2020 Democratic Debates Watch Thread

[Js1 85310]

Just now, Mdhorn said:

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.  

The problem with the "reparations" discussion is that it isn't substantive enough.

There's way more options than "money" but how do you explain education opportunities, community grants, housing, etc. in 25 seconds? 

[Mdhorn 5948]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

The problem with the "reparations" discussion is that it isn't substantive enough.

There's way more options than "money" but how do you explain education opportunities, community grants, housing, etc. in 25 seconds? 

Then it's a losing question that shouldn't be brought up.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the moderators who focused on reparations?   Not much you can do when they don't ask about Mueller's testimony or impeachment or virtually any foreign policy, but have an extended segment on reparations. 

As far as why Dems support it at all, this is no longer a party that can take POC for granted (not that it ever should have).  And reparations are a substantial issue for an important chunk of the party. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Reparations are a conversation for a different election.  I can't think of a more divisive topic.  Now is not the time to fuck with it.  We are trying to save this country in 2020.

[Mdhorn 5948]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the moderators who focused on reparations?   Not much you can do when they don't ask about Mueller's testimony or impeachment or virtually any foreign policy, but have an extended segment on reparations. 

As far as why Dems support it at all, this is no longer a party that can take POC for granted (not that it ever should have).  And reparations are a substantial issue for an important chunk of the party. 

Then they should campaign on it where they can discuss it at length.  Every year, that dollar number is going to grow substantially.   Also, that's not an issue which is going to swing the rust belt states.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by Mdhorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

Next round should just be Biden, Harris and Warren.  

I would put Buttigieg in that group, but otherwise yeah.

[BradInATX 9208]

14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

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. 

I understand what you're saying, believe me. But I'm not going to apologize for not validating your belief that the way to win a competition where the goal is to get the majority of the country to vote for you is to push policies that a large majority of the country does not want.

Our election system elects the candidate that represents the will of the majority of the people (or states, anyway). You disagree that our candidate should represent the will of the (large) majority of the people. I'm sorry - I can't even acknowledge that as a valid strategy. Two things don't lie:

- Numbers

- Ball

It's insanity what's going on right now. The far left of the party is operating on emotions in a time where we need to put that aside and address the very valid threat that is our current POTUS. You can't just look at data that says "67% of people are against reparations" and say "that's wrong - this country wants reparations". I'm sorry, but sticking your thumbs in your ears and saying "la la la" not a valid opinion.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Biff Tannen 45673]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I would put Buttigieg in that group, but otherwise yeah.

No Sanders?

[RomaVicta 29905]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol at the first responder. 

Nine voters in Iowa on national TV. Who gives a shit? The networks pronounced this caucus a big deal when it seemed to help a candidate many years ago. It shows "momentum" heading into the primary of another tiny state, New Hampshire.

The news media have given so much power to a load of yokels and yankees because they can't help themselves. 

The news media determine the caucus is important. They concentrate coverage starting months before the "crucial" vote to start election season. Candidates must follow the coverage and play the game. The news media justify their coverage siting that the politicians put a lot of time into Iowa.

It's crazy. I think most decision makers in the media know it's crazy, but they won't act to defuse the nuttiness.

Nine Iowa voters on the TV. Who cares?

[Skipper 6133]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

  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.   

Strongly disagree with this.  Particularly if the economy hasn't completely shit the bed by the time American's go to polls.   Even if we've slipped into a slight recession, Trump will easily be able to scare Americans that a vote for Bernie's is a vote for socialism and economic disaster, loss of jobs and 401K's tanking.   Even working class Americans that hate all that Trump stands for will vote for their pocketbooks.   Trump will just say socialism and Venezuela over and over and over again and it will work.   I have zero doubt that Trump strategists are begging for Bernie or Warren to win this thing. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

I understand what you're saying, believe me. But I'm not going to apologize for not validating your belief that the way to win a competition where the goal is to get the majority of the country to vote for you is to push policies that a large majority of the country does not want.

Our election system elects the candidate that represents the will of the majority of the people (or states, anyway). You disagree that our candidate should represent the will of the (large) majority of the people. I'm sorry - I can't even acknowledge that as a valid strategy. Two things don't lie:

- Numbers

- Ball

 

I'm not asking you to apologize for anything, let alone validate my beliefs.   You continue to make up things about me that just aren't true. Trying being honest in a discussion. 

I'll put a fine point on it:  you claimed that not only is your viewpoint correct, but those of us who disagree actually agree with you but are too scared or stubborn to admit it.    That second part is false, and betrays your own ignorance.   That's the issue I'm bringing to your attention. 

As to the second point, no, this isn't about refusing to represent the will of the people.  It's about what the will of the people really is.   You think it is what polls say about certain publicized policies at this current moment in time.    I say that current polls are the product of years of messaging from the political class and shouldn't be taken as some pure measure of reality.    I say that different messaging from Dems can move the will of the people, just as messaging from the GOP and Trump have moved a big chunk of the country from what polls used to say they wanted.  And I say that the question for Dems should be, what is the best policy to address the underlying concerns of voters, not what voters currently think is the best policy to address those concerns.   Voters can be persuaded on policy. 

On health care, the underlying concern of voters is comprehensive coverage at less cost.   Either single payer does that best or it doesn't, regardless of how a particular bill is currently polling, in large part based on misinformation and ignorance and fear.   And if single payer does that best, Dems should push it hard and confidently and lead the voters in that direction. 

Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success.    They get more extreme to the right while constantly winning, and the few times that Dems get power, they enact former Republican policies.  And then get blamed for it not working. 

It's time for Dems to lead again. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12457]

21 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the moderators who focused on reparations?   Not much you can do when they don't ask about Mueller's testimony or impeachment or virtually any foreign policy, but have an extended segment on reparations. 

As far as why Dems support it at all, this is no longer a party that can take POC for granted (not that it ever should have).  And reparations are a substantial issue for an important chunk of the party. 

 

As long as Trump is the Republican nominee, I think the Dems are fine taking POC for granted.  Reparations is not a winning issue for Dems in the general election.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Strongly disagree with this.  Particularly if the economy hasn't completely shit the bed by the time American's go to polls.   Even if we've slipped into a slight recession, Trump will easily be able to scare Americans that a vote for Bernie's is a vote for socialism and economic disaster, loss of jobs and 401K's tanking.   Even working class Americans that hate all that Trump stands for will vote for their pocketbooks.   Trump will just say socialism and Venezuela over and over and over again and it will work.   I have zero doubt that Trump strategists are begging for Bernie or Warren to win this thing. 

 

Yeah, they said that about Obama in exactly those circumstances in 2008 and he won easily.    And Dems ran the most moderate candidate in modern times against Trump in 2016 and lost.   Dems were begging to run against Trump too, how did that work out? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

No Sanders?

Warren is peeling him clean over the next three weeks I bet.

[Skipper 6133]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, they said that about Obama in exactly those circumstances in 2008 and he won easily.    And Dems ran the most moderate candidate in modern times against Trump in 2016 and lost.   Dems were begging to run against Trump too, how did that work out? 

They won in 08 because Obama was a good candidate.  They lost in 16 because Hillary was a bad candidate.  But if it would have been Bernie instead of Hillary in 2016 it wouldn't have even been close.  He would have been destroyed.

[Anastasis 23469]

23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

No Sanders?

Warren and Sanders needs to consolidate their numbers. If they both stick in this thing too long, they give the nomination to Biden. Let's be real. Sanders is not going to be the democratic nominee. 

25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I would put Buttigieg in that group, but otherwise yeah.

Why?  He don't poll shit. If it is just some diversity of thought that you want to see on the stage, OK, I get it. 

 

 

 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

38 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

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.  

Wrong. Just look at Hillary's 2016 campaign. If only she had played harder to the middle and used her super smart secret polling numbers to dictate her policies! She would have won! 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

They won in 08 because Obama was a good candidate.  They lost in 16 because Hillary was a bad candidate.  But if it would have been Bernie instead of Hillary in 2016 it wouldn't have even been close.  He would have been destroyed.

Just amazing political analysis. How are you not on CNN. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

 
As long as Trump is the Republican nominee, I think the Dems are fine taking POC for granted.  Reparations is not a winning issue for Dems in the general election.

That’s true- also, IMO on policy terms the case for reparations for redlining is stronger than the case for reparations for slavery, because it’s more recent, more quantifiable, and would not potentially attach a moral license or indulgence for human bondage and the consequences.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Skipper said:

They won in 08 because Obama was a good candidate.  They lost in 16 because Hillary was a bad candidate.  But if it would have been Bernie instead of Hillary in 2016 it wouldn't have even been close.  He would have been destroyed.

Plenty of polls showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump.   And you're undermining your own point by now arguing that it's the quality of the candidate that matters, not where they fall on the ideological spectrum.   A good candidate that was painted as a socialist won in 2008.   A bad candidate who was extremely moderate lost in 2016.    And how to account for Trump winning both the primary and general when he was a terrible candidate by the same conventional wisdom you're still employing against Dems? 

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not asking you to apologize for anything, let alone validate my beliefs.   You continue to make up things about me that just aren't true. Trying being honest in a discussion. 

I'll put a fine point on it:  you claimed that not only is your viewpoint correct, but those of us who disagree actually agree with you but are too scared or stubborn to admit it.    That second part is false, and betrays your own ignorance.   That's the issue I'm bringing to your attention. 

As to the second point, no, this isn't about refusing to represent the will of the people.  It's about what the will of the people really is.   You think it is what polls say about certain publicized policies at this current moment in time.    I say that current polls are the product of years of messaging from the political class and shouldn't be taken as some pure measure of reality.    I say that different messaging from Dems can move the will of the people, just as messaging from the GOP and Trump have moved a big chunk of the country from what polls used to say they wanted.  And I say that the question for Dems should be, what is the best policy to address the underlying concerns of voters, not what voters currently think is the best policy to address those concerns.   Voters can be persuaded on policy. 

On health care, the underlying concern of voters is comprehensive coverage at less cost.   Either single payer does that best or it doesn't, regardless of how a particular bill is currently polling, in large part based on misinformation and ignorance and fear.   And if single payer does that best, Dems should push it hard and confidently and lead the voters in that direction. 

Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success.    They get more extreme to the right while constantly winning, and the few times that Dems get power, they enact former Republican policies.  And then get blamed for it not working. 

It's time for Dems to lead again. 

See - if you want to argue that Democrats can move public opinion between now and November 2020, that's fine. That's an opinion that i strongly disagree with, but one is valid and that I'd be happy to drink a beer with you and talk about. But what's happening here and in these debates is not really that. It's things like Bernie Sanders continuing to say "the majority of the public supports my M4A plan" - which is just patently false. You talk about "being honest in a discussion" - let's start there. It's candidates being railroaded into giving defensive responses about very unpopular issues like reparations and healthcare for illegals. 

"Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success". What people consider to be "centrist shitlib" material now is significantly left of even 8 years ago. And in the last however many years, public opinion has shifted left on most issues sans immigration and maybe abortion. We're seeing that materialize into things like pot legalization, gay marriage, the ACA (and we all know healthcare is going to be more and more progressive in the near future). This is just something people say because it's not happening fast enough for their liking.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, they said that about Obama in exactly those circumstances in 2008 and he won easily.    And Dems ran the most moderate candidate in modern times against Trump in 2016 and lost.   Dems were begging to run against Trump too, how did that work out? 

You truly think centrism is why Hillary lost? "Try being honest in a discussion" - you, 10 minutes ago.

 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

For a Republican, you sure do post a bunch in the Democrat threads Brad. 

[Js1 85310]

11 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

As long as Trump is the Republican nominee, I think the Dems are fine taking POC for granted.  Reparations is not a winning issue for Dems in the general election.

LITERALLY turning out even 1-2% more POC would have netted Democrats Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They took the "we can take POC for granted, Trump is the nominee" already and....lost. 

[Skipper 6133]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Plenty of polls showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump.   And you're undermining your own point by now arguing that it's the quality of the candidate that matters, not where they fall on the ideological spectrum.   A good candidate that was painted as a socialist won in 2008.   A bad candidate who was extremely moderate lost in 2016.    And how to account for Trump winning both the primary and general when he was a terrible candidate by the same conventional wisdom you're still employing against Dems? 

To the extent the right tried to paint Obama as a socialist it didn't work.    Painting Bernie as a socialist is just a tad easier.  Are you really arguing Obama's platform in 08 was as far to the left as Bernie's is now?

[EuroHorn 3260]

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

For a Republican, you sure do post a bunch in the Democrat board/echo chamber Brad. 

....

Edited July 31, 2019 by EuroHorn

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Wrong. Just look at Hillary's 2016 campaign. If only she had played harder to the middle and used her super smart secret polling numbers to dictate her policies! She would have won! 

A Bernie Bro is in trouble! Hank Scorpio to the rescue; nobody is a match for his combination of intellectually dishonest snark and complete lack of substance!

 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

For a Republican, you sure do post a bunch in the Democrat threads Brad. 

I'll never be as prolific as you, b_t. But I'm trying. Your crush on me is flattering, though.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

Why?  He don't poll shit. If it is just some diversity of thought that you want to see on the stage, OK, I get it.   

 

 

 

 

They each dominate their archetype and value to the story of this cycle.

I don’t have to tell you who is who:

The lovable old uncle - normalcy

The crusading reformer - big ideas

The steely inquisitor- justice

The young dynamo- Hope/change

 

Nobody else in the field does that except Sanders. His archetype is the wild-haired prophet, but his role in the story is to scold and warn like Amos, not lead like Moses.

 

 

[wildcat09 29349]

33 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not asking you to apologize for anything, let alone validate my beliefs.   You continue to make up things about me that just aren't true. Trying being honest in a discussion. 

I'll put a fine point on it:  you claimed that not only is your viewpoint correct, but those of us who disagree actually agree with you but are too scared or stubborn to admit it.    That second part is false, and betrays your own ignorance.   That's the issue I'm bringing to your attention. 

As to the second point, no, this isn't about refusing to represent the will of the people.  It's about what the will of the people really is.   You think it is what polls say about certain publicized policies at this current moment in time.    I say that current polls are the product of years of messaging from the political class and shouldn't be taken as some pure measure of reality.    I say that different messaging from Dems can move the will of the people, just as messaging from the GOP and Trump have moved a big chunk of the country from what polls used to say they wanted.  And I say that the question for Dems should be, what is the best policy to address the underlying concerns of voters, not what voters currently think is the best policy to address those concerns.   Voters can be persuaded on policy. 

On health care, the underlying concern of voters is comprehensive coverage at less cost.   Either single payer does that best or it doesn't, regardless of how a particular bill is currently polling, in large part based on misinformation and ignorance and fear.   And if single payer does that best, Dems should push it hard and confidently and lead the voters in that direction. 

Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success.    They get more extreme to the right while constantly winning, and the few times that Dems get power, they enact former Republican policies.  And then get blamed for it not working. 

It's time for Dems to lead again. 

I regret that I have but one rep to give for this post.

[wildcat09 29349]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LITERALLY turning out even 1-2% more POC would have netted Democrats Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They took the "we can take POC for granted, Trump is the nominee" already and....lost. 

It's scary how many people have learned absolutely nothing from 2016.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

36 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

See - if you want to argue that Democrats can move public opinion between now and November 2020, that's fine. That's an opinion that i strongly disagree with, but one is valid and that I'd be happy to drink a beer with you and talk about. But what's happening here and in these debates is not really that. It's things like Bernie Sanders continuing to say "the majority of the public supports my M4A plan" - which is just patently false. You talk about "being honest in a discussion" - let's start there. It's candidates being railroaded into giving defensive responses about very unpopular issues like reparations and healthcare for illegals. 

"Dems have followed your approach for years, and it's led to the golden age of GOP success". What people consider to be "centrist shitlib" material now is significantly left of even 8 years ago. And in the last however many years, public opinion has shifted left on most issues sans immigration and maybe abortion. We're seeing that materialize into things like pot legalization, gay marriage, the ACA (and we all know healthcare is going to be more and more progressive in the near future). This is just something people say because it's not happening fast enough for their liking.

 

 

You truly think centrism is why Hillary lost? "Try being honest in a discussion" - you, 10 minutes ago.

 

Yes, it's false to claim that current polls support Bernie's version of MFA.  It's also false for Kamala to claim that her plan is supported by 200 economists who signed a letter in support of Bernie's MFA.   Things like that should be corrected.   But I don't really care about the current polling for single payer.   I care about which candidate can persuade voters to give it a shot.   Was the ACA a huge electoral success when it was enacted because it was net favorable in the polls?   It quickly moved to strongly net unfavorable, and Dems lost the House and then the Senate and then the presidency, in no small part because Obamacare was hated by the public.    And that was because Republican messaging moved the polls.   You want to do that all over again. 

Yes, the current center is being moved left.   But that isn't because of centrists.  It's because of the far left.   The quick progress on gay rights is entirely because of what was called the "radical homosexual agenda" by many at the time.   It happened in spite of centrists and the conventional wisdom, leaving people astonished at how something that helped Kerry lose in 2004 could flip so quickly after that.    And the recent progress on health care is in no small part because Bernie moved the conversation far towards the left, making the center move with him.   The ACA helped not by moving people to the left, but by having so many problems (and causing so many Rs to be elected that undermined it) that the need for something better is even more desperate.   Pot legalization isn't liberal; it's libertarian, and the reason it's happening is because so many baby boomers did drugs that it's an acceptable corporate opportunity. 

Hillary lost for many reasons.   One of those reasons was that she did not inspire the left, and was hit for all of the shitty centrist policies of the 90s that she supported with Bill, as well as voting for the Iraq War.   Superpredators.  NAFTA.  All of those things hurt her with a significant chunk of voters in 2016.   More turnout from the left and working class would have beaten Trump, and centrism is one of many reasons why she didn't get enough. 

What do you consider the top 3 Democratic policy achievements since Bill Clinton was elected?    Getting the Heritage Foundation's health care plan passed and taking the blame for its failures seems the biggest to me.   With successes like that, what's the downside to going big? 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Mojo Hand 4580]

36 minutes ago, Skipper said:

To the extent the right tried to paint Obama as a socialist it didn't work.    Painting Bernie as a socialist is just a tad easier.  Are you really arguing Obama's platform in 08 was as far to the left as Bernie's is now?

No.  And I think the continuing stigma around the word does hurt Bernie, which is among many reasons why I think Warren is the stronger candidate in terms of likelihood of winning.   But Bernie is a unique case, just as Trump was. 

[Dbeasy 15047]

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."

That’s exactly my point. Who wouldn’t want to address climate change, have green jobs and an energy efficient infrastructure? Everyone! Sign me up. But what about the details described, the timelines, the implications of the specific actions discussed. Hmmm, suddenly there are some real questions about it. And you can’t start arguing it’s just an aspirational document. It’s a plan and the people pushing it can suddenly be made to look completely out of touch with reality.

[BradInATX 9208]

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yes, it's false to claim that current polls support Bernie's version of MFA.  It's also false for Kamala to claim that her plan is supported by 200 economists who signed a letter in support of Bernie's MFA.   Things like that should be corrected.   But I don't really care about the current polling for single payer.   I care about which candidate can persuade voters to give it a shot.   Was the ACA a huge electoral success when it was enacted because it was net favorable in the polls?   It quickly moved to strongly net unfavorable, and Dems lost the House and then the Senate and then the presidency, in no small part because Obamacare was hated by the public.    And that was because Republican messaging moved the polls.   You want to do that all over again. 

Yes, the current center is being moved left.   But that isn't because of centrists.  It's because of the far left.   The quick progress on gay rights is entirely because of what was called the "radical homosexual agenda" by many at the time.   It happened in spite of centrists and the conventional wisdom, leaving people astonished at how something that helped Kerry lose in 2004 could flip so quickly after that.    And the recent progress on health care is in no small part because Bernie moved the conversation far towards the left, making the center move with him.   The ACA helped not by moving people to the left, but by having so many problems (and causing so many Rs to be elected that undermined it) that the need for something better is even more desperate.   Pot legalization isn't liberal; it's libertarian, and the reason it's happening is because so many baby boomers did drugs that it's an acceptable corporate opportunity. 

Hillary lost for many reasons.   One of those reasons was that she did not inspire the left, and was hit for all of the shitty centrist policies of the 90s that she supported with Bill, as well as voting for the Iraq War.   More turnout from the left would have beaten Trump, and centrism is one of many reasons why she didn't get enough. 

What do you consider the top 3 Democratic policy achievements since Bill Clinton was elected?    Getting the Heritage Foundation's health care plan passed and taking the blame for its failures seems the biggest to me.   With successes like that, what's the downside to going big? 

Don't disagree about Harris. 

Saying you can move people off of policies where 60% are against it is a huge ask. Saying you can move people off of policies where 67% (reparations) and 70+% (healthcare for illegals) is just flat out wrong. You might be able to convince some, but no democratic candidate (at least in the current field) is going to move that needle to where the majority of the country are for either. That's just not how things, people, or politics work. You've focused on healthcare, but the original post I made  mentioned all three.

I'm not really going to address why the center of most issues has moved far left. I disagree with you. It's mostly societal and demographic changes. It's the Real World and Right Said Fred and the gradual erosion of racism and sexism and the like that has happened each generation. The weird logic about the ACA is well, weird. Obama, a shitlib centrist, planted the seed in the collective mind of the country that healthcare should be a right. Did he do it right? No. But he got the conversation started long before Bernie was a household name.

And you're right about Bernie moving the conversation left. But conversation is one thing - you have to win to actually make anything happen. And if the Democrats keep focusing on things like reparations and healthcare for illegals, well, great. We can all sit around and debate for another four years whether or not our challenger to VP Pence should go further left or not on healthcare. That was the whole point of my original post. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Warren is scalping him clean over the next three weeks I bet.

fify

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

 

That’s exactly my point. Who wouldn’t want to address climate change, have green jobs and an energy efficient infrastructure? Everyone! Sign me up. But what about the details described, the timelines, the implications of the specific actions discussed. Hmmm, suddenly there are some real questions about it. And you can’t start arguing it’s just an aspirational document. It’s a plan and the people pushing it can suddenly be made to look completely out of touch with reality.

 

Donald Trump won with the centerpiece of his campaign being a massive cement wall from coast to coast that Mexico would pay for.   Dems need to stop being afraid of how Republicans will portray them and start pushing a strong, confident vision.   Don't bow to what the public currently thinks of the Green New Deal — make them believe in it.  That's what leadership is. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Some decent analysis 

 

[Dbeasy 15047]

Just amazing political analysis. How are you not on CNN. 

It might actually be too complex for the average cnn viewer. Simplify it more.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Donald Trump won with the centerpiece of his campaign being a massive cement wall from coast to coast that Mexico would pay for.   Dems need to stop being afraid of how Republicans will portray them and start pushing a strong, confident vision.   Don't bow to what the public currently thinks of the Green New Deal — make them believe in it.  That's what leadership is. 

Wrong. For every blue collar vote Democrats lose they'll pick up 2 moderate Republicans in the suburbs. The most important thing is courting Republicans like Brad over to our side. Screw policies and vision, just play the hits baby. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Don't disagree about Harris. 

Saying you can move people off of policies where 60% are against it is a huge ask. Saying you can move people off of policies where 67% (reparations) and 70+% (healthcare for illegals) is just flat out wrong. You might be able to convince some, but no democratic candidate (at least in the current field) is going to move that needle to where the majority of the country are for either. That's just not how things, people, or politics work. You've focused on healthcare, but the original post I made that got you all riled up mentioned all three.

I'm not really going to address why the center of most issues has moved far left. I disagree with you. It's mostly societal and demographic changes. It's the Real World and Right Said Fred and the gradual erosion of racism and sexism and the like that has happened each generation. The weird logic about the ACA is well, weird. Obama, a shitlib centrist, planted the seed in the collective mind of the country that healthcare should be a right. Did he do it right? No. But he got the conversation started long before Bernie was a household name.

And you're right about Bernie moving the conversation left. But conversation is one thing - you have to win to actually make anything happen. And if the Democrats keep focusing on things like reparations and healthcare for illegals, well, great. We can all sit around and debate for another four years whether or not our challenger to VP Pence should go further left or not on healthcare. That was the whole point of my original post. 

You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win or get it enacted.  You just need to convince them to trust your vision, despite the reservations they might have about your policies.  (And it better work once enacted.)  I want the Dems to enact a great health care plan that the public loves a few years later.   You want the Dems to follow the path of the ACA:   enact a Republicanish plan that kind of satisfies a small majority of people in polling at the time it is enacted, but that isn't what you really believe in or think will work.   And lo and behold, it doesn't really work, and then the public blames you for it even though it was really the GOP's plan, and then it leads to a complete GOP takeover of government headed by Donald Trump. 

The GOP consistently gets the public to trust them with their votes despite majorities against their actual policies.  On issue after issue over the last few decades, Dem policies have strong majorities in public polling, but that hasn't translated into the wins it should have.  That's what Dems need to change.   Stand for something real, fight for it, and let the chips fall where they may. 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win or get it enacted.  You just need to convince them to trust your vision, despite the reservations they might have about your policies.  (And it better work once enacted.)  I want the Dems to enact a great health care plan that the public loves a few years later.   You want the Dems to follow the path of the ACA:   enact a Republicanish plan that kind of satisfies a small majority of people in polling at the time it is enacted, but that isn't what you really believe in or think will work.   And lo and behold, it doesn't really work, and then the public blames you for it even though it was really the GOP's plan, and then it leads to a complete GOP takeover of government headed by Donald Trump. 

The GOP consistently gets the public to trust them with their votes despite majorities against their actual policies.  On issue after issue over the last few decades, Dem policies have strong majorities in public polling, but that hasn't translated into the wins it should have.  That's what Dems need to change.   Stand for something real, fight for it, and let the chips fall where they may. 

"You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win". If you make healthcare the primary tenet of your platform (they are) and it's the most important issue to voters (it is), then you certainly need to present a plan that's palatable to the voters you need. "Convincing them to trust your vision" is just a platitude. If you haven't shifted 60% of the country away from being against your policies on the most important issue to voters on election day, you are going to lose. There's no way around that. 

And it's funny that you got all huffy about me presuming to know what you are thinking - yet you're doing the same thing re:what you think I want for healthcare. In my very last post I said Obama didn't do it correctly. "Try being honest in a discussion" - you, ~an hour ago.

The GOP gets people to vote for them because they're the party of no. Their message requires a different strategy. When Democrats win it's because they either have a charismatic dynamo like Obama, or because they push change (the yin to the Republican "no" yang) that the majority of voters are for. Obviously none of these candidates has anywhere close to Obama's charisma. So the answer is - let's push change that nobody wants? 

Alright, man. We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

"You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win". If you make healthcare the primary tenet of your platform (they are) and it's the most important issue to voters (it is), then you certainly need to present a plan that's palatable to the voters you need. "Convincing them to trust your vision" is just a platitude. If you haven't shifted 60% of the country away from being against your policies on the most important issue to voters on election day, you are going to lose. There's no way around that. 

And it's funny that you got all huffy about me presuming to know what you are thinking - yet you're doing the same thing re:what you think I want for healthcare. In my very last post I said Obama didn't do it correctly. "Try being honest in a discussion" - you, ~an hour ago.

The GOP gets people to vote for them because they're the party of no. Their message requires a different strategy. When Democrats win it's because they either have a charismatic dynamo like Obama, or because they push change (the yin to the Republican "no" yang) that the majority of voters are for. Obviously none of these candidates has anywhere close to Obama's charisma. So the answer is - let's push change that nobody wants? 

Alright, man. We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

The difference is that I'm not telling you that you don't really believe what you're saying.   If I've misunderstood what you're saying, that's another issue.    I read you as saying that Dems should enact the health care plan that is currently polling the highest.   Is that mistaken? 

[Dbeasy 15047]

You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win or get it enacted.  You just need to convince them to trust your vision, despite the reservations they might have about your policies.  (And it better work once enacted.)  I want the Dems to enact a great health care plan that the public loves a few years later.   You want the Dems to follow the path of the ACA:   enact a Republicanish plan that kind of satisfies a small majority of people in polling at the time it is enacted, but that isn't what you really believe in or think will work.   And lo and behold, it doesn't really work, and then the public blames you for it even though it was really the GOP's plan, and then it leads to a complete GOP takeover of government headed by Donald Trump. 

The GOP consistently gets the public to trust them with their votes despite majorities against their actual policies.  On issue after issue over the last few decades, Dem policies have strong majorities in public polling, but that hasn't translated into the wins it should have.  That's what Dems need to change.   Stand for something real, fight for it, and let the chips fall where they may. 

 

You mentioned in an earlier post that I was advocating getting more left voters, and you countered with the view that getting more ideology independent voters was much more important. That is actually what I also said in my post: getting ideology independent voters is very important.

 

But a few posts up from here, you advocated for getting more left voters. So I’m not quite clear on what you really believe is the path to winning. With that said, I don’t have a problem with the candidates leading with vision on a topic. The problem is that every one of these topics is incredibly controversial and without clarity of the policy the candidates look delusional. There will not be majority public support for ANY of these progressive policies if they are drawn up poorly. That tremendous lack of support could flip the election. Why risk that? You are correct that in past elections the Democratic Party did not lay out a clear vision and alternative to the Republicans and doing so is extremely important. We agree there. Where we disagree is on how far the party goes with that vision. You are pushing the ideology independent voters (the election deciders) too hard.

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The difference is that I'm not telling you that you don't really believe what you're saying.   If I've misunderstood what you're saying, that's another issue.    I read you as saying that Dems should enact the health care plan that is currently polling the highest.   Is that mistaken? 

I've consistently said I'm in favor of Medicare "for all who choose it" or whatever you want to call M4A with a private option. Both on this thread and amongst plenty of other threads. Assuming that's what you're talking about in terms of "plan that is polling the highest"?

[NowThis 931]

20 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"You don't need to convince most of the public to literally favor M4A to win". If you make healthcare the primary tenet of your platform (they are) and it's the most important issue to voters (it is), then you certainly need to present a plan that's palatable to the voters you need. "Convincing them to trust your vision" is just a platitude. If you haven't shifted 60% of the country away from being against your policies on the most important issue to voters on election day, you are going to lose. There's no way around that. 

And it's funny that you got all huffy about me presuming to know what you are thinking - yet you're doing the same thing re:what you think I want for healthcare. In my very last post I said Obama didn't do it correctly. "Try being honest in a discussion" - you, ~an hour ago.

The GOP gets people to vote for them because they're the party of no. Their message requires a different strategy. When Democrats win it's because they either have a charismatic dynamo like Obama, or because they push change (the yin to the Republican "no" yang) that the majority of voters are for. Obviously none of these candidates has anywhere close to Obama's charisma. So the answer is - let's push change that nobody wants? 

Alright, man. We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

Dems need to win the midwest with job deals, so the Ryan plan of bringing jobs of electric vehicles and solar panels is a starter. M4a needs to be tempered down as most people are not willing to part with their employer coverage, not to mention the people in the insurance industry who would be jobless (Cigna, UHC etc).  Extend Medicare to everyone, keep employer insurance, simple to understand and won't scare anyone.  This isn't as complicated as Surly believes.  And for cryin out loud, don't mention tax raises. 

[Mdhorn 5948]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Warren is peeling him clean over the next three weeks I bet.

Warren is for straight up open borders which is a no go.  Combine that with her reparations and she's dead in the water.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Mdhorn said:

Warren is for straight up open borders

Why do you do this.  Why say something so ignorant. 

Read her immigration plan please. 

[Mdhorn 5948]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why do you do this.  Why say something so ignorant. 

Read her immigration plan please. 

that was her sound bite from yesterday but I'll read it.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 

You mentioned in an earlier post that I was advocating getting more left voters, and you countered with the view that getting more ideology independent voters was much more important. That is actually what I also said in my post: getting ideology independent voters is very important.

 

But a few posts up from here, you advocated for getting more left voters. So I’m not quite clear on what you really believe is the path to winning. With that said, I don’t have a problem with the candidates leading with vision on a topic. The problem is that every one of these topics is incredibly controversial and without clarity of the policy the candidates look delusional. There will not be majority public support for ANY of these progressive policies if they are drawn up poorly. That tremendous lack of support could flip the election. Why risk that? You are correct that in past elections the Democratic Party did not lay out a clear vision and alternative to the Republicans and doing so is extremely important. We agree there. Where we disagree is on how far the party goes with that vision. You are pushing the ideology independent voters (the election deciders) too hard.

Sorry if I was unclear.   I said "although energizing the base is important" in the post about ideologically flexible voters, and there's no question that Dems need to turn out the left.   But I think that is mutually reinforcing with attracting ideologically flexible voters who want a strong vision.   A strong progressive vision will do double work, energizing the base and giving confidence to the people who just want something to believe in.   If we move to the center, we de-energize the base and trade vision for polling data.   In my view, that will hurt turnout on the left and fail to attract those ideologically flexible voters.

Also, my point here has been more about strategy than policy or ideology.   That is, about embracing policies we really believe in and persuading the public that we are right, not worrying about what Republicans will say or trying to triangulate a position from polling data.   There is a range of legitimate progressive policies that can be at the center of that strategy.   The question should be, what do we believe are the right policies for America? 

By no means am I advocating that the party move further left ideologically than Sanders.   I actually think that's too far.   I think the right spot is somewhere between Warren's policies and Harris's stated policies.   I just don't trust Harris and I think she'll move hard to the center/right during the general.   And I think Warren is really establishing a bargaining position on MFA and will move towards the Pete or Harris model as a compromise when push comes to shove.   Their plans are a better ending point for negotiations than a starting point. 

And the compromise aspect is the most important part of all of this.   Nothing these candidates propose will be enacted as is.   Everything in Washington ends in compromise by the design of our government.    Voters know this.   What I think they want in a president — what they've proven to want — is to be able to believe in a vision that will guide the president when making those compromises.    If you send in Warren against the GOP, you know that she'll fight for the strongest progressive ideals and wind up with a compromise that is center-left.    If you send in someone with a centrist starting point, they'll wind up with a compromise that is right of center.  So it's more about the values behind MFA than the policy details at this point.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

4 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Warren is for straight up open borders which is a no go.  

 

This is a nakedly bullshit statement.

Besides, what a president says he's for and what he gets are two different things. Trump said that he would built a wall and that the Mexicans would pay for it. So far, not a mile of new wall has been added and future generations of U.S. taxpayers are paying for it.