Elizabeth Warren 2020

[BradInATX 9208]

The answer is probably a 2 or a 3. She seems to be tiptoeing around it. I think she's going to go public option "with an eye towards single payer" in the general if she gets there.

She knows that's the right answer, in terms of getting elected.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Waiting for Hugo to have a mental breakdown at the Republican for questioning Liz's intentions far more harshly than the leftist did.

lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13224]

That's a lotta folks.

She's going to be filling arenas in the month ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

The answer is probably a 2 or a 3. She seems to be tiptoeing around it. I think she's going to go public option "with an eye towards single payer" in the general if she gets there.

She knows that's the right answer, in terms of getting elected.

I think her stance is the right answer, period.  It's not a referendum.  Nobody's health care plan is getting rubber-stamped into law.  There will be a compromise plan.  The only question is whether you start the negotiation with a plan that is already compromised or your best ask with some room to negotiate from. 

Liz's stance is:  my ask is full, single payer, MFA, and whatever the final bill is, it will be as close to that as possible, because that's what I'm fighting for. 

I think that will most likely turn into some sort of Medicare for all who want it as the final compromise.  Which would be fantastic.  I think the Dems who are starting with that plan will get something closer to Obamacare + a public option that isn't as good as Medicare buy-in for all who want it.  And I think Biden will get some minor tweaks to Ocare.   It's just how things usually go with negotiations. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

The only question is whether you start the negotiation with a plan that is already compromised or your best ask with some room to negotiate from. 

Sure.

Small problem: You don't go into a negotiation saying, "I don't actually care that much about getting the thing I said I want."

That's not smart negotiation and tactics. That's actually the opposite of what you're supposed to do.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[BradInATX 9208]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Waiting for Hugo to have a mental breakdown at the Republican for questioning Liz's intentions far more harshly than the leftist did.

lol

I'm not questioning her intentions. I believe she's smart enough to avoid getting railroaded into losing policy propositions by the 12% of the country that wants us to be further left than Obama was. She has Hugo all on board, I like her, and you're using her to keep up the facade that you don't hate anyone not named Bernie. So she's doing pretty well. That's a pretty broad spectrum that ranges from irrational juvenile radical leftist to center-left. That's the coalition the dems will need to win.

Edited August 25, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I believe she's smart enough to avoid getting railroaded into losing policy propositions by the 12% of the country that wants us to be further left than Obama was.

Is it smart to go into a negotiation by telling everyone you don't actually support your own position?

Quote

She has Hugo all on board, I like her, and you're using her to keep up the facade that you don't hate anyone not named Bernie. So she's doing pretty well. That's a pretty broad spectrum that ranges from irrational juvenile radical leftist to center-left.

The idea that you think that ANY cross-section of this board represents "a pretty broad spectrum" is very very funny.

Quote

That's the coalition the dems will need to win.

The coalition of college-educated, professional-class white men either near or over 40? That's the swing coalition?

You're a complete fucking imbecile. Which makes sense, since you're a Republican.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is it smart to go into a negotiation by telling everyone you don't actually support your own position?

The idea that you think that ANY cross-section of this board represents "a pretty broad spectrum" is very very funny.

The coalition of college-educated, professional-class white men either near or over 40? That's the swing coalition?

You're a complete fucking imbecile. Which makes sense, since you're a Republican.

You already know my stance on serious conversations with non-serious people. You should stop trying. 

I love how mad it makes you that I like Warren though.  I'm going to like her even harder, just for you.

Edited August 25, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

This is kind of hilarious.

[HornOnTheBayou 8945]

5 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

On another note, the award for least self-aware has new competition from those twit birds, The Deplorable Choir:

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, they doubled down like true MAGATs when called out on it.

1, 3, x, 2

And all of you bastards would do the same, MAGA or not.

[Hank Kingsley 21032]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

On a scale of 0-10, how committed would you say Warren is to single-payer healthcare?

My heart says 8

My head says 5

I brought this up a month ago on the 2020 Democratic nominee thread. I don't believe Warren truly is for Bernie's M4A plan. She will have a softer approach to healthcare. For me personally that's ok, but the issue is she said "I'm with Bernie on M4A" at the debates. This is a tripping hazard for her.  The other being she's on record saying she's "all in" on every type of fundraising for the general election, even though she's campaigning hard on her grassroots strategy for the D primary. Maybe no one will care, maybe they will.

Liz has run an INCREDIBLE campaign the last few months. I think she's the favorite to win the primary. But she's created a couple of stumbling blocks for herself in the future. 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

It's hilarious that I'm actually MORE believing of Warren's statements than all of you and I'm the one getting howled at for being a concern troll who is lying about his support for Warren.

It's almost like most of you have been far-right/center-right for your entire lives and are only waiting to go back once Trump is gone and someone with a nice smile and calm tone assures us that austerity and corporate giveaways are the answer and your decades-built reflexive hatred of anyone left of center is still just as powerful as ever.

It's probably not that, though, right?

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The other being she's on record saying she's "all in" on every type of fundraising for the general election, even though she's campaigning hard on her grassroots strategy for the D primary. Maybe no one will care, maybe they will.

If she does turn against single-payer, it's an unforced error. Single-payer would be massively popular here if it had a champion and she would be remembered forever as a hero.

As I said before, if she's going to turn against single-payer she needs to do it soon so we won't feel betrayed by her turning right in the general and courting big money donors. It's probably too late, honestly, given her "I'm with Bernie on this" as you mentioned. It's hard to be the Smart Plans Lady who is 70-years-old and say, "Oh I was so naive 3 months ago!"

I choose to have faith. Not perfect faith, but faith.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just read that NYTimes article Hugo linked.

I like Warren's backstory a lot. The working mother angle is massive and holy shit it could bring in an avalanche of women.

[triplehorn 2664]

^^^ That’s more like the kind of crowd you see with a presidential ticket whistle stop.

[triplehorn 2664]

And Warren drew 12k in St. Paul MN last week ?  Impressive

[berlinerbaer 678]

Question for the M4A or bust folks.

What happens when Congress sends a bill to the president's desk that doesn't go all the way? I can see vetoing one or two of them, but on the flip side I honestly can't see the Senate passing a legit M4A bill. This is especially true considering the Dem's path to control of that chamber involves the election and re-election of several moderates in 2020.

At what point does Bernie sign a public option bill? How about Liz?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[bad_teammate 13224]

9 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

What happens when Congress sends a bill to the president's desk that doesn't go all the way?

Depends on the president, but I think Bernie would sign a compromise and then continue pushing for full single-payer.

Quote

I can see vetoing one or two of them, but on the flip side I honestly can't see the Senate passing a legit M4A bill. This is especially true considering the Dem's path to control of that chamber involves the election and re-election of several moderates in 2020.

Again, it depends on the president. If you have someone like Obama who immediately abandoned his entire grassroots apparatus and cared deeply about remaining friends with everyone, even Republicans, then sure, moderates in your own party can sabotage you. It's how Joe Lieberman killed the public option.

Presidents have a lot of power. They can horse trade for the necessary votes and they can use the bully pulpit. They can support primary candidates. It's simply about whether or not the president in question actually cares about the policies they claim to support. Obama turned out to care more about his legacy and popularity within the party than some of the things he claimed to stand for.

My hesitation with Bernie is that he's actually extremely decorumy and probably wouldn't go as hard as I'd want him to.

My hesitation with Liz is that she'll give up the fight before it even starts.

Edited August 26, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This video basically highlights her effective messaging strategy.  Like with Trump or psychological warfare in general, you need a few short and sweet catch phrases, repeat over and over again, and shit starts to resonate.  

She knows how to play this game. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

New WaPo article by Liz:

The Federal Communications Commission reports that a staggering 21.3 million Americans don’t have access to high-speed broadband — no doubt an underestimate given the notorious loopholes in FCC reporting requirements. This is despite more than a decade of efforts by policymakers at the state and federal level to end the “digital divide” and deliver universal access to high-speed Internet.

This isn’t an accident. Blame Internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Charter, which have maximized their profits at the expense of rural towns, cities, low-income communities and communities of color across the country.

These companies have deliberately restrictedcompetition, kept prices high and used their armies of lobbyists to persuade state legislatures to ban towns and cities from building their own public networks. Meanwhile, the federal government has shoveled more than a billion in taxpayer dollars per year to private ISPs to expand broadband to remote areas, but these providers have done the bare minimum with these resources.

ISPs have been able to get away with fostering pseudo-monopolies because they spend a lot of money to keep the regulatory environment and the conversation surrounding it murky. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has been an effective agent for ISPs. He led the charge to dismantle net neutrality last year, and he has done everything in his power to stop municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure. He also attempted to gut the FCC’s Lifeline program, one of the few tools the federal government has to provide Internet to low-income consumers.

While the profit motives of ISPs have disproportionately harmed rural and low-income communities, urban and higher-income consumers have been adversely impacted, too.

Horror stories starring giant Internet companies are practically universal. In the wealthiest country on the planet, we lag behind many other developed nations in connectivity and speed, while also paying more for that service. That’s why companies such as Comcast consistently rank as the United States’ most hated companies by consumers. When you eliminate a competitive market and replace it with regional monopolies or duopolies, providers have no incentive to improve their service.

In those rural communities where ISPs have delivered Internet access, consumers pay egregiously high rates for services that are far below the FCC’s own definition of high-speed Internet. And if they go over their allotted data, they get hit with additional charges.

Without a stable, high-speed Internet connection, it’s virtually impossible for a town to keep or recruit new businesses. Not having broadband at home creates a “homework gap”that makes it much harder for students to compete. For rural and low-income communities, lawmakers have prioritized increased funding for telemedicine as a way to lower health-care costs and reach isolated communities. But again, that isn’t an option without good Internet.

Enough is enough. As president, I would work to ensure every home in the United States has an affordable, broadband connection. I have a plan for a new public option for broadband Internet, carried out by a new Office of Broadband Access that would manage an $85 billion federal grant program. Only electricity and telephone cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, tribes, cities, counties and other state subdivisions would be eligible for grants.

The federal government would pay 90 cents on the dollar for construction under these grants. In exchange, applicants must offer high-speed public broadband directly to every home in their application area. Applicants would have to offer at least one plan with 100 megabits per second speeds and one discount Internet plan for low-income customers with a prepaid feature or a low monthly rate. The plan will also set aside $5 billion specifically for 100 percent federal grants to tribal nations to expand broadband access on Native American land.

Additionally, we would make it clear in federal statute that municipalities have the right to build their own networks, and I would appoint FCC commissioners who would restore net neutrality and make sure our government programs live up to the promise of universal service. We would also prohibit the range of sneaky maneuvers that giant private providers use to unfairly squeeze out competition, hold governments hostage and drive up prices.

There is both a moral and an economic imperative to enact a public option for broadband. If we stay on our current trajectory, ISPs will continue to decide which communities succeed and which ones fail. We imperil the success of future generations, threaten our competitiveness on the global stage and risk further diaspora from towns and cities that are in dire need of economic turnaround.

Providing universal, public access to broadband won’t be easy. The ISPs aren’t interested in competition and will fight to keep the status quo. But this is a worthy cause. Together we can change outcomes for forgotten towns and cities across our country.

[horncyclist 1391]

Eh, just think how bad it would be if they didn't rollback the net neutrality regulation to stimulate all that corporate profit, broadband investment. What a crock of shit. So much of our politics is about the individual versus the corporation. I want Liz fighting that fight for me. 

[Message Board User 12396]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

New WaPo article by Liz:

 

 

More country bumpkins on the web?  No thanks.

[hayden_horn 11365]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

New WaPo article by Liz:

 

 

that might have just secured my vote.

[BrickHorn 18277]

If there’s anything that will fix this country, it’s getting rural folks easy access to Facebook and Breitbart.

[Biff Tannen 45712]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

If there’s anything that will fix this country, it’s getting rural folks easy access to Facebook and Breitbart.

Seriously, I want less internet access for the rubes, not more.  

[bad_teammate 13224]

Connecting rural areas to the world makes them more progressively minded and less isolationist, not more.

Alienation is bad.

Y'all need Jesus.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45712]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Connecting rural areas to the world makes them more progressively minded and less isolationist, not more.

Alienation is bad.

Y'all need Jesus.

 

 

Not if they are hardwired into facebook as their only source of information.  Trust me, my in laws have broadband in a small town.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Small towns gonna small town, but if you give the youth of the town broadband then they can access alternative viewpoints. I grew up in a tiny backwater that was intellectually and culturally isolated. It's stifling.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The rural areas need high speed for economic reasons more than anything.  Few things make someone feel more left behind than having to get ripped off by slow ass Hughes net out in the country just to watch Netflix that buffers every 10 minutes. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Highly-educated whites need lessons in solidarity.

The enemy is the 1%, not Cleetus and Bertha.

[Brisketexan 105275]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Highly-educated whites need lessons in solidarity.

The enemy is the 1%, not Cleetus and Bertha.

The 1% are the generals, Cletus and Bertha are their army of witless soldiers.

[BrickHorn 18277]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Connecting rural areas to the world makes them more progressively minded and less isolationist, not more.

Alienation is bad.

Y'all need Jesus.

October 2016 called. It wants its blissful ignorance back.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Rural areas have more babies than suburban and urban areas. There is a higher percentage of young people out there. Y'all are too focused on the olds.

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

October 2016 called. It wants its blissful ignorance back.

Oh, is THAT when everything went wrong? lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

"What Warren is doing this early on is pretty unprecedented," the aide said, adding that Obama's events didn't attract thousands of people until well into the primary cycle. 

"If we would have attracted crowd sizes that large early on, Hillary would have run for the hills," the aide said, referring to Hillary Clinton, who Obama beat out in the 2008 primary.

Polls don't show Warren running away with the nomination contest. 

Nationally, she trailed frontrunner Joe Biden by double-digits in two national polls released on Wednesday. She also trailed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the two surveys.

But the big crowds could be a sign that Warren is building toward something. 

"It shows growing enthusiasm, people want to see and hear her," said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale. "Crowd size in August isn't going to decide the race, but it certainly helps." 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Quote

"If we would have attracted crowd sizes that large early on, Hillary would have run for the hills," the aide said, referring to Hillary Clinton, who Obama beat out in the 2008 primary.

I'm glad the Pod Save America guys are excited about Liz, but no she wouldn't have.

[BradInATX 9208]

Aren't most of the serious candidates drawing huge crowds relative to where we are in the primary? Speaks more to Dem enthusiasm and/or polarization more than Liz, most likely. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Aren't most of the serious candidates drawing huge crowds relative to where we are in the primary? Speaks more to Dem enthusiasm and/or polarization more than Liz, most likely.

Bernie is drawing some good crowds in the thousands but in the last two weeks....

12,000+ in MN

 6,000+ in CA (maxed out the venue)

15,000+ in WA 

This is August 2019. 

This was her intention from the beginning, a high energy grassroots movement.  

Joe Biden isn't running this kind of campaign by choice.  It's not his style.  His is more intimate retail politics while she is drawing bigger crowds than the Detroit Pistons.  

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

"If we would have attracted crowd sizes that large early on, Hillary would have run for the hills," the aide said,

Who?

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

referring to Hillary Clinton, who Obama beat out in the 2008 primary.

Ooooooh.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

37 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Aren't most of the serious candidates drawing huge crowds relative to where we are in the primary? Speaks more to Dem enthusiasm and/or polarization more than Liz, most likely. 

I agree. Everyone is so much more aware of politics now than 4 years ago.  We just saw it in the midterms.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I thought Biden was drawing small crowds. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I thought Biden was drawing small crowds. 

Campaigns can read the situations and they plan venues according to perceived enthusiasm. I'm sure Biden could get a big crowd at a big venue if his campaign really worked for it, but that doesn't seem to be their focus and the public at large doesn't seem to be screaming for it.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Warren's big crowd in Seattle from the Space Needle.

HUGO DO NOT OPEN THIS SPOILER

That's not even close to 15k people.

Maybe half that. Good crowd, though!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Lol not going to debate crowd size but I heard they maxed out capacity for that venue which was 15k, hence the large group of people beyond the barrier. 

 Over 20k registered to attend the event.