|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Predicting presidential election results based on national popularity polling is one of the biggest mistakes pollsters made in 2016. theblackw0lf posted:If there was a plan proposed that would guarantee everyone a free health care public plan with no-copays ore deductibles, that would include dental and visual, and would be about the most generous plan that exists in the world, but still allowed private insurance to exist, you really think that would have a hard time generating a huge base of support? Private insurance should be eliminated, though, and I don't think there's any value in tiptoeing around that fact. Yeah, it may poll worse now - and that's why we need to spend the next couple of years publicly building the case for killing them, not lying through our teeth about how we expect the mob healthcare plans to coexist peacefully with one they don't have their fingers in. In particular, "letting it die off naturally on its own via market forces" is not the easy solution that's promised. It'll cause incredible amounts of chaos and disruption in the markets as private insurance flails to survive, plenty of people will be caught up in that through no fault of their own, and the dying private insurance companies will make sure to blame the public option as they demand bailouts and insist that the public option be weakened for the sake of fair competition. And they'll get plenty of agreement, because it'll be incredibly obvious to everyone that the private insurance industry has been set up to fail, they'll have made investing in lobbying and PR their primary strategy over however many years they continue to exist, and the entire basis of this whole strategy is that liberals are too chicken to come out and say "private insurance shouldn't even be in the market of necessary expenses".
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
If you kill the private insurance industry, be sure to hire all those actuaries and people, train them, and put them in the IRS since that's been weakened so hard. Go after big business and Oligarchs like the Koch's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Predicting presidential election results based on national popularity polling is one of the biggest mistakes pollsters made in 2016. So your argument, which from what I can tell has a lot of merit, is that if we are going to be transitioning out of the private insurance market we need be intentional about it and a M4A plan should also help in the assistance of the transition, by alleviating the negative effects of that disruption. That’s a really compelling argument. I’ll have to think about it some more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:So your argument, which from what I can tell has a lot of merit, is that if we are going to be transitioning out of the private insurance market we need be intentional about it and a M4A plan should also help in the assistance of the transition, by alleviating the negative effects of that disruption. Yeah I hadn't fully considered it but private insurance companies employ a ton of people and yeah there needs to be a deliberate plan to deal with those positions dying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:This is a bad answer That is a truly terrible answer. Yes we all know that the reason the GOP filibustered literally everything Obama wanted to do was just because they wanted to "debate more" lol. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That is a truly terrible answer. Yes we all know that the reason the GOP filibustered literally everything Obama wanted to do was just because they wanted to "debate more" lol. gently caress off. Based on what I heard, I don’t think that’s what she’s saying though. I think she’s talking about the idea of the filibuster in general, rather than how it applies in our current situation. Still though, it’s bad because unless you point out that Reps are completely unreasonable then it reinforces the idea that if Dems can’t get support it’s because of some flaw of the bill or how it’s been messaged. I mean c’’mon even Obama started pointing out how loving nuts the GOP obstruction is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
jon favstar will never prestige the jon class at this rate
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Wouldn’t be so sure. It’s based on Modern Monetary Theory which is becoming more popular in political circles. AOC said she’s open to it, and even Howard Dean says there’s a lot of validity to the idea. I don't really know what to say to this. On the one hand, it seems odd to say that you can educate voters on MMT when your premise is that they're too irrational to comprehend the much easier to understand empirical proof that single-payer is superior. On the other hand maybe that doesn't matter because I'm skeptical voters really care about the deficit, they never hold Republicans accountable for it after all. So you could just not address it or claim it will pay for itself or w/e Republicans say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Where are you getting this poo poo They can't keep their plan, though. Introducing a worthwhile public option would immediately render most existing private plans uneconomical. So your current plan would have to significantly increase premiums, cut benefits, or (most likely) both. Rather than thinking "boy, the public option sure is cheaper", people will ask "gee, why did my private insurance get massively worse as soon as the government passed a big healthcare takeover bill?". And the insurance companies will happily blame M4A. The thing is that a lot of people get caught up in this transition period as private insurance collapses! Better to rip the band-aid off on day 1 and smoothly transition everyone to M4A, rather than standing back and waiting for all the beep-boop rational actors to analyze the market forces as the industry collapses around them. Fundamentally, the answer to people's worries isn't "if you like your plan, you can keep it", it's "we'll give you a plan that's better in literally every way". theblackw0lf posted:So your argument, which from what I can tell has a lot of merit, is that if we are going to be transitioning out of the private insurance market we need be intentional about it and a M4A plan should also help in the assistance of the transition, by alleviating the negative effects of that disruption. Yeah, exactly. The thing about market forces is they're messy, inefficient, and cause a lot of collateral damage - at least at the level of the average person who isn't following economic trends as their full-time job. Simply setting up unfavorable market conditions and waiting for insurance companies to fail on their own is nice and easy and non-interventionist, but the industry won't fail smoothly. As it struggles to stay afloat, service and quality will degrade and prices will skyrocket, and the people who believed "if you like your plan you can keep it" will be the ones caught up in the industry's death throes. Instead of being smoothly transitioned over to M4A in a planned fashion as the private industry is put to rest, they'll be caught up in the chaos of their dying insurance company and suffer significant personal hardship which causes them to jump ship in an unpredictable fashion. Eliminating private insurance from the competition on day one will make for a much smoother and more painless transition. Simply setting private insurance up to fail may have a lower upfront political cost, but the ones who will ultimately pay the price for that are the very consumers that move is meant to appeal to. Other than the financial and physical difficulties inflicted on people who believe the lie and stick with doomed private insurance, that could also very well have significant political implications down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
I'm just loving sick of Democrats acting like they're smart and clever while losing to Republicans over and over again. This isn't The West Wing, politics aren't three-dimensional chess, we aren't going to sneak our way to good outcomes around people's backs without having to fight or risk getting yelled at. Just run on good polices, fight for good policies, defend good policies, tear your throat yelling good policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Based on what I heard, I don’t think that’s what she’s saying though. I think she’s talking about the idea of the filibuster in general, rather than how it applies in our current situation. The filibuster in general is bad and shouldn’t exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The filibuster in general is bad and shouldn’t exist. Yea at this point in time I agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
can we move the discussion of the best way to legislate M4A in a hypothetical future congress to another thread? it has basically nothing to do with the presidential election, since no candidates have a plan detailed enough anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I'm just loving sick of Democrats acting like they're smart and clever while losing to Republicans over and over again. This isn't The West Wing, politics aren't three-dimensional chess, we aren't going to sneak our way to good outcomes around people's backs without having to fight or risk getting yelled at. I think there's this odd psychology where it's assumed that the reason something like say single-payer hasn't happened yet, must be because it's complicated and not the actual reason (both parties work for the same oligarchs who don't want it to happen). Giving people healthcare can't be as simple as "give people healthcare" because then it would have happened in 2008 when Democrats had a supermajority and could pass anything they wanted without obstruction or even worrying about industry motivating public opinion against it because by the time an election came around it would be too late to undo it. So it can't be that Democrats didn't want to do it, it must be an intractable problem that is unsolvable without some intricate Rube Goldberg solution that will pull the wool over everyone's eyes and so insurance companies, big pharma, and the American people will just one day wake up with single-payer and not even notice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
All this filibuster talk is a moot point if the Dems can't even get to 50 in the Senate. And looking at the 2020 map, that's going to be a pretty big challenge for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think there's this odd psychology where it's assumed that the reason something like say single-payer hasn't happened yet, must be because it's complicated and not the actual reason (both parties work for the same oligarchs who don't want it to happen). You can't just build libraries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:All this filibuster talk is a moot point if the Dems can't even get to 50 in the Senate. And looking at the 2020 map, that's going to be a pretty big challenge for them. The general opinion is 'could go either way'. Republicans have a permanent structural advantage in the senate but they also have a lot more seats to defend, including quite a few at-risk ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:can we move the discussion of the best way to legislate M4A in a hypothetical future congress to another thread? it has basically nothing to do with the presidential election, since no candidates have a plan detailed enough anyway In what ways is S.1804 not detailed enough to discuss?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, exactly. The thing about market forces is they're messy, inefficient, and cause a lot of collateral damage - at least at the level of the average person who isn't following economic trends as their full-time job. So far the only answer to this has been "gently caress 'em, by the time this happens the law is in place and it's too late", which is an answer I guess, it's what Obama did after all. Of course, that was horrible politically and he ended up trying to pivot to the argument he could have made from the beginning "your plan sucked anyways and you're better off now" which was...a lot less convincing after lying about it for 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:can we move the discussion of the best way to legislate M4A in a hypothetical future congress to another thread? it has basically nothing to do with the presidential election, since no candidates have a plan detailed enough anyway bernie does and he's almost certainly running
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In what ways is S.1804 not detailed enough to discuss? fine-tuning s.1804 isn't really relevant to the presidential primaries until a candidate brings up the subject of improving it or rejecting it but only because of such-and-such detail somewhere. it's fine and good to have an opinion on the role of private insurance under nationalized healthcare, but how does that opinion relate to the presidential primary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
I don't want to sound like I'm pimping  but I think "I don't know," is not a bad answer to "will you kill the filibuster." Because I think if you asked that same question even a few months ago it would have been an out-of-hand rejection. Saying "I don't know," telegraphs that you know it might be necessary without giving much if any fodder to right wing alarmists who probably have 50 articles pre-written for this and court-packing related stuff. How many people voted for Trump solely to "save," Scalia's seat? Polls indicated it was not a small number.I know the reaction is to assume that it's actually cover in the OTHER direction to make leftists think she might when she has no intention, but this early in the game it's not something that needs to be pressed too hard. I don't even think Bernie would answer a flat yes to that question, at least not at this stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:fine-tuning s.1804 isn't really relevant to the presidential primaries until a candidate brings up the subject of improving it or rejecting it but only because of such-and-such detail somewhere. it's fine and good to have an opinion on the role of private insurance under nationalized healthcare, but how does that opinion relate to the presidential primary? There is Sander's history of writing health care bills that end up being an absolute nightmare when enacted into law and privatize major parts of care in the pursuit of "choice". https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2450
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I don't want to sound like I'm pimping And politics in a democracy is all about mandates i.e. getting a clear unequivocal sense of what the people want, and then executing on that. This is why Democrats, ironically, are loving terrible at democracy and the Republicans frequently run circles around them especially in engagement of their base: the Republicans know what Republicans want (more racism) and they deliver. This is a general problem with triangulation and other forms of not-saying-what-you-stand-for (and its cousin, not-standing-for-anything). But, this one is especially egregious, because in this case the mandate is all the President would have. Other than harsh language there's nothing a President can do to end the filibuster. Candidates need to just loving say what they stand for from the start in clear and expressive language, and let the people decide. This isn't poker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I'm just loving sick of Democrats acting like they're smart and clever while losing to Republicans over and over again. This isn't The West Wing, politics aren't three-dimensional chess, we aren't going to sneak our way to good outcomes around people's backs without having to fight or risk getting yelled at. This is a really bad strategy if you want those cushy private lobbying jobs after leaving congress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I don't want to sound like I'm pimping It's a bad answer because it isn't one those right-wing alarmists will say she's secretly planning to destroy democracy anyway, just say yes or no and move on from there
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That is a truly terrible answer. Yes we all know that the reason the GOP filibustered literally everything Obama wanted to do was just because they wanted to "debate more" lol. gently caress off. Yup. I don't get the Gillibrand boosters. She's just an opportunist, not a fighter. Sanguinia posted:I don't want to sound like I'm pimping It's the second half of the response that's the problem, not the first. We don't need more . No amount of advocacy will convince a bad faith actor to become a good faith actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
The question of ending the filibuster doesn't really seem like a matter of principle but a matter of tactics, and the correct tactical answer really depends on the seat count. As of today there is no reason to prioritize ending the filibuster. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
What do you guys think about Buttigieg? https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1088016937718874112?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:What do you guys think about Buttigieg? He doesn’t have a big enough platform to get meaningful numbers in a presidential primary irrespective of his stances imo. He’s aiming for higher office/the Cabinet/status boosting here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:What do you guys think about Buttigieg? Run for Senate you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Run for Senate you idiot. He probably will at some point. But in the meantime, might as well get his name out there, raise his profile a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
The filibuster is good when my team needs it and bad wheb the other team needs it
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The filibuster is good when my team needs it and bad wheb the other team needs it No. It's universally bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
The Federalist Papers posted:To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy. But on the other hand a bunch of empty land and a few large landowners will be sad if poor people get healthcare
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1088095475553763328 https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1088103513983500288 https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1088105229369987072 Yay, we get to do the "paid speeches" scandal all over again
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The question of ending the filibuster doesn't really seem like a matter of principle but a matter of tactics, and the correct tactical answer really depends on the seat count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:
Cashing in on your office is a bad look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Paid speeches to colleges are whatever, paid speeches to multinational banks and in support of Republican politicians is hilariously terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Also helping elect Republicans is bad. I know a chud, that doesn’t mean I’m going to help his rear end get into Congress just cos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:35
|
|
