2020 Democratic Debates Watch Thread

[Guest Lobo]

Where is this idea that the Vice President will be picked from this pool coming from?  The Democrats don't usually run the party that way.  The Veep is almost always selected from outside the candidates.  The Party Insiders have liked it that way for a half century, as well as not caring much for what state the Veep can help 'carry.'   Only once in the last 50 years has the party pulled a Veep from the withdrawn candidate pool, and also chosen that person because they could help deliver a key state...John Edwards in 2004.   So this notion that it's gonna happen again is not without precedent in most of our lifetimes, but it's extremely, extremely...rare.  

[David Dennison 19536]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Where is this idea that the Vice President will be picked from this pool coming from?  The Democrats don't usually run the party that way.  The Veep is almost always selected from outside the candidates.  The Party Insiders have liked it that way for a half century, as well as not caring much for what state the Veep can help 'carry.'   Only once in the last 50 years has the party pulled a Veep from the withdrawn candidate pool, and also chosen that person because they could help deliver a key state...John Edwards in 2004.   So this notion that it's gonna happen again is not without precedent in most of our lifetimes, but it's extremely, extremely...rare.  

Joe Biden ran in 2008.

[Js1 87181]

Because, as explained to your mighty big brained self a few times earlier, it's more fun to speculate amongst the people we know and are experiencing/seeing than some random Senator or Governor no one has heard of or thought about.

This is also the strongest field in decades, so maybe the 2 best candidates could just run together. 

But thanks for chiming in, bro.  

[hpslugga 4097]

13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Rich white guy trying to challenge the scary socialists?

Media: FUCK YES. 

I was gonna say, why else does anyone think they framed the first question the way that they did?

The thing is that Delaney, to the average voter, came off like Roman Reigns in the WWE last night: the establishment tried to force him down the public’s throat, and the audience seemed to react in the same way...as in they didn’t appreciate it. They’re trying to push him to the freaking moon, it’s not working, and if he doesn’t drop out by New Year’s, I will be impressed. 

But this isn’t about Delaney. This is about the mainstream of corporate media. They may dislike Trump, but their political leanings (well to the right of the global center) haven’t changed a bit. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Joe Biden ran in 2008.

Yes he did, for about 20 minutes.  And he sure as shit wasn't selected by the party to help carry Delaware.  Pretty sure it was already in the bag and pretty sure nobody was sweating it's 3 electoral college votes.  

[RomaVicta 30578]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Tonight is a perfect illustration of why Bernie and Liz both need to be running and stay in. Sanders drew tons of fire from the others and from the moderators, and Warren was more free to roam and shine.

If she was the only one up there for single-payer, it wouldn't go as well.

Comradeship.

I missed most of the debate but saw the closing remarks and some of the post game on CNN. Sanders proved a real team player in his pride in both his own and Warren's 1 million individual contributors. I really didn't follow the last presidential election and missed out on the Bernie movement. I like the guy.

Warren is running away with my vote so far.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The debate last night might as well have been a Fox News production with the questions written by George Will and Ted Cruz. 

Not one question about impeachment or Mueller.  Intentional or not, the MSM is protecting Trump.  

[Js1 87181]

I'm just tired of reading about how the choice is "go bold" or "go popular" in terms of policies.

There are some extremely bold AND popular policies that Democrats are and have been advocating for years.  And yet the media runs with the least popular ones.

• Medicare for those who want it - 70%
• Government regulation of prescription drug prices - 67%
• Pathway to citizenship for undocument immigrants - 64%
• Green New Deal - 63%
• Wealth Tax - 62%
• $15 minimum wage - 56%
• Free college at public universities - 53%

But of course, the media will focus on decriminalizing border crossing, insurance for illegals and reparations (3 of the 4 least popular policies).   Which forces Democrats to answer their stupid questions instead of talking about the above and then the middle of road voters cry that "no one is talking about things we like or to people like meeeeee!" 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Reading the post-debate stories, it's insane how much the media is trying to make Delaney happen. 

He’d be a good Republican choice for 2024. My heart set is on Tucker though. Tucker is the only candidate I’d ever give money or volunteer for 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[Biff Tannen 46164]

48 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Where is this idea that the Vice President will be picked from this pool coming from?  The Democrats don't usually run the party that way.  The Veep is almost always selected from outside the candidates.  The Party Insiders have liked it that way for a half century, as well as not caring much for what state the Veep can help 'carry.'   Only once in the last 50 years has the party pulled a Veep from the withdrawn candidate pool, and also chosen that person because they could help deliver a key state...John Edwards in 2004.   So this notion that it's gonna happen again is not without precedent in most of our lifetimes, but it's extremely, extremely...rare.  

I agree with this, but these are not normal times.  I think the field being so strong, as mentioned earlier, combined with a sense of urgency that the Ds really need to work together to destroy this cancer is pushing the VP to come from the pool.  Also, with social media, the public is more aware than ever of who is actually in this massive pool and people are paying attention.  I would take at least 4-5 of these candidates in a cabinet or some other very public role to help out whomever the nominee ends up being.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

There's also a name or two that has gotten mentioned from outside the field.   If Biden is the nominee, Stacey Abrams will likely be in the mix.  Andrew Gillum is another name that has been mentioned generally.   It's just that the field is really strong and there are 25 running against a deeply unpopular president, so there aren't as many good options who are sitting it out as there normally are. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hillary would have won if she had Warren as her VP. 

Tim Kaine was a terrible choice.

[Dbeasy 15593]

The debate last night might as well have been a Fox News production with the questions written by George Will and Ted Cruz. 
Not one question about impeachment or Mueller.  Intentional or not, the MSM is protecting Trump.  

These debates are helping the Republicans. I assume, fortunately, few swing voters are watching these debates so hopefully the damage is minimal.

Multiple mistakes are being made. The candidates continue to legitimize Trump’s candidacy every time they say “Trump will win” which was said at least five times last night. They should NEVER say that. He’s the worst President in our history with the most unacceptable behavior we’ve ever seen. Every candidate needs to hit that message over and over and over. To acknowledge he can win is giving voters the impression that voting for him is a reasonable proposition.

Then, Bernie saying the Republican are a party of big ideas makes the Democrats look like little brother. Every single time they should be discussing how the Republican Party has become a complete disaster. They should never disparage their own party.

Finally, as I’ve said several times now, as long as the Democrats don’t completely screw it up, they’ve got the Presidency. There are more than enough people that are embarrassed by Trump and hate him. However stacking up all of these aggressive new specific progressive program proposals is starting to make candidates seem disconnected from reality. The moderates candidates on the stage last night said that multiple times. The questions from CNN were also worded that way.

That message is going to start penetrating the election and there could be a substantial group of voters that actually hold their nose and vote Trump - only because of Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, reparations, student debt cancellation, etc. A few of these programs being at the center of the campaign is fine. Having all of these right at the center of the Democratic primaries is going to hurt. They should be focusing on less inflammatory topics to mix in with some big ideas.

I know some of you believe that there are already two distinct camps of voters and that the progressive big ideas don’t impact any votes other than getting new voters from the left to vote, but I just don’t agree. I have a huge group of people around me that all having been planning to vote Democrat because Trump is a disaster. But a lot of those people are now starting to get a little nervous.

[SameSame 1752]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hillary would have won if she had Warren as her VP. 

Tim Kaine was a terrible choice.

Just stop

[Dbeasy 15593]

I'm just tired of reading about how the choice is "go bold" or "go popular" in terms of policies.
There are some extremely bold AND popular policies that Democrats are and have been advocating for years.  And yet the media runs with the least popular ones.

• Medicare for those who want it - 70%
• Government regulation of prescription drug prices - 67%
• Pathway to citizenship for undocument immigrants - 64%
• Green New Deal - 63%
• Wealth Tax - 62%
• $15 minimum wage - 56%
• Free college at public universities - 53%

But of course, the media will focus on decriminalizing border crossing, insurance for illegals and reparations (3 of the 4 least popular policies).   Which forces Democrats to answer their stupid questions instead of talking about the above and then the middle of road voters cry that "no one is talking about things we like or to people like meeeeee!" 

80% of voters actually have no idea what Green Deal Deal really is. Same goes for a lot of the other things listed. Support for policies comes down to the details of that policy as it gets fleshed out. High level polling is not very reliable. Everybody loves every idea until they understand the downside of it.

[Js1 87181]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

 

80% of voters actually have no idea what Green Deal Deal really is. Same goes for a lot of the other things listed. Support for policies comes down to the details of that policy as it gets fleshed out. High level polling is not very reliable. Everybody loves every idea until they understand the downside of it.

 

Too bad CNN had them devote time to bullshit instead of letting them flesh out their policies in more than 25 second responses. 

And the polling calls it "A Green New Deal to address climate change by investing government money in green jobs and energy efficient infrastructure."

[Hank Kingsley 21780]

18 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There's also a name or two that has gotten mentioned from outside the field.   If Biden is the nominee, Stacey Abrams will likely be in the mix.  Andrew Gillum is another name that has been mentioned generally.   It's just that the field is really strong and there are 25 running against a deeply unpopular president, so there aren't as many good options who are sitting it out as there normally are. 

Abrams would reject being Biden’s VP. She and people close to her were very critical of Joe when that rumor popped up months ago.

[Js1 87181]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Abrams would reject being Biden’s VP. She and people close to her were very critical of Joe when that rumor popped up months ago.

Not to mention it's pretty obvious when she passed on 2020 Senate that she is gunning to take on Kemp again in 2022.  You need a VP who is singularly focused on winning in 2020 because they will be the heir apparent in 2024 (if Biden hangs it up) or will most likely end up President before 2028 - he's so god damn old, he won't last 8 years as President. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

Abrams would reject being Biden’s VP. She and people close to her were very critical of Joe when that rumor popped up months ago.

I like Abrams, but her signature win is a loss and her record is too thin. Like Beto, she needs to stay home and win an election or two.

[Js1 87181]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I like Abrams, but her signature win is a loss and her record is too thin. Like Beto, she needs to stay home and win an election or two.

You literally have an extremely qualified black woman in the top 3/4 but Biden needs to pick a black VP from the list of 2018 losers? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13729]

I'm not sure that campaigning on raising taxes on the wealthy individuals or companies is a winning strategy. Sure most lower or middle class people are ok with that, but that doesn't change their life anyway in the positive direction. 

Now I'm not saying to not raise the taxes on the wealthy, I just think it's a bad campaign strategy. I don't believe anyone will decide to vote for you because of that so why waste your breath on the subject.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

These debates are helping the Republicans. I assume, fortunately, few swing voters are watching these debates so hopefully the damage is minimal.

Multiple mistakes are being made. The candidates continue to legitimize Trump’s candidacy every time they say “Trump will win” which was said at least five times last night. They should NEVER say that. He’s the worst President in our history with the most unacceptable behavior we’ve ever seen. Every candidate needs to hit that message over and over and over. To acknowledge he can win is giving voters the impression that voting for him is a reasonable proposition.

Then, Bernie saying the Republican are a party of big ideas makes the Democrats look like little brother. Every single time they should be discussing how the Republican Party has become a complete disaster. They should never disparage their own party.

Finally, as I’ve said several times now, as long as the Democrats don’t completely screw it up, they’ve got the Presidency. There are more than enough people that are embarrassed by Trump and hate him. However stacking up all of these aggressive new specific progressive program proposals is starting to make candidates seem disconnected from reality. The moderates candidates on the stage last night said that multiple times. The questions from CNN were also worded that way.

That message is going to start penetrating the election and there could be a substantial group of voters that actually hold their nose and vote Trump - only because of Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, reparations, student debt cancellation, etc. A few of these programs being at the center of the campaign is fine. Having all of these right at the center of the Democratic primaries is going to hurt. They should be focusing on less inflammatory topics to mix in with some big ideas.

I know some of you believe that there are already two distinct camps of voters and that the progressive big ideas don’t impact any votes other than getting new voters from the left to vote, but I just don’t agree. I have a huge group of people around me that all having been planning to vote Democrat because Trump is a disaster. But a lot of those people are now starting to get a little nervous.

 

I strongly disagree. 

First, the fact that Trump is the president makes him a legitimate candidate.   Pretending he can't win helped get us into this mess.   If anything, Dems need to work harder at combating the notion that he's a guaranteed one-termer.   Trump can win.  It's even likely that he will win, with all the cheating he will do.   Dems need to know that they have to rise up and make something happen. 

Second, you're arguing from the losing framework that has been behind 30 years of Dem failure.   It's not about bringing in new voters from the left (although energizing the base is important).  It's about persuading people who aren't ideologically fixed to jump aboard.  And there are more people like that than you realize.

There's a reason so many voters had Bernie and Trump as their favorites in 2016 even though they are far apart on the ideological spectrum.    Many if not most people are just looking to be led towards a strong vision that will help them and their families.   If the only option for a strong vision is negative, like Trump, many will gravitate towards it, and those who can't stomach it will sit out the election.   If a strong positive vision emerges from the left, it will take people the other way.   Most people don't really give a shit about the details of something like MFA.   They just want their shit to be covered without paying more, and the polling merely shows where they think that will come from at the moment.   If the Dems get strongly and confidently behind something like Bernie's vision, you'll move those polls.  It's already happened to a substantial degree because of Bernie, which is why this policy discussion is even happening right now. 

Thinking that strong progressive ideas will scare off voters is a self-fulfilling prophecy.   Following polls instead of moving polls may eke out one election and get rid of Trump.  And that would be better than losing, certainly.   But it won't get rid of Trumpism or the reasons why Trump won to begin with.   And we'll be right back here in a few years with some asshole Trump disciple who is smart enough to get more shit actually done. 

If Dems focus on people who right now would rather vote for Donald fucking Trump than a candidate who is for universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness, some version of free college and skills training, universal child care and pre-K, and huge government investments in green technologies, then we've already lost. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm not sure that campaigning on raising taxes on the wealthy individuals or companies is a winning strategy. Sure most lower or middle class people are ok with that, but that doesn't change their life anyway in the positive direction. 

Now I'm not saying to not raise the taxes on the wealthy, I just think it's a bad campaign strategy. I don't believe anyone will decide to vote for you because of that so why waste your breath on the subject.

Well, the reason is that unlike GOP candidates, Dems are constantly bombarded with "you're promising the moon, how will you pay for it?!?"  So Dems have to talk funding, and as the only fiscally responsible party, that means talking about increasing taxes. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13729]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Well, the reason is that unlike GOP candidates, Dems are constantly bombarded with "you're promising the moon, how will you pay for it?!?"  So Dems have to talk funding, and as the only fiscally responsible party, that means talking about increasing taxes. 

Which Dem voters care about balancing the budget or paying for things?  the average Americans (R, D or Ind) voter doesn't care about that.  

Sure you can't prevent the question from being asked but as I said in an earlier post, either produce the logic of how it pays for itself or ignore the question.  For example:

Moderator:  Candidate Mojo - how will you pay for your Medicare For All Plan that will cost trillions of dollars.

Mojo: Most of the funding will come from shifting insurance premiums in your paycheck to Medicare.  In most cases your paycheck will still rise.  We will also use the increased Medicare buying power to lower certain healthcare costs that further reduce costs for Americans. And to limit negative impact to healthcare providers, they will see increased demand that may lower their per patient revenue but raise their overall revenue.  This is a win for patients, employers and the healthcare industry.  It's a win for America to be competitive on the global market.

Campaigning on tax increases is a loser strategy.

[David Dennison 19536]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Which Dem voters care about balancing the budget or paying for things?  the average Americans (R, D or Ind) voter doesn't care about that.  

Sure you can't prevent the question from being asked but as I said in an earlier post, either produce the logic of how it pays for itself or ignore the question.  For example:

Moderator:  Candidate Mojo - how will you pay for your Medicare For All Plan that will cost trillions of dollars.

Mojo: Most of the funding will come from shifting insurance premiums in your paycheck to Medicare.  In most cases your paycheck will still rise.  We will also use the increased Medicare buying power to lower certain healthcare costs that further reduce costs for Americans. And to limit negative impact to healthcare providers, they will see increased demand that may lower their per patient revenue but raise their overall revenue.  This is a win for patients, employers and the healthcare industry.  It's a win for America to be competitive on the global market.

Campaigning on tax increases is a loser strategy.

Because Americans are children and don't understand FICA.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Which Dem voters care about balancing the budget or paying for things?  the average Americans (R, D or Ind) voter doesn't care about that.  

Sure you can't prevent the question from being asked but as I said in an earlier post, either produce the logic of how it pays for itself or ignore the question.  For example:

Moderator:  Candidate Mojo - how will you pay for your Medicare For All Plan that will cost trillions of dollars.

Mojo: Most of the funding will come from shifting insurance premiums in your paycheck to Medicare.  In most cases your paycheck will still rise.  We will also use the increased Medicare buying power to lower certain healthcare costs that further reduce costs for Americans. And to limit negative impact to healthcare providers, they will see increased demand that may lower their per patient revenue but raise their overall revenue.  This is a win for patients, employers and the healthcare industry.  It's a win for America to be competitive on the global market.

Campaigning on tax increases is a loser strategy.

But that is literally what Warren and Bernie said last night.   Warren repeatedly refused to bite on raising taxes for health care.  And Bernie's response to the Medicare reimbursement rates was that other hospital costs would go way down. 

The tax increases are mostly to pay for the other shit.   What is your non-tax response to "how will you pay for free college, student loan forgiveness, universal pre-k and childcare, etc."? 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Js1 87181]

"We will murder the rich, steal their money and ground their bodies up for food to be included with your UBI"

Obviously. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13729]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But that is literally what Warren and Bernie said last night.   Warren repeatedly refused to bite on raising taxes for health care.  And Bernie's response to the Medicare reimbursement rates was that other hospital costs would go way down. 

The tax increases are mostly to pay for the other shit.   What is your non-tax response to "how will you pay for free college, student loan forgiveness, universal pre-k and childcare, etc."? 

I agree that it's not as easy to answer how do you pay for those things, especially because I think they're stupid ideas.  I don't agree with Medicare For All, but I can least appreciate the reasoning behind it and how it could work.  Free college (past or future?) horrible idea.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

 

[NowThis 931]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hillary would have won if she had Warren as her VP. 

Tim Kaine was a terrible choice.

shoulda picked Al Gore 

[RDCanecutter 26881]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hillary would have won if she had Warren as her VP. 

Tim Kaine was a terrible choice.

Tim Kaine just now arched his eyebrow at you.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

 

These debates are helping the Republicans. I assume, fortunately, few swing voters are watching these debates so hopefully the damage is minimal.

Multiple mistakes are being made. The candidates continue to legitimize Trump’s candidacy every time they say “Trump will win” which was said at least five times last night. They should NEVER say that. He’s the worst President in our history with the most unacceptable behavior we’ve ever seen. Every candidate needs to hit that message over and over and over. To acknowledge he can win is giving voters the impression that voting for him is a reasonable proposition.

Then, Bernie saying the Republican are a party of big ideas makes the Democrats look like little brother. Every single time they should be discussing how the Republican Party has become a complete disaster. They should never disparage their own party.

Finally, as I’ve said several times now, as long as the Democrats don’t completely screw it up, they’ve got the Presidency. There are more than enough people that are embarrassed by Trump and hate him. However stacking up all of these aggressive new specific progressive program proposals is starting to make candidates seem disconnected from reality. The moderates candidates on the stage last night said that multiple times. The questions from CNN were also worded that way.

That message is going to start penetrating the election and there could be a substantial group of voters that actually hold their nose and vote Trump - only because of Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free college, reparations, student debt cancellation, etc. A few of these programs being at the center of the campaign is fine. Having all of these right at the center of the Democratic primaries is going to hurt. They should be focusing on less inflammatory topics to mix in with some big ideas.

I know some of you believe that there are already two distinct camps of voters and that the progressive big ideas don’t impact any votes other than getting new voters from the left to vote, but I just don’t agree. I have a huge group of people around me that all having been planning to vote Democrat because Trump is a disaster. But a lot of those people are now starting to get a little nervous.

 

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said in this thread - but I actually disagree with you and others who say that it's inconsequential because it's a primary in July that nobody is paying attention to except people who will vote Democrat already.

It may fade away with the next news cycle, sure. But you're crazy if you don't think that the Republican PACs are going to strategically deploy clips of certain moments in these debates come general election time. Every person raising their hand in favor of giving illegals healthcare is certainly one that is going to get a shit ton of run, and it's a punch that will land in the midwest. I suspect that they'll use pieces of Tim Ryan agreeing with Trump last night in Ohio. And while it's now a red state and won't impact the presidential race, it could impact down-ballot races. Are these things that will lose the general election? Who knows. But they're unforced errors and unnecessary risks.

There are progressive ideas that the majority of all voters support such as a public option, doing something about corruption and wealth inequality, reasonable gun control, better paths to citizenship, etc. Then there are progressive ideas that a minority of general election voters support. Unfortunately due to the left's current infatuation with purity tests, when given the choice of which of the above two options they support, they're all railroaded into saying "Yes!". 

Every one of us here knows it's a huge potential issue in the general, even the ones that won't admit it.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Every one of us here knows it's a huge potential issue in the general, even the ones that won't admit it.

Nope.   You just think the world revolves around your viewpoint. 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Nope.   You just think the world revolves around your viewpoint. 

Nope. I'm just refusing to bury my head in the sand when countless pieces of hard data show that the general public is strongly against the very-far-left ideas that a lot of these candidates are getting forced into supporting. But you do you if that's what you need to get through the day. I prefer to deal in facts and reality, not emotions.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Nope. I'm just refusing to bury my head in the sand when countless pieces of hard data show that the general public is strongly against the very-far-left ideas that a lot of these candidates are getting forced into supporting. But you do you if that's what you need to get through the day.

I'm not burying my head.  I just disagree with you.  And clearly you're the one who needs to pretend that everyone else thinks the same way as you to get through the day. 

[BradInATX 9208]

12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not burying my head.  I just disagree with you.  And clearly you're the one who needs to pretend that everyone else thinks the same way as you to get through the day. 

I mean, it's fine to disagree with me and I don't have any ill-will towards you for it. But it's concerning that a large portion of the left continues to ignore the fact that we are repeatedly seeing hard evidence that the general voting public is against several of these "purity test policies" and a very-vocal minority continues to foist said policies upon the candidates. 

You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with numerous polls that show that 60+ percent of the country does not want M4A with the removal of private options. You're disagreeing with polls that show that (IIRC) 70+ percent of the country doesn't want to provide free healthcare to illegals. Same thing with reparations (67%). I have yet to see someone who agrees with these policies address the data. You're attacking the messenger because the message itself challenges your perception too much and it's scary. And that's fine, I come across pretty strongly and I don't mind being challenged. But I hope the people that are trying to get Trump out of office are more responsive to what's actually happening and where the actual sentiment of our country is before they give Trump another four years.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 19536]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, it's fine to disagree with me and I don't have any ill-will towards you for it. But it's concerning that a large portion of the left continues to ignore the fact that we are repeatedly seeing hard evidence that the general voting public is against several of these "purity test policies" and a very-vocal minority continues to foist said policies upon the candidates. 

You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with numerous polls that show that 60+ percent of the country does not want M4A with the removal of private options. You're disagreeing with polls that show that (IIRC) 70+ percent of the country doesn't want to provide free healthcare to illegals. I have yet to see someone who agrees with these policies address the data. You're attacking the messenger because the message itself challenges your perception too much and it's scary. And that's fine, I come across pretty strongly and I don't mind being challenged. But I hope the people that are trying to get Trump out of office are more responsive to what's actually happening and where the actual sentiment of our country is before they give Trump another four years.

Medicare has private options. That's what Medicare Advantage is. Democrats need to sell  M4A as Medicare as it is today without the 65 and over requirement.

That's an easy sell.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Medicare has private options. That's what Medicare Advantage is. Democrats need to sell  M4A as Medicare as it is today without the 65 and over requirement.

That's an easy sell.

Private options meaning insurance through their employer as their base layer insurance, which is what the polling shows people want to keep (as an option), and which is what some of the candidates want to get rid of, and others are being forced to sort of tap dance and half-support while giving themselves room to walk it back, because of the woke left purity tests.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

You literally have an extremely qualified black woman in the top 3/4 but Biden needs to pick a black VP from the list of 2018 losers? 

Exactly.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, it's fine to disagree with me and I don't have any ill-will towards you for it. But it's concerning that a large portion of the left continues to ignore the fact that we are repeatedly seeing hard evidence that the general voting public is against several of these "purity test policies" and a very-vocal minority continues to foist said policies upon the candidates. 

You're not disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with numerous polls that show that 60+ percent of the country does not want M4A with the removal of private options. You're disagreeing with polls that show that (IIRC) 70+ percent of the country doesn't want to provide free healthcare to illegals. I have yet to see someone who agrees with these policies address the data. You're attacking the messenger because the message itself challenges your perception too much and it's scary. And that's fine, I come across pretty strongly and I don't mind being challenged. But I hope the people that are trying to get Trump out of office are more responsive to what's actually happening and where the actual sentiment of our country is before they give Trump another four years.

Your "hard evidence" is much softer than you think, and your take on what's in the heads of the people who disagree with you is way off, bordering on delusional.

No, I don't disagree with the polls on MFA.  What I disagree with is letting those polls dictate policy.   Chasing polls and current perceptions is a recipe for disaster.   It's led to 30 years of Dem fail, while the GOP has gotten everything it wants by ignoring all of the polls showing that their policies are hated by the public. 

The only ones who are showing themselves to be scared are those, like you, who refuse to stand for anything other than what they think people want based on current polling.    But polls can be moved, and votes can be gained even contrary to policy polling, as Republicans have proven election after election. 

You need to take a step back and work in some humility.   Regardless of which of us is right or wrong on the best strategy, you're dead wrong on what is in the minds of the lefties who disagree with you.   Until you grapple with the fact that there is a sincere and reasonable difference of opinion, you're going to continue pointlessly arguing against a foil that doesn't exist. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26848]

Hillary would have won if she had Warren as her VP. 
Tim Kaine was a terrible choice.

Probably true. His debate performance against Pence was a very low point in the campaign, because he lost on temperament.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

You literally have an extremely qualified black woman in the top 3/4 but Biden needs to pick a black VP from the list of 2018 losers? 

I brought up Abrams because there was a question about why nobody is discussing VP options outside of the field.   And she's among a handful of VP options outside the field that have been prominently discussed.   She's also much more than a "2018 loser."

Maybe I missed it, but did someone say Biden has to, over even should, pick Abrams over Harris?  

[BradInATX 9208]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Your "hard evidence" is much softer than you think, and your take on what's in the heads of the people who disagree with you is way off, bordering on delusional.

No, I don't disagree with the polls on MFA.  What I disagree with is letting those polls dictate policy.   Chasing polls and current perceptions is a recipe for disaster.   It's led to 30 years of Dem fail, while the GOP has gotten everything it wants by ignoring all of the polls showing that their policies are hated by the public. 

The only ones who are showing themselves to be scared are those, like you, who refuse to stand for anything other than what they think people want based on current polling.    But polls can be moved, and votes can be gained even contrary to policy polling, as Republicans have proven election after election. 

You need to take a step back and work in some humility.   Regardless of which of us is right or wrong on the best strategy, you're dead wrong on what is in the minds of the lefties who disagree with you.   Until you grapple with the fact that there is a sincere and reasonable difference of opinion, you're going to continue pointlessly arguing against a foil that doesn't exist. 

I understand there's a difference of opinion and I'm not saying that anyone's opinion is invalid. You're upset because you think that I'm not validating your opinion or the policies you support. Which is not what I'm doing at all. The entire point I'm trying to make is that you can't move anything an inch towards where you want to go if you lose. Winning and implementing incremental change is much better for your goals than losing and implementing no change. And the data we're seeing bears out that the majority of the country is in support of incremental changes, but not instant movement towards the very progressive side of things. 

All I'm saying is - on what planet is it smart to say "we can plainly see that 2/3 of the country is against the far-left policies we want", and still demand that our candidates push those policies? This isn't even a policy discussion. This is about winning an election.

You can't do anything when you lose. It's really the entirety of my point. Idealism is great. Naked idealism in national politics without consideration for strategy and the fact that you have to you know, actually win, is childish.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Anastasis 23717]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

That’s a new one Liz. Would like to see some info in the pharma nafta intersection. 

 

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Aren't you supposed to be the expert, bud? lol Jesus

(look up how Nafta 2.0 increases drug patent protection timetables)

 

So went back to research this as impact of NAFTA 2.0 on drug patents wasn't on my radar.  That's because it really doesn't have any impact on the current drug patent timelines in the US.  Its appears that the most significant impact is wrt to a small (but very important in terms of trends) segment of the pharma market, specifically biologics. NAFTA 2.0's IP protections require Mexico and Canada to recognize exclusivity for 10 years.  This period is shorter than the current exclusivity they would have under US law of 12 years, but longer than Canada's and Mexico's policies (eight year, and none, respectively). The intent appears to be to force Canada and Mexico to recognize the IP associated with development of new biologics, an R&D area dominated by US-based firms.   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Lol at the first responder. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, BradInATX said:

I understand there's a difference of opinion and I'm not saying that anyone's opinion is invalid. You're upset because you think that I'm not validating your opinion or the policies you support. Which is not what I'm doing at all. The entire point I'm trying to make is that you can't move anything an inch towards where you want to go if you lose. Winning and implementing incremental change is much better for your goals than losing and implementing no change. And the data we're seeing bears out that the majority of the country is in support of incremental changes, but not instant movement towards the very progressive side of things. 

All I'm saying is - on what planet is it smart to say "we can plainly see that 2/3 of the country is against the far-left policies we want", and still demand that our candidates push those policies? 

You can't do anything when you lose. It's really the entirety of my point.

No, I'm not upset that you're not validating my opinion or supporting my policies.   It seems to be literally impossible for you to step outside of your own preconceptions and consider that a different viewpoint exists outside of your current understanding.   You keep incorrectly telling me and others what we think, over and over again. 

I'll say it as clearly as I can.   I don't give a shit that you support moderate positions and candidates, or that you are justifying it based on current polling.   It doesn't upset me, and it doesn't scare me.   I'm happy to discuss our policy differences. 

But I do not think that your approach —moderation to maximize appeal based on current polling — is a winning strategy.   I think it is a losing and self-defeating strategy.  This is my sincere opinion, and it's a reasonable one, even if you can't understand why.    I don't secretly agree with you.  I'm not suppressing my real opinion.   Call me stupid if you want; I don't really care about your opinion.   But don't tell me that I don't really think what I think. 

[Anastasis 23717]

Next round should just be Biden, Harris and Warren.  

[Mdhorn 6166]

The talk about reparations made me change the channel.  We're struggling with healthcare for all yet we're going to rally around getting reparations for some?  Offer free education and mixed housing or other things in lieu of money which will never be enough and will only create more ill will.  This would never pass Congress anyways so it seems to be a strange hill to die on.  And here's an idea, actually prosecute the officers that shoot African Americans.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by Mdhorn