2020 Democratic Nominee

[Brandywine 1330]

I don’t understand the love for Bernie. His policies would never pass in Congress outside of also being way too expensive. He’s not a true Democrat. His health is in bad shape. And he’ll probably lose in a landslide by the time Trump gets everyone scared to death that he’ll ruin the country because he’s a socialist. But, if Democrats feel like it’s “Bernie’s turn” can we just get this over with? 

[Message Board User 12409]

Just now, Brandywine said:

I don’t understand the love for Bernie. His policies would never pass in Congress outside of also being way too expensive. He’s not a true Democrat. His health is in bad shape. And he’ll probably lose in a landslide by the time Trump gets everyone scared to death that he’ll ruin the country because he’s a socialist. But, if Democrats feel like it’s “Bernie’s turn” can we just get this over with? 

Duck!

[Brandywine 1330]

5 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Duck!

Stirring the pot! 😊

[Biff Tannen 46184]

B_T will be along any minute now to “explain”. 

[DaysOff 8213]

Really wish super Tuesday was for all 50 states and ranked choice voting was required in all of them. Instant runoff results with this many candidates.

Four years ago trump would've been at the bottom of enough ballots that he wouldn't have the nomination after the second ranking. Easy peasy.

[bad_teammate 13564]

"His policies would never pass in Congress"

They absolutely could.

Will it be easy? No. But nothing worthwhile ever is.

We are going to have to replace many members of Congress over time. We are going to have to push many existing members of Congress to our side. With that done, the initiatives pass. Is it possible to push people out? Yes, with concerted and unified effort. Is it possible to push people to change their votes? Yes.

Again, it's not easy, but it's possible. And what we choosing to do is hope for a future in which our collective efforts lead to positive change. We do not want to wait on the sideline and vainly hope that one inspirational individual can do all the work for us while we watch prestige TV and eat brunch. We believe we can make a positive impact on the world, because we know we can make a positive impact.

Pundit-headed cynicism is often just an excuse we use to feel better about our laziness and lack of engagement.

Look at it another way: How did we get here?

- How do we have so little gun regulation when a majority of Americans want stronger gun laws?
- How do we have so underfunded a school system when a majority of Americans want better schools?
- How do we have so much medical debt when a majority of Americans (an OVERWHELMING majority) want affordable universal healthcare?
- How do we have such low wages when we KNOW we deserve more?

It is because of concerted and unified political efforts of bad actors. If a Congressperson proposes gun legislation, what happens? They are flooded with calls from old white people. They are hounded by them.

These people organize in churches and set up call lists.

We need to counter these influences with progressive voices. And we can win.

We WILL win.

"way too expensive"

Compared to what?

- How much does a dying planet cost?
- How much do tens of thousands of dead Americans for lack of healthcare cost?
- How much do lost generations of children cost when they aren't educated and end up in prison? 
- How much do destroyed families cost when we lock up their fathers and don't provide everything they need to live and thrive?

We spend trillions on toys of war. "Too expensive" doesn't exist in America when it comes to anything but helping the people, and we reject this right-wing framing of how we should live and work together.

"He’s not a true Democrat."

Explain what a "true Democrat" is and why we should even care.

"His health is in bad shape."

He's going to be in the White House with a team of elite doctors on call, not competing in American Ninja Warrior. He is as mentally sharp as ever so I don't care if he's bedridden. I'd rather a president have a sharp brain in a dying body than a dim brain in a thriving one.

He just did 3 huge rallies in 3 states in 1 day and looked fantastic (for an ancient husk of a man). Sharp and funny until the end.

Also, he's going to die soon after leaving office so we don't have to deal with a bunch of speculation and bullshit about how the former president feels or thinks about future progressive ideas.

"And he’ll probably lose in a landslide by the time Trump gets everyone scared to death that he’ll ruin the country because he’s a socialist."

Bernie has whipped Trump's ass in head-to-heads for 4 years now.

Only Bernie pulls massive crowds that can compete with Trump. Only Bernie inspires loyalty and dedication that can compete with Trump. Only Bernie can reach independents that we need to keep away from Trump.

If you want to win, Bernie is the choice.

[Biff Tannen 46184]

See

[bad_teammate 13564]

I couldn't let you down, biff.

[washparkhorn 9974]

56 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

"I don’t understand the love for Bernie."

People first over billionaires and corporations/trusts dictating policy. We have money to pay for emergency wars and emergency financial collapse of the wealthy, but not enough to serve the same human needs as Western Democracies. 

"His policies would never pass in Congress"

Yes they can. He advocates for the same basic human rights that were fought for under Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration. He believes SS should not reduced, unlike most of his competitors. Polling shows support for progressive policies that benefits the poor, working and hollowed-out middle class (which continues to collapse). 

"[O]utside of [his policies] also being way too expensive. "

You haven't kept up with modern economics, which is not uncommon. Dr. Dean Baker (economist) recently published an easy explanation if you are interested in economics. See https://cepr.net/yes-it-s-monday-morning-and-robert-samuelson-is-worried-about-budget-deficits/  Pete Peterson was a lying billionaire and propagandist who funded the debt scare voodoo. 

"He’s not a true Democrat."

Incorrect. He is a Democrat. And his policies are the foundation of the Democratic Party going back to FDR. 

"His health is in bad shape."

We have made remarkable advances in cardiac care. A stent is not a big deal anymore. He is outworking you and me everyday on the campaign trail. A good VP will be needed, like for any President. And after all for goodness sake, look at how long Dick Cheney survived without a heart.

"And he’ll probably lose in a landslide by the time Trump gets everyone scared to death that he’ll ruin the country because he’s a socialist."

Nope. He is polling ahead of Trump in most States, including Texas. And again, the scare word "socialism" doesn't pack the same punch these days. But if you want to talk about billionaire and corporate/trust socialism in this country, I can tell you more.

"But, if Democrats feel like it’s “Bernie’s turn” can we just get this over with?"

The DNC leadership and surrogates do not like Sanders or his the People who will vote for him. Once he wins the nomination, that leadership will change. They are arguing for their plum jobs and seats on Boards. 

Thanks for the Never-Trumper/Republican/Trump talking points.

Who are you supporting in 2020, just out of curiosity?  Thanks.

Edited February 15, 2020 by washparkhorn

[bad_teammate 13564]

wash you should make a Google Spreadsheet of the support information so it's easier to see who is concern trolling and who isn't lol

[Zonahorn 8079]

Why is the guy that wants to give everybody healthcare and tax the rich so popular!?

Edited February 15, 2020 by Calihorn

[bad_teammate 13564]

Pete's Republican turn is one of the most disappointing storylines of 2019 primary.

He was such an interesting progressive voice last year. Jesus Christ...

[Zonahorn 8079]

That ratio, oof

[Biff Tannen 46184]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's Republican turn is one of the most disappointing storylines of 2019 primary.

He was such an interesting progressive voice last year. Jesus Christ...

Medicare For All Who Want It is now a Republican platform?  You might want to inform them.

[gmr548 16702]

Really wish super Tuesday was for all 50 states and ranked choice voting was required in all of them. Instant runoff results with this many candidates.

Four years ago trump would've been at the bottom of enough ballots that he wouldn't have the nomination after the second ranking. Easy peasy.

Warren would probably end up the nominee in a ranked choice scenario. She's the leading second choice for the supporters of most candidates abd continues to have very high favorability.

I think that's the needle her campaign is trying to thread, and while I think it's a bad approach, I at least see the logic.

[Biff Tannen 46184]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

Warren would probably end up the nominee in a ranked choice scenario. She's the leading second choice for the supporters of most candidates abd continues to have very high favorability.

I think that's the needle her campaign is trying to thread, and while I think it's a bad approach, I at least see the logic.

Yep.  But we aren't smart enough to do that.

[bad_teammate 13564]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Medicare For All Who Want It is now a Republican platform?  You might want to inform them.

Oh it's not just the desperation on Pete's part to make sure that we can hit the poor with a $7k penalty and secure the billions of dollars in profits for his wealthy donors, Biff, it's also about the "government taking away our choice!" rhetoric used against progressive ideas when trying to secure that punishment of the poor and the billions in profits for wealthy donors.

It's genuinely disappointing to see. I was excited about the guy from 12/18 to about 3/19... I even bought his first round of "BOOT EDGE EDGE" t-shirts.

I thought he was going to be a fresh young progressive voice who had new ideas, but ... nope ... just a blue dog boomer in a millenial skin suit.

[gmr548 16702]

Yep. I don’t see Klobs or Warren in the race by Super Tuesday. 

They'll both make it there. Warren has the resources to hold out that long and Klobuchar has gotten a bump out of NH. If Super Tuesday delivers a split decision I could see Warren trying to make it to the convention in hopes of being the compromise candidate.

[Biff Tannen 46184]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

we can hit the poor with a $7k penalty and secure the billions of dollars in profits for his wealthy donors, Biff, it's also about the "government taking away our choice!" rhetoric used against progressive ideas when trying to secure that punishment of the poor and the billions in profits for wealthy donors.

Expand on this.

[bad_teammate 13564]

The penalty

M4AWWI would bring back the tax penalty on those who chose not to enroll in health insurance. Unfortunately, Pete hasn't outlined how he would handle this requirement (seems important), but depending on household size and state (which can assess their own penalties in this kind of scheme), that can get into the thousands. If you're too financially insecure to afford health insurance in the first place, being hit with a penalty for not having done so is... not good.

$700 per person is more accurate than using a larger penalty like $7k, because to get up that high would take some very unique circumstances.

Politically, "Guess what, I'm going to bring back the extremely unpopular universal mandate and tax penalty!" is a general election poison pill in addition to being terrible policy.

The rhetoric

That should be pretty obvious.

"The government doesn't trust you to make a choice!" is how the right kills public programs. It's how they tried to kill public schooling. It's how they are trying to kill Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. It is straight out of the Republican playbook.

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

Progressive maximalists, much like libertarian ideologues,  think everyone will agree with them once they are forced into compliance and see how awesome things are. So in that view of the world, it makes sense that forcing people to choose from a range of coverage is too unpopular to work, but forcing people into a single government program is too lovable to fail. 

 

[bad_teammate 13564]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Progressive maximalists, much like libertarian ideologues,  think everyone will agree with them once they are forced into compliance and see how awesome things are.

Did you not see that AOC recently just outlined the negotiation stepbacks from M4A? Not exactly smart politics on her part, but it puts to bed any good faith concern that their goal is M4A or millions of dead/uninsured Americans.

Not that you're operating in good faith, of course. And not that you will actually address the question I just asked you. You, like so many here, have your script and you can't do anything but read from it.

 

[David Dennison 19562]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you not see that AOC recently just outlined the negotiation stepbacks from M4A? Not exactly smart politics on her part, but it puts to bed any good faith concern that their goal is M4A or millions of dead/uninsured Americans.

Not that you're operating in good faith, of course. And not that you will actually address the question I just asked you. You, like so many here, have your script and you can't do anything but read from it.

M4A proponents need to do a better job convincing most people with employer provided health care that M4A is an improvement on what they have right now. 

[bad_teammate 13564]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

M4A proponents need to do a better job convincing most people with employer provided health care that M4A is an improvement on what they have right now. 

Agree, we need to be on the phones and knocking doors.

Would you like to help us, David?

[David Dennison 19562]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Agree, we need to be on the phones and knocking doors.

Would you like to help us, David?

No. I vote. That's all I will ever do when it comes to politics. I don't give money or volunteer and I never will.

[bad_teammate 13564]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't give money or volunteer and I never will.

Why?

I don't mean to ask in a critical way, but I come across this a lot and it's not uncommon for people to just feel like nothing they do matters, which isn't true.

[David Dennison 19562]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

I don't mean to ask in a critical way, but I come across this a lot and it's not uncommon for people to just feel like nothing they do matters, which isn't true.

Because I don't want to.

So I vote. 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Warren would probably end up the nominee in a ranked choice scenario. She's the leading second choice for the supporters of most candidates abd continues to have very high favorability.

I think that's the needle her campaign is trying to thread, and while I think it's a bad approach, I at least see the logic.

I hadn’t thought of that and I would Be 100% fine with it.  Apart from freaking out the banksters, she’s got among the least unfavorables, is progressive, and female.  If POC can come around in Bloomberg, I’m not worried about Warren if and when she’s the tip of the spear. 

[bad_teammate 13564]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because I don't want to.

Do you feel like your lack of participation in the democratic process beyond the most basic and passive aspect adds or detracts from your credibility as someone who discusses what others should or should not do to effectively gain power?

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

10 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Trump isn't going quietly no matter what.

I'm beginning to think that all of this hand-wringing over which Democrat should win the nomination is wasted time, because it's not going to be a straight election.  They'll suppress as many voters as they can.  And he'll have help from Russia again.  If the early election night results aren't going his way, there will be problems counting votes.  A recount will definitely be needed.  Hell, Florida's got a Republican governor if they need to play that card again.

Trump will try to con enough people, with help from Russia, again, and if that doesn't work, he'll just steal the damned thing.  Who's going to stop him?

If the Russians really wanna ramp up the infighting in this country they would help Bern this time.  Not saying they didn’t help Trump last time around, just saying helping Bern this time then spilling what they know on Dotard is the move.  

Edited February 15, 2020 by ChiTownDoc

[Anastasis 23724]

29 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

If the Russians really wanna ramp up the infighting in this country they would help Bern this time.  Not saying they didn’t help Trump last time around, just saying helping Bern this time then spilling what they know on Dotard is the move.  

[washparkhorn 9974]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Progressive maximalists, much like libertarian ideologues,  think everyone will agree with them once they are forced into compliance and see how awesome things are. So in that view of the world, it makes sense that forcing people to choose from a range of coverage is too unpopular to work, but forcing people into a single government program is too lovable to fail. 

 

I know, right, Becky? Look at what this progressive maximalist said . . .   Oh My God, can you believe the nerve of him?

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause)

“I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.

And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.

But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” 

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

 

Coda: Yes We Can.

[washparkhorn 9974]

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you not see that AOC recently just outlined the negotiation stepbacks from M4A? Not exactly smart politics on her part, but it puts to bed any good faith concern that their goal is M4A or millions of dead/uninsured Americans.

Not that you're operating in good faith, of course. And not that you will actually address the question I just asked you. You, like so many here, have your script and you can't do anything but read from it.

 

Of course i saw it. It doesn't mean anything. 

[bad_teammate 13564]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course i saw it. It doesn't mean anything. 

So you think she was lying and that their actual plan is to do M4A or nothing?

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I know, right, Becky? Look at what this progressive maximalist said . . .   Oh My God, can you believe the nerve of him?

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause)

“I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.

And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see.

But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” 

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

 

Coda: Yes We Can.

M4A is non of those things. M4A is Bernie imagines it is a political fantasy of a structure that doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore because it didn't work very well.

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So you think she was lying and that their actual plan is to do M4A or nothing?

I don't know or care if she's lying, I think her "plan" is irrelevant.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[bad_teammate 13564]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

M4A is non of those things. M4A is Bernie imagines it is a political fantasy of a structure that doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore because it didn't work very well.

Where was something like M4A tried that didn't work?

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Where was something like M4A tried that didn't work?

Yes, most of the care schemes in the commonwealth went through a period where the government had a near monopsony on basic services and have liberalized since. 

[washparkhorn 9974]

BC is merely giving us the Heritage Foundation view of the world. Well played BC, or should we call you Marie Fishpaw:

Marie Fishpaw, the director of domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, disputes that Medicare for All is even all that popular. (Support for Medicare for All has declined somewhat since 2017.) “While polls show initial support for Medicare for All, there is a remarkable drop in support when people learn more about the details,” she told me via email. “Any program that is going to create more taxes, take away health-care choices, or outlaw private health coverage entirely becomes a nonstarter.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/11/why-people-support-medicare-all/602413/

The audacity of hope irritates the billionaires and their lackeys. 

[bad_teammate 13564]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, most of the care schemes in the commonwealth went through a period where the government had a near monopsony on basic services and have liberalized since. 

Which commonwealth? What time period?

Quote

I don't know or care if she's lying, I think her "plan" is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

Are you saying that Bernie won't win so it doesn't matter what she says or plans? Are you saying that even if Bernie wins he will be uncompromising and AOC just doesn't know it? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, you're just not being clear and I want to make sure I understand your point fairly.

[washparkhorn 9974]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

Now there's a classic Washpark strawman.

I've been working for universal healthcare since you were touting the fairness of tax cuts for the 1%, chief. 

[bad_teammate 13564]

Wonderful timing from Yale epidemiologists in The Lancet

- Medicare 4 All would save $450B/year
- Medicare 4 All would prevent 68,000 deaths/year

By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Now there's a classic Washpark strawman.

I've been working for universal healthcare since you were touting the fairness of tax cuts for the 1%, chief. 

Agree with Bozo.  Universal healthcare is the goal.  Depending on how you define/deliver M4A it may work.  

Edited February 15, 2020 by ChiTownDoc

[Biff Tannen 46184]

Lol health care.  None of it matters unless we address corruption.  You might as well be wishing for someone to destroy the Republicans with fireballs from their eyes and bolts of lightning from their arse.

[bad_teammate 13564]

I just posted an academic study from Yale epidemiologists, ChiTown, but keep on pretending there's no substance to any of this. lol

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I just posted an academic study from Yale epidemiologists, ChiTown, but keep on pretending there's no substance to any of this. lol

Actually I saw your post and am replying.  Hence the edit, champ. 

[washparkhorn 9974]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Now there's a classic Washpark strawman.

I've been working for universal healthcare since you were touting the fairness of tax cuts for the 1%, chief. 

I know you have - what happened to the transition away from for profit insurance and "bending the cost curve?"  

I think you would like this from Wendell Potter, a health care exec, who saw the light in the ghastly nature of for profit healthcare. He is reacting to Buttigieg's support for private healthcare.

I read this morning that Mayor Pete plans to attack Medicare For All, for political gain in Nevada. This will thrill my old pals in the insurance industry, as Pete's plan preserves the very system that makes them huge profits while bankrupting & killing millions. Here's why. 1/7

To boost corporate profits, the current system (high deductibles, denials of coverage, etc) is designed to keep you from getting care. By refusing to ban these toxins, Pete's plan is a godsend to my old industry. It's why they've given him more $ than any candidate but Trump. 2/7

Another problem for consumers: Medicare for All enrolls everyone in a single insurance pool, giving the gov't leverage to negotiate lower costs with providers & facilities. Pete's public option only covers *some*, meaning a smaller insurance pool & higher costs. 3/7

Also: Under plans like Pete's, uninsured Americans would be automatically enrolled in the public plan, and they could face a $7,000 tax increase at the end of the year. Medicare For All covers you entirely. 4/7

.@abbydphillip: “Mayor Buttigieg, you're selling your plan as Medicare for all who want it, yet it'd automatically enroll uninsured Americans into a public option even if they don't want it & force them to pay for it. How's that truth in advertising?” 5/7 

Speaking of how Pete sells his plan: It's completely different from Medicare For All, yet he borrows the popular branding & calls his plan "Medicare For All Who Want It." That's likely because polls show a huge majority of Dems want Medicare For All. That tells you something. 6/7

Look, I live with huge regret knowing the system I worked for placed profits over Americans' health. I have no motive to want to reform the system that fed me well -- except to see Americans get the care they need. Pete's plan keeps the bad system going. I know this too well. 7/7

 

Yes, we can. And indeed we will. The corporate hucksters have not purchased Sanders, his supporters, and the People of the United States. 

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Wonderful timing from Yale epidemiologists in The Lancet

- Medicare 4 All would save $450B/year
- Medicare 4 All would prevent 68,000 deaths/year

By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

I agree with those numbers.  But you’re assuming a competent / non corrupt govt delivers it.  The VA is a great example of what happens when a group has a single payer/delivery system.  And I do think a single payer leads to less choice for options akin to the VA - who ironically opened up their system finally after delivering decades of shitty care.  
 

I think M4A can work in theory and have nothing against those fighting for it.  I’m glad the AMA is no longer fighting it, but waiting on the sidelines to support it...kind of where I’m at.