Beto 2020

[atomheartbevo 89452]

1 hour ago, UTDD said:

It’s good to attack Beto now right away and see if he is tough enough to survive because he needs that if he makes it to Trump.  He should feel it is a good sign that he is under this much scrutiny right away as it is reasonable to conclude that he a is top tier candidate in the eyes of many people.

It’s the old saying about “if you’re taking flak, you must be over the target.”

[bad_teammate 13133]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s the old saying about “if you’re taking flak, you must be over the target.”

Trump must be the most on-the-money guy in the world.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I wuv him.

And thoughts on military intervention -

[Bama Chick 28596]

Trump must be the most on-the-money guy in the world.

Well, yeah.

He won. Duh.

[horncyclist 1386]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I wuv him.
 

 

 

This is powerful stuff. On family separation: "That is America for long as that persists and for as long as it takes to reunite those separated families." He may have had his first viral moment of 2020 there. 

For all those criticizing him for being a policy lightweight, what stands out to me is his ability to provide thought leadership in a way that actually persuades. And he's brilliantly using social media to do it. If we're going to move past Trumpism, those are essential tools to do it. 

[horncyclist 1386]

Beto on MTP today:

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

MSNBC special on Beto tonight 

[happyfunball 481]

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If you're not familiar with the Medicare for America plan, here it is explained.

The four basic planks:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The uninsured, people currently purchasing insurance in the Obamacare marketplaces, and Medicaid beneficiaries would automatically be enrolled in an improved Medicare program

2) Employers could continue to offer private insurance, so long as it meets certain federal standards. Companies could also elect to send their workers to the public program and pay a contribution toward their employees’ premiums. Likewise, workers could voluntarily leave their job’s insurance for the new public plan.

3) Participants would be required to pay premiums, on a sliding scale based on their income; people with lower incomes would pay no premium at all. Out-of-pocket costs would also be based on income and capped at $3,500 for an individual or $5,000 for a family.

4) Doctors would be paid Medicare rates, with an additional increase provided for primary care doctors and mental health services.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems reasonable, right? Right?

Look at #3. There's your 10+% of uninsured Americans who can't/don't pay their premiums all losing health insurance. Oops.

Now, if you want to argue that healthcare is a luxury and not a right, that's fine. You're a monster, but you're an honest monster and I can respect you.

But if you think healthcare is a right of all Americans and you want to put a cash layout requirement on it... I honestly have no clue what you're thinking and I don't think you know what you're thinking either.

Let me see if I can follow Beto's story here...

While running for Senate, Beto captured the energy behind Bernie's M4A plan by saying he was for it. Either that was a cynical attempt to ride the wave or he genuinely believed in single-payer as a proposition. Then, according to Beto, "so many Americans" told him that they like their "employer-based insurance". SO MANY, in fact, that he changed his mind about the best way to provide healthcare as a right?

Without even going into the policy details, which we should, does anyone believe that happened?

Does anyone actually believe that Beto embraced single-payer and then was told by SO MANY Americans that they like their "employer-based insurance" that he rethought the whole ideological underpinning of American healthcare?

He went from opposing ACA to single-payer back to ACA?

But that's me questioning Beto's honesty and intelligence and stability and reliability in terms of ability to hold thoughts in his head and be a leader, back to policy...

 

Does #3 necessarily kick in at a cost-prohibitive level?  The article you linked says that every American is automatically enrolled, full stop, like social security, and the funding is handled separately from receiving the benefits. It suggests that people will pay in like payroll taxes, except based more on income (maybe no cap?), with employers required to contribute too (presumably, even those who don't currently offer health insurance), or choose to pay for sufficient private insurance.   If the tax kicks in slowly as income gets higher, and those with very low incomes pay nothing, why wouldn't that work? 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

39 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

If Warren doesn’t make it, I hope the front runners shamelessly rip off her policy ideas. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

32 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Does #3 necessarily kick in at a cost-prohibitive level?

If there is any out-of-pocket cost, even $1, then it is cost-prohibitive for someone.

The things to watch for as these candidates announce their plans is two words: "access" and "affordability"

If those words are featured, they are not talking about a universal healthcare plan. They are talking about a universal access plan.

Quote

The article you linked says that every American is automatically enrolled, full stop, like social security, and the funding is handled separately from receiving the benefits. It suggests that people will pay in like payroll taxes, except based more on income (maybe no cap?), with employers required to contribute too (presumably, even those who don't currently offer health insurance), or choose to pay for sufficient private insurance.

Every American is "enrolled" in a plan, yes. (Meaning they have "access".)

The funding is not handled separately, otherwise there would be no such thing as out-of-pocket costs. 

Quote

If the tax kicks in slowly as income gets higher, and those with very low incomes pay nothing, why wouldn't that work? 

Let's say your out-of-pocket costs in your ACA 2.0 plan are $3500. What happens when you get a bill and can't pay it? What if your family situation is a nightmare and people are constantly begging money off you? What if you're irresponsible and absent-minded and you constantly forget to pay bills? What if you hate the healthcare system and refuse to pay out of protest? What if you're old and unable to keep up with bills and finances and no one is there to help you? What if you're mentally ill and can't keep track of things?

What if your financial situation changes completely within the course of the year between enrollments? You get fired or quit? You get divorced or married?

Either we have a country where people go into debt to private business because they get sick or we don't. We have to pick.

[Larry T. Spider 1743]

Of the Democrats on here, I’m far from the most liberal. But, I’m all in with what BT is advocating for on healthcare. The current system is a nightmare for millions of people for all the reasons outlined above. 

Ill give a personal anecdote. About 12 years ago my now wife was diagnosed with a chronic health condition and was fired from her job for missing work to sort out new doctors, medications, have tests run, etc. She got a new job that allowed her flexibility to figure all of this out as a 23 year old. It didn’t offer any benefits such as health insurance but she had to take it to pay her bills. She got health insurance through cobra....but it was about to expire and her condition would now be considered pre-existing and not covered when she got insurance in the future. This was pre-Obamacare. We got married and I put her on my insurance. 

Everything about this situation was complicated and difficult to manage for two college educated people. 12 years later she is doing great with her health but has to take days off of work to argue with insurance companies about billing errors, prescription problems, etc. Some of this is probably unavoidable in any system but holy shit if our system isn’t a beating. Her family in England is always shocked at what we have to deal with.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If there is any out-of-pocket cost, even $1, then it is cost-prohibitive for someone.

The things to watch for as these candidates announce their plans is two words: "access" and "affordability"

If those words are featured, they are not talking about a universal healthcare plan. They are talking about a universal access plan.

Every American is "enrolled" in a plan, yes. (Meaning they have "access".)

The funding is not handled separately, otherwise there would be no such thing as out-of-pocket costs. 

Let's say your out-of-pocket costs in your ACA 2.0 plan are $3500. What happens when you get a bill and can't pay it? What if your family situation is a nightmare and people are constantly begging money off you? What if you're irresponsible and absent-minded and you constantly forget to pay bills? What if you hate the healthcare system and refuse to pay out of protest? What if you're old and unable to keep up with bills and finances and no one is there to help you? What if you're mentally ill and can't keep track of things?

What if your financial situation changes completely within the course of the year between enrollments? You get fired or quit? You get divorced or married?

Either we have a country where people go into debt to private business because they get sick or we don't. We have to pick.

So the issue with the plan isn't premiums, but deductibles and other costs, like medicine?   I'm in agreement with you about coverage, but I don't see how it is a problem to charge people something as long as it is also tied to what people can afford.  If $1 is too much for someone, then they shouldn't have to pay it, but if the $4000 max is no problem for someone, I don't have a problem with them paying it.   At the very least, it seems like a good bridge to take us from the ACA to single payer in 20 years. 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13133]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

So the issue with the plan isn't premiums, but deductibles and other costs, like medicine? 

There isn't one issue with the Medicare for America/ACA 2.0. There are a lot of issues with it.

One of the issues is deductibles and costs, yes.

I didn't even mention the obvious fact that people would STILL be tied to their employer. That's yet another completely unacceptable non-starter with Medicare for America.

Quote

I'm in agreement with you about coverage, but I don't see how it is a problem to charge people something as long as it is also tied to what people can afford.

How do the insurance companies/government make that determination? What if the lived reality of the individual disagrees with that determination?

Look at FAFSA.

Quote

At the very least, it seems like a good bridge to take us from the ACA to single payer in 20 years. 

And now we're getting into the "everyone's a pundit" shell game where we pretend to know the future when we don't.

We could take the House, Senate, and presidency in 2020. It's possible. We could pass single-payer in 2020. It would take bold, visionary leadership, millions and millions of active volunteers knocking doors and making calls and donating and getting out the vote to ensure a big blue wave.

None of us know what is going to happen. We don't know what the partisan balance of the House and Senate will be in 2020 or 2024. We don't know who is going to win the Dem primary and whether or not they'll beat Trump. We don't know if there's going to be a massive blue wave or a red wave or a status quo.

Step 1: Choose the idea you think would be best for America.
Step 2: Fight for it.
Step 3: Only compromise when it actually becomes necessary to do so.
Step 4: Keep fighting after that first compromise.

Here's the ugly truth: Most of these candidates haven't done Step 1. And what bothers us is that we know that.

When O'Rourke says in 2012 he's against ACA and then in 2017 says he's for single-payer and in 2019 says he's for ACA 2.0, we know what he's doing. We know it's not a series of principled stances based on policy and vision. We know it's politics. So what we do as whipped dogs is pretend that WE need to be politicians and pundits as well. We eat the dog food, we stand on the shock pad and give up.

No.

Advocate for what you believe. Stop letting these vampires in DC and punditry tell you what's possible, because they have no idea what's possible. Most of them don't even have beliefs.

And again... WE CAN TAKE THE SENATE IN 2020

It's 53-47 right now

- Keep all Ds, including Doug Jones
- Beat McSally in Arizona, 52-48
- Beat Collins in Maine, 51-49
- Beat Gardner in Colorado, 50-50 w/ VP tiebreaker
- Beat Tillis in North Carolina, 49-51, kill the filibuster and do whatever we want - DONE
- Take the open seat in Arizona, 48-52
- Beat Sullivan in Alaska, 47-53

And those are just the kind-of-obvious ones. We could beat Cornyn in Texas, and if we can beat Cornyn in Texas then holy shit, boys, we can open things up WIDE.

Look, if we don't take the Senate, we're not even getting ACA 2.0. Which Republicans will vote for ACA 2.0 in the Senate? Names would be great.

 

[GRHorn 105]

By far the most interesting part of Beto’s first few days of campaigning is his U-turn on releasing fundraising numbers from the frost 24 hours. Big red flag. Initial nationwide enthusiasm well below what I would’ve guessed based on posters here. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

If you are a person who is really angry with the Vermont Voldemort and you do not want to champion his single-payer proposal, I invite you to look at the Progressive House Dem's Medicare-for-All bill from Pramila Jayapal, who rules.

 

[GRHorn 105]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I wuv him.
 

 

And thoughts on military intervention -

 

The foreign policy stuff is a good example of Beto-speak. Generic non stance, sprinkle in some anti Trump, then some vacuous comments about listening to a lot of people.  

Wasn’t the listening and finding answers done on his road trip?  Needs to come up with more specific positions on things.  Speak more clearly. Just my .02 as observer. Other Dem candidates are coming strong with some bold shit. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There isn't one issue with the Medicare for America/ACA 2.0. There are a lot of issues with it.

One of the issues is deductibles and costs, yes.

I didn't even mention the obvious fact that people would STILL be tied to their employer. That's yet another completely unacceptable non-starter with Medicare for America.

How do the insurance companies/government make that determination? What if the lived reality of the individual disagrees with that determination?

Look at FAFSA.

And now we're getting into the "everyone's a pundit" shell game where we pretend to know the future when we don't.

We could take the House, Senate, and presidency in 2020. It's possible. We could pass single-payer in 2020. It would take bold, visionary leadership, millions and millions of active volunteers knocking doors and making calls and donating and getting out the vote to ensure a big blue wave.

None of us know what is going to happen. We don't know what the partisan balance of the House and Senate will be in 2020 or 2024. We don't know who is going to win the Dem primary and whether or not they'll beat Trump. We don't know if there's going to be a massive blue wave or a red wave or a status quo.

Step 1: Choose the idea you think would be best for America.
Step 2: Fight for it.
Step 3: Only compromise when it actually becomes necessary to do so.
Step 4: Keep fighting after that first compromise.

Here's the ugly truth: Most of these candidates haven't done Step 1. And what bothers us is that we know that.

When O'Rourke says in 2012 he's against ACA and then in 2017 says he's for single-payer and in 2019 says he's for ACA 2.0, we know what he's doing. We know it's not a series of principled stances based on policy and vision. We know it's politics. So what we do as whipped dogs is pretend that WE need to be politicians and pundits as well. We eat the dog food, we stand on the shock pad and give up.

No.

Advocate for what you believe. Stop letting these vampires in DC and punditry tell you what's possible, because they have no idea what's possible. Most of them don't even have beliefs.

And again... WE CAN TAKE THE SENATE IN 2020

It's 53-47 right now

- Keep all Ds, including Doug Jones
- Beat McSally in Arizona, 52-48
- Beat Collins in Maine, 51-49
- Beat Gardner in Colorado, 50-50 w/ VP tiebreaker
- Beat Tillis in North Carolina, 49-51, kill the filibuster and do whatever we want - DONE
- Take the open seat in Arizona, 48-52
- Beat Sullivan in Alaska, 47-53

And those are just the kind-of-obvious ones. We could beat Cornyn in Texas, and if we can beat Cornyn in Texas then holy shit, boys, we can open things up WIDE.

Look, if we don't take the Senate, we're not even getting ACA 2.0. Which Republicans will vote for ACA 2.0 in the Senate? Names would be great.

 

We had 60 votes in the Senate and still only got the ACA.  And a decade of backlash that led to Trump and 3 Republican branches of government.  A democratic majority isn't necessarily a majority to kill the filibuster, just like the Blanche Lincolns of the world meant we didn't have 60 votes for a public option in 2010.  Especially after the backlash last time, there will be Dems resistant to massive change all at once. 

But for all of its problems, the ACA has been a bridge to a world in which single payer isn't a dirty word and Medicare buy-in for all is actually called a compromise.   People in Kentucky like their Obamacare, as long as you don't call it that.   That speaks to the power of incremental, but real, change. 

Why would people be tied to their employers?  Wouldn't they just fall into the free Medicare system until they get another job, at which point they could stick with Medicare buy in (partially financed by their new employer) or an equivalent private plan at the new job? 

Re: out of pocket costs, I guess I don't see the problem with assuming that people above a certain income level are able to pay some medical bills, especially if capped at $4K at higher incomes.  Food and shelter are rights as well, but the government doesn't pay for everyone's groceries and rent/mortgage.  Most people are able to take care of their regular payments themselves.  And there are and should be stopgaps for people suffering financial emergencies, but that can be addressed as its own issue. 

I'm glad people like Bernie are pushing grand visions, but he can do that from the Senate, where the details will actually be crafted.  I don't see a problem with a presidential candidate supporting a plan that is miles better than what we have, even if it isn't utopian.  

[scottsins 1953]

 

Actually, they only got the confirmation needed to run the story on the condition that they not publish until after the election.

[troph 24570]

Out and about for sxsw... had to wear my vintage Beto shirt...

 

I think I may be all in on Beto. I think he’s got the best chance to defeat trump. This election isn’t about proving the progressive majority it’s about beating trump and I think Beto can get republicans voting for him. And he’ll have no problem getting Dems on board in the general either.

 

I like warren’s positions - wanted her instead of HRC last time but this time we need the GOTV machine and fundraising machine he created and we need the win.

 

He’s my guy.

 

[horncyclist 1386]

1 minute ago, troph said:

Out and about for sxsw... had to wear my vintage Beto shirt...

I think I may be all in on Beto. I think he’s got the best chance to defeat trump. This election isn’t about proving the progressive majority it’s about beating trump and I think Beto can get republicans voting for him.

I like warren’s positions - wanted her instead of HRC last time but this time we need the GOTV machine and fundraising machine he created and we need the win.

He’s my guy.

I recall you being skeptical of a Beto run for president, despite your strong support of his Senate campaign. What changed for you? Or do I have you confused with someone else?

Has his fundraising team been in touch yet? 

[horncyclist 1386]

Looks like he's setting out to visit all 99 Iowa counties in record time. Every county in America? Hell, why stop there? 3007 counties in America.

 

[bad_teammate 13133]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

We had 60 votes in the Senate and still only got the ACA.  And a decade of backlash that led to Trump and 3 Republican branches of government.  A democratic majority isn't necessarily a majority to kill the filibuster, just like the Blanche Lincolns of the world meant we didn't have 60 votes for a public option in 2010.  Especially after the backlash last time, there will be Dems resistant to massive change all at once. 

It's not 2008 anymore.

- Unlike in 2008, single-payer universal healthcare is broadly popular. It has been at 50+% since February of 2016. 70+% support Medicare-for-All.

- 2008 carried with it the delusion that bipartisan, across-the-aisle compromise was a thing. That is dead and it's not going to be resurrected by one side (the Dems) smiling very very hard. Obama spent countless hours courting bipartisan participation and slashing every progressive initiative out of healthcare reform in an attempt to attract Republican votes he never got. We need to learn that lesson. The necessary votes don't come from Republicans, they come from non-voting progressives who vote in the right representatives.

Quote

Why would people be tied to their employers?  Wouldn't they just fall into the free Medicare system until they get another job, at which point they could stick with Medicare buy in (partially financed by their new employer) or an equivalent private plan at the new job? 

Not if they are determined by whatever unnamed process to have enough money to have to pay for it.

Quote

Re: out of pocket costs, I guess I don't see the problem with assuming that people above a certain income level are able to pay some medical bills, especially if capped at $4K at higher incomes.  Food and shelter are rights as well, but the government doesn't pay for everyone's groceries and rent/mortgage.  Most people are able to take care of their regular payments themselves.  And there are and should be stopgaps for people suffering financial emergencies, but that can be addressed as its own issue. 

In what sense are food and shelter "rights"? What are you talking about?

Quote

I'm glad people like Bernie are pushing grand visions, but he can do that from the Senate, where the details will actually be crafted.

There are two Medicare-for-All bills in the Senate right now and the House coming soon. What are you talking about?

All we need to do is vote them in. They're right there.

You might not want them, and that's fine, but stop acting like it's some far-off nonsense. It's broadly popular, the people want it, and its available to be voted on today.

Quote

I don't see a problem with a presidential candidate supporting a plan that is miles better than what we have, even if it isn't utopian.  

The use of words like "utopian" to dismiss broadly popular initiatives is dismissive and lazy.

[troph 24570]

I am skeptical of his experience yes. I’m especially concerned about his foreign policy chops. But the truth is outside of Biden - NO - and Warren - he’s not that far off from the rest.

I was thinking out loud about the it factor on the 2020 dem nomination thread and I think we need the most charismatic candidate we can put up against trump that can appeal to the broadest swath of American. To me that’s Beto.

He’s policy lite on a lot of topics right now but he will confront immigration head on even if only with ideals. He’s got lgbtq equality in his top five.

And he has the blue print to win.

I’ve emailed my contacts from the senate race. I’d love to sponsor a bonafide presidential fundraiser that would kick all sorts of ass.

[horncyclist 1386]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

I am skeptical of his experience yes. I’m especially concerned about his foreign policy chops. But the truth is outside of Biden - NO - and Warren - he’s not that far off from the rest.

I was thinking out loud about the it factor on the 2020 dem nomination thread and I think we need the most charismatic candidate we can put up against trump that can appeal to the broadest swath of American. To me that’s Beto.

He’s policy lite on a lot of topics right now but he will confront immigration head on even if only with ideals. He’s got lgbtq equality in his top five.

And he has the blue print to win.

I’ve emailed my contacts from the senate race. I’d love to sponsor a bonafide presidential fundraiser that would kick all sorts of ass.
 

Awesome. I'm pretty much in the same place as you. I was skeptical before the launch for many of the same reasons, but think he has the best chance to run a successful campaign to move us past Trumpism. My wife and I hosted some phonebanks up here in Northern Virginia, and gave a fair amount relative to our income during the Senate campaign. Plan on hosting a watch party for the March 30 rally. Good luck if you host a presidential fundraiser. Agree it would be badass. 

[Brisketexan 104638]

The foreign policy stuff is a good example of Beto-speak. Generic non stance, sprinkle in some anti Trump, then some vacuous comments about listening to a lot of people.  
Wasn’t the listening and finding answers done on his road trip?  Needs to come up with more specific positions on things.  Speak more clearly. Just my .02 as observer. Other Dem candidates are coming strong with some bold shit. 

Like it matters to you. You’ll ultimately deem whoever wins the primary as “just too derned socialist,” and stick with Trump, your ride or die. You’re fooling nobody.

[NowThis 931]

Beto should not have quit his US Rep position, a big mistake to forego a national megaphone, the power, and a nice salary. Beto should have run against Cornyn 2020, become Senator for 1 term and in his mid-50s, as the top Dem Senator from a Red State, be primed for the POTUS at that point after about a decade more of experience.  As he quit the US House, I knew his judgment wasn't too sharp.  He's also being ripped on the internet for being EMPTY.   So, in retrospect, how did he become so popular in TX? I know it's anti Cruz, anti Trump, but there was something pro-Beto in TX that seems to not be registering nationwide. What is missing?

[horncyclist 1386]

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Beto should not have quit his US Rep position, a big mistake to forego a national megaphone, the power, and a nice salary. Beto should have run against Cornyn 2020, become Senator for 1 term and in his mid-50s, as the top Dem Senator from a Red State, be primed for the POTUS at that point after about a decade more of experience.  As he quit the US House, I knew his judgment wasn't too sharp.  He's also being ripped on the internet for being EMPTY.   So, in retrospect, how did he become so popular in TX? I know it's anti Cruz, anti Trump, but there was something pro-Beto in TX that seems to not be registering nationwide. What is missing?

He's a week into his campaign. Give it time.

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, NowThis said:

Beto should not have quit his US Rep position, a big mistake to forego a national megaphone, the power, and a nice salary. Beto should have run against Cornyn 2020, become Senator for 1 term and in his mid-50s, as the top Dem Senator from a Red State, be primed for the POTUS at that point after about a decade more of experience.  As he quit the US House, I knew his judgment wasn't too sharp.  He's also being ripped on the internet for being EMPTY.   So, in retrospect, how did he become so popular in TX? I know it's anti Cruz, anti Trump, but there was something pro-Beto in TX that seems to not be registering nationwide. What is missing?

You answered your own question. He was running against the most hated man in the Senate and in Texas.*

* Not named Danny Goeb.

[NowThis 931]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You answered your own question. He was running against the most hated man in the Senate and in Texas.*

* Not named Danny Goeb.

i already mentioned that , the "anti Cruz anti Trump" part, but there was something pro-Beto which isn't happening nationally. 

[horncyclist 1386]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You answered your own question. He was running against the most hated man in the Senate and in Texas.*

* Not named Danny Goeb.

If you think it was just Ted Cruz, you weren't paying attention. He worked his ass off and inspired people to come into the political process who normally sit it out. He had a 1000 people at a rally in Abilene fucking Texas. People are going to be dumbfounded when he rockets to the top of the polls in the early primary states over the next few months. 

[Celery Man 20886]

4 minutes ago, NowThis said:

Beto should not have quit his US Rep position, a big mistake to forego a national megaphone, the power, and a nice salary. Beto should have run against Cornyn 2020, become Senator for 1 term and in his mid-50s, as the top Dem Senator from a Red State, be primed for the POTUS at that point after about a decade more of experience.  As he quit the US House, I knew his judgment wasn't too sharp.  He's also being ripped on the internet for being EMPTY.   So, in retrospect, how did he become so popular in TX? I know it's anti Cruz, anti Trump, but there was something pro-Beto in TX that seems to not be registering nationwide. What is missing?

based on what is he not registering nationally?  People shitting on him being a rich white male on twitter, or shitting on him for being a policy lightweight on twitter?  If his fundraising numbers are bad (and that is why they aren't out yet) that's a relevant data point.  If it's the criticism he's getting from the right, and from the more left side of the democratic party, I'm not sure it indicates what you are suggesting.

[horncyclist 1386]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

based on what is he not registering nationally?  People shitting on him being a rich white male on twitter, or shitting on him for being a policy lightweight on twitter?  If his fundraising numbers are bad (and that is why they aren't out yet) that's a relevant data point.  If it's the criticism he's getting from the right, and from the more left side of the democratic party, I'm not sure it indicates what you are suggesting.

On the fundraising numbers, they could have been bad, or it's possible they're strategically holding them because of the Christchurch attacks dominating the news cycle. 

I kind of feel like he should have started his campaign more organically like he did in Texas, just hit the road and let the momentum build but they chose the orchestrated roll out. We'll see. He did get supporters like Troph and myself who were on the fence on whether he should run behind him in a matter of few days. That will start to pay off. 

[horncyclist 1386]

The level of panic from the GOP is all you need to know about Beto's potential:

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not 2008 anymore.

- Unlike in 2008, single-payer universal healthcare is broadly popular. It has been at 50+% since February of 2016. 70+% support Medicare-for-All.

- 2008 carried with it the delusion that bipartisan, across-the-aisle compromise was a thing. That is dead and it's not going to be resurrected by one side (the Dems) smiling very very hard. Obama spent countless hours courting bipartisan participation and slashing every progressive initiative out of healthcare reform in an attempt to attract Republican votes he never got. We need to learn that lesson. The necessary votes don't come from Republicans, they come from non-voting progressives who vote in the right representatives.

Not if they are determined by whatever unnamed process to have enough money to have to pay for it.

In what sense are food and shelter "rights"? What are you talking about?

There are two Medicare-for-All bills in the Senate right now and the House coming soon. What are you talking about?

All we need to do is vote them in. They're right there.

You might not want them, and that's fine, but stop acting like it's some far-off nonsense. It's broadly popular, the people want it, and its available to be voted on today.

The use of words like "utopian" to dismiss broadly popular initiatives is dismissive and lazy.

Support changes depending on the details of the poll question, particularly if the costs are highlighted. I'm not looking for a bipartisan solution; I'm looking for one that gets support from enough Dems to actually pass without any Republican votes, and I don't think that's MFA, even if I support it personally.  The problem with the ACA wasn't courting Republicans, it was courting moderate Dems, and that is still a large part of the party. There isn't an "unnamed process" for determining paying into the Medicare system.   Your link said the process is that everyone is in, and the buy-in is taken out of payroll.  If you lose your job, you won't pay in because you have no paycheck, but you still are covered. And for those who have jobs, the less you earn, the less you have to pay out of pocket.  If that isn't already what the current proposals are, it sounds like a reasonable way to deal with your concerns.  I don't know what is unclear to you about my other statements; are you under the impression that bills pass without changes from the moment they are introduced, or that Americans shouldn't have a bare minimum of food and shelter?   The government can focus on providing those things and health care to those who can't afford it without necessarily covering them for someone who earns six figues.  And just because I may want a slate of candidates to win doesn't mean they will.  If that were the case, Trump would have lost and the GOP wouldn't hold the Senate or Supreme Court.  If it's as vastly popular as you think, I suppose there's nothing to discuss.   It's happening, and I look forward to Bernie and 50+ staunchly progressive Senators in 2020.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[horncyclist 1386]

One more post with some perspective from Nate Silver. 

 

 

[mchookem 16230]

12 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

If you think it was just Ted Cruz, you weren't paying attention. He worked his ass off and inspired people to come into the political process who normally sit it out. He had a 1000 people at a rally in Abilene fucking Texas. People are going to be dumbfounded when he rockets to the top of the polls in the early primary states over the next few months. 

there is definitely something.

anectdote...my sister paid zero attention to politics. i mean, nothing, only vague stories she heard in the context of news quips or pop-culture references (i.e. snl).

she was flipping channels and happened across one of the Senate debates one night in 2016, Beto was talking and she stopped... ended up watching the whole debate and went all in for Beto, she now brings up issues and ideas in convo on the reg and has donated money to Beto (senate and now presidential).

he's got something that some people key in on. whatever it takes, man

[GRHorn 105]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Like it matters to you. You’ll ultimately deem whoever wins the primary as “just too derned socialist,” and stick with Trump, your ride or die. You’re fooling nobody.

Who am I trying to fool? I said just as an observer. Don’t be so sensitive about Beto. 

[Brisketexan 104638]

Who am I trying to fool? I said just as an observer. Don’t be so sensitive about Beto. 

But your goal renders your observation worthless. You want him to lose. You want them all to lose. You want your God King to reign, no matter what. You’re hot garbage.

[TexArcher 37525]

50 minutes ago, NowThis said:

i already mentioned that , the "anti Cruz anti Trump" part, but there was something pro-Beto which isn't happening nationally. 

Dude, it's been a few days since he announced and the primary is forever from now.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

Ted Cruz needed Trump to come to Texas to hold off Beto when dotard could have been working more to hold onto the house.  That’s remarkable considering Cruz is a political prodigy.  

[bad_teammate 13133]

@Mojo Hand

First, thanks for talking policy and process. There's very little of that talk going on, but it's the most important conversation to have and I appreciate your engagement.

To your question about whether or not bills pass without change, of course they change. That's why you don't negotiate against yourself before you enter negotiations with the opposing party.

As I said before...

Step 1: Choose the idea you think would be best for America.
Step 2: Fight for it.
Step 3: Only compromise when it actually becomes necessary to do so.
Step 4: Keep fighting after that first compromise.

That's how negotiation works. If I'm trying to buy a house and the market value is $280k and the asking price is $300k I come in and offer $260k. Neither party is going to end up at their starting position, so you don't come into the negotiation already at your baseline. Obviously Step 4 doesn't apply to this scenario, but it is necessary in politics because there is always a better tomorrow.

If you agree, which you seem to, that there's no point in negotiation with Republicans and that the actual negotiation is between progressives and Blue Dogs, then the point still stands. We are in the primary. Now is the time for candidates to say what they believe and fight for what they believe because they think it's the right plan for America.

The primary happens and we go to the convention where the winner is confirmed and THEN the negotiations between the progressives and the Blue Dogs begin.

What is the point in pretending to negotiate it out now when we don't even know who is running?

As for the food and shelter, we obviously do not guarantee those things to all Americans as a right. Are you saying that we do? What? We have programs that help people get access, but 12 million American children are food insecure.

What do you think we should have? If you could design it, what would it be?

[GRHorn 105]

50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But your goal renders your observation worthless. You want him to lose. You want them all to lose. You want your God King to reign, no matter what. You’re hot garbage.

I must’ve missed the rule that says you have to support a person to post on their thread. What did I post that was unreasonable? Nothing, maybe that’s why you got so angry. 

Beto has areas he needs to improve on. Even the fanboys should realize that. 

[The University 851]

4 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

12 years later she is doing great with her health but has to take days off of work to argue with insurance companies about billing errors, prescription problems, etc. Some of this is probably unavoidable in any system but holy shit if our system isn’t a beating. Her family in England is always shocked at what we have to deal with.

i'm lucky to have good insurance but still have to do this. it's all fucked up and i don't expect anything significant to happen in my lifetime. if anything, you have to learn how to work the system and not how to fight with your carrier/insurance. i certainly don't expect one person/party/group to create the tipping point.

[Bama Chick 28596]

lolgop

They skeeerd.

[Grandioso 2592]

If any of y'all want to hear my interview with Beto (mostly related to music) PM me.

[Born to Run 6568]

Beto should not have quit his US Rep position, a big mistake to forego a national megaphone, the power, and a nice salary. Beto should have run against Cornyn 2020, become Senator for 1 term and in his mid-50s, as the top Dem Senator from a Red State, be primed for the POTUS at that point after about a decade more of experience.  As he quit the US House, I knew his judgment wasn't too sharp.  He's also being ripped on the internet for being EMPTY.   So, in retrospect, how did he become so popular in TX? I know it's anti Cruz, anti Trump, but there was something pro-Beto in TX that seems to not be registering nationwide. What is missing?

He’s for term limits...

[bad_teammate 13133]

Beto's brand of travel-everywhere-talk-to-everyone retail politics will take time to build.

Regardless of the very slow and disappointing start, it's way too early to dismiss him.

[NowThis 931]

5 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

 

He’s for term limits...

 

yes, well known, but that hurt his cause. Should have run vs. Cornyn, btw, who is running? Fell 220k votes short vs. Cruz, even in a POTUS cycle, he still has a shot vs. Cornyn, or did. 

[bolverk 29413]

16 minutes ago, NowThis said:

yes, well known, but that hurt his cause. Should have run vs. Cornyn, btw, who is running? Fell 220k votes short vs. Cruz, even in a POTUS cycle, he still has a shot vs. Cornyn, or did. 

Probably thought he had a better shot at Cruz where he could use his "it" factor versus Ted's "ick" factor more effectively.