forever but he was also endlessly entertaining.

Interested to see when he endorses Trump after Bernie gets the nomination.

[Js1 85337]

Almost at enough candidates to count on 2 hands! 11 left 

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 rich guy down, 2 to go

Who?

[406W30th 1111]

16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Who?

Hopefully Bloomberg first and then Tom "Bernie Bro" Steyer.

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

1 rich guy down, 2 to go
 

 

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Who?

 

Headline should be "Delaney reminds people he was running for president by quitting  his run for president."

[GSU&UT 1798]

I am having a fun my fellow humans

[bad_teammate 13195]

Wine Cave Pete is upset that grassroots movements like Bernie.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Poor Pete

[Js1 85337]

I take back everything I said about Pete. He IS really good at this gay thing. Petty AF when you get rejected. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

It's a misunderstanding.

Pete isn't talking about "dark money" in terms of secret money.

He meant "dark people money" because those organizations are full of non-white people and he hasn't ever seen political support from darker-colored people.

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

It is dark money.  All that means is that they don't have to disclose their donors, which is true. 

 

I don't really care and am not going to pretend Bernie and these groups are bad people. But they rail against dark money, yet apparently it's ok when they do it. 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

But they rail against dark money, yet apparently it's ok when they do it.

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well, that was incorrectly deployed. A presidential candidate (especially Bernie) doesn't need dark money to fund his/her campaign. 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[henrygandorf 29191]

spends a few hours in a wine cave = wine cave pete!

spends 30 years in indiana = yeah, but he's not really from indiana.

god bless twitter.

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

VoteVets ran a positive ad for Buttigieg. It was initially reported that it came from their dark money group, but then corrected that they used their PAC to make sure donors were properly disclosed.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

When Democrats express concern about the use of dark money, they are expressing concern about the influence of corporate power and billionaires in policy who are pushing for bad things. They are not talking about the influence of grassroots movements of working class people.

501(c)4 groups are not required by law to disclose donors. That's not their call, that was the call of the Supreme Court and US Congress. At least 3 of the groups in People Power for Bernie have overturning Citizens United as one of their major goals.

A serious question for you: Which of these groups do you think is secretly funded by a group that wants bad things?

If you can't answer that, you're just being a disingenuous concern troll.

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When Democrats express concern about the use of dark money, they are expressing concern about the influence of corporate power and billionaires in policy who are pushing for bad things. They are not talking about the influence of grassroots movements of working class people.

501(c)4 groups are not required by law to disclose donors. That's not their call, that was the call of the Supreme Court and US Congress. At least 3 of the groups in People Power for Bernie have overturning Citizens United as one of their major goals.

A serious question for you: Which of these groups do you think is secretly funded by a group that wants bad things?

If you can't answer that, you're just being a disingenuous concern troll.

Stop talking to yourself. I said above that I don't think Bernie or these groups are doing something nefarious. But it is dark money. 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Stop talking to yourself. I said above that I don't think Bernie or these groups are doing something nefarious. But it is dark money.

Yes, you did. You accused them of hypocrisy by falsely comparing Koch-funded groups to groups like The Sunrise Movement.

But they rail against dark money, yet apparently it's ok when they do it.

This is absolutely a "Yet you LIVE in a society" argument because you are purposefully blurring the lines between good groups (all of those involved with PPFB and dozens more) and bad groups (Adelson/Koch/DeVos-backed slush funds for Republicans) simply because they share the same legal designation.

You and I both know what the connotation of "dark money" is and it's not the god damned Sunrise Movement.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, you did. You accused them of hypocrisy by falsely comparing Koch-funded groups to groups like The Sunrise Movement.

But they rail against dark money, yet apparently it's ok when they do it.

This is absolutely a "Yet you LIVE in a society" argument because you are purposefully blurring the lines between good groups (all of those involved with PPFB and dozens more) and bad groups (Adelson/Koch/DeVos-backed slush funds for Republicans) simply because they share the same legal designation.

You and I both know what the connotation of "dark money" is and it's not the god damned Sunrise Movement.

 

I mentioned nothing about the Koch Brothers. Stop putting words in my mouth. 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I mentioned nothing about the Koch Brothers. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So then who are the "dark money" groups that Sanders "rail(s) against"?

[bad_teammate 13195]

The Working Families Party is out there campaigning on behalf of Warren, how many fundraising e-mails has Sanders sent decrying them as a "dark money" group?

[henrygandorf 29191]

if you're concerned, bt will tell you who you're concerned about, and then he'll let you know if that concern is genuine, afterwards.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

Interesting in that it tracks with spiders and not bees.

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

Good get for Warren in Iowa. 

 

[David Dennison 18860]

Iowa being first needs to stop. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

https://twitter.com/BernieWatchdog/status/1223021242892066825

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

https://twitter.com/BernieWatchdog/status/1223021242892066825

 

I'd love to see who is the money behind this. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 28775]

Could someone explain who will benefit the most from the secondary choice once a majority of the candidates drop out?

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, F250 said:

Could someone explain who will benefit the most from the secondary choice once a majority of the candidates drop out?

MorningConsult from a few days ago

Biden -> Sanders & Warren
Sanders -> Warren & Biden
Warren -> Sanders & Biden
Pete -> Biden & Warren
Bloomberg -> Biden & Warren

Totaled up, it's Bernie and Joe as the top two getters among second-choice.
 

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

Could someone explain who will benefit the most from the secondary choice once a majority of the candidates drop out?

 

It's tight.

First to qualify for second choice pickups - a candidate must have 15% in the first round. 

If Warren and Buttigieg don't get the 15%, they are not eligible. If Biden or Sanders doesn't get to 15%, they are not eligible. Same with the others. 

Polling is difficult because of the 15% rule. Some may say Sanders or Biden is the second choice, but if neither hits the 15%, they, as second choice candidates, would not qualify. 

Here is one poll with a 4.9% MOE:

Quote

 

Since 15% is the threshold to be eligible for Iowa's convention delegates, Monmouth asked caucusgoers to choose between candidates who currently stood at 15% or higher in its poll. Asked to pick between Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren, 28% of survey respondents chose Biden; 24% picked Sanders; 25% picked Buttigieg; and 16% went to Warren.

Monmouth polled 405 likely Democratic caucusgoers from Jan. 9-12, and results have a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/01/13/2020-democrats-monmouth-iowa-poll-shows-four-top/4455107002/

[FondrenRoad 4378]

41 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Iowa being first needs to stop. 

Yep. All primaries should be on the same day. June 2 states may as well not even have the Presidential race on the ballot, but it is usually even decided well before that.  Has anyone trailed after Super Tuesday but still won the nomination?  

Edited January 31, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[washparkhorn 9939]

Warren's attack on Sanders was seen as a way for her to get to 15% (nipping progressive votes from Sanders). That created some pretty big waves between the campaigns. Same with Buttigieg on Biden (nipping conservative voters from Biden to get to 15%).

All is fair in love and war.

[GSU&UT 1798]

I think at the very least a state that does something as stupid as Iowa does shouldn't be first, it seems wholly undemocratic the way the caucus works.

[bad_teammate 13195]

The 538 average in Iowa looks kind of scary for Pete and Liz.

Bernie - 22.1%
Biden - 21.5%
Pete - 15.5%
Liz - 14.3%
Amy - 10.1%
Steyer - 3.5%
Yang - 3.5%

(I won't say the next name because saying her name out loud releases chaos demons.)

Pete is sitting at threshold and Warren is sitting BELOW threshold.

I'm not going to disagree with 538. Those guys know how to do these models and they're way smarter than me. If you make me bet money I'm going to bet 538.

But my completely idiotic and pointless gut feeling is that this has Bernie & Liz underperforming and Pete & Biden overperforming simply because of on-the-ground organizing.

If Bernie's voters actually show up, I can see him being in the mid 30s or higher. I can also see Warren in the 20s. Biden collapsing into the tens or lower wouldn't shock me because he has no enthusiasm and almost no organization.

My brain says, "Whatever 538 says is probably right."
My gut says Sanders -> Warren -> Pete -> Joe

At least using the data right now from 538. That could change dramatically by Monday.

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yep. All primaries should be on the same day. June 2 states may as well not even have the Presidential race on the ballot, but it is usually even decided well before that.  Has anyone trailed after Super Tuesday but still won the nomination?  

It was close between Obama and Clinton after Super Tuesday. I think - but could be wrong - that Hillary led barely after super Tuesday, but the momentum was on Obama's side and superdelegates started moving in mass to him after his performance on super tuesday. I know Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote on Super Tuesday. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s happening

[Hank Kingsley 20940]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The 538 average in Iowa looks kind of scary for Pete and Liz.

Bernie - 22.1%
Biden - 21.5%
Pete - 15.5%
Liz - 14.3%
Amy - 10.1%
Steyer - 3.5%
Yang - 3.5%

(I won't say the next name because saying her name out loud releases chaos demons.)

Pete is sitting at threshold and Warren is sitting BELOW threshold.

I'm not going to disagree with 538. Those guys know how to do these models and they're way smarter than me. If you make me bet money I'm going to bet 538.

But my completely idiotic and pointless gut feeling is that this has Bernie & Liz underperforming and Pete & Biden overperforming simply because of on-the-ground organizing.

If Bernie's voters actually show up, I can see him being in the mid 30s or higher. I can also see Warren in the 20s. Biden collapsing into the tens or lower wouldn't shock me because he has no enthusiasm and almost no organization.

My brain says, "Whatever 538 says is probably right."
My gut says Sanders -> Warren -> Pete -> Joe

At least using the data right now from 538. That could change dramatically by Monday.

Yeah, recent Iowa polling has been bad news for Pete. 

While Bernie, Warren, and Klobuchar have been busy with impeachment, Pete has really focused on the rural areas of Iowa with all the town halls he's done over the last week or so. I don't know if that strategy will work, but it's clearly deliberate. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

7 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

It was close between Obama and Clinton after Super Tuesday. I think - but could be wrong - that Hillary led barely after super Tuesday, but the momentum was on Obama's side and superdelegates started moving in mass to him after his performance on super tuesday. I know Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote on Super Tuesday. 

Sorry - I was wrong about that - without superdelegates (who favored Clinton at the time), Obama was slightly ahead of Clinton in delegate count after super tuesday and hillary claimed the popular vote lead. 

I think you are right - supertueday has produced the eventual nominee.

[washparkhorn 9939]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s happening

Race for 2016 is happened.

[406W30th 1111]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s happening

I know that this has more to do with the primary but thinking about Trump trying to use this in the general has me laughing my ass off.

[Js1 85337]

2 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

I know that this has more to do with the primary but thinking about Trump trying to use this in the general has me laughing my ass off.

“Bernie could only write about rape fantasies. Can’t get it done! Look at how many rape accusations there are against me. That’s getting it done!”