System Message

reignonyourparade posted:

Capitalism is bad vs capitalism is good is actually the single largest ideological difference.

DaveWoo posted:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1095531602443030533

Holy poo poo he is so bad at this

Morbus posted:

I think it's an oversimplification to say that Warren thinks capitalism is good and Sanders thinks capitalism is bad. Sander's platform doesn't really contain any post-capitalist ideas--it's pretty standard raise taxes, take money from rich, fund stuff we need welfare capitalism. And his proposed mechanisms for doing that mostly rely on income and estate taxes, which are arguably inferior to Warren's more radical proposal of simply taxing wealth directly and continuously

reignonyourparade posted:

Their platforms might not say that, but one of them self-describes as a socialist and the other only stopped being republican when they decided republicans just weren't responsible stewards of capitalism anymore. What they actually do with the office MIGHT not end up being particularly different, but only one of them has any possibility of empowering people in the democratic party that are anti-capitalist, something that needs to happen for the world not to end.

DaveWoo posted:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1095531602443030533

Holy poo poo he is so bad at this

DaveWoo posted:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1095531602443030533

Holy poo poo he is so bad at this

KingNastidon posted:

I guess we will see. I am fascinated what it would take for people here to even partially acknowledge that it's related to his politics being too far outside of democratic party mainstream or "unpopular" rather than some other nefarious or seemingly trvial reason.

Not that his positions are wrong or it's bad he's saying such things and broadening the window of discussion. But rather if it'll just take another 10-15 years until public consensus moves to him in the democratic party. Especially when the common factor in 2020 is safely beating Trump and not a great progressive leap forward.

Cerebral Bore posted:

Bernie's policies poll at like 70+% with Democratic voters, you absolute dunderhead.

KingNastidon posted:

Great, we will celebrate together when his current M4A bill ushers him to victory in the primary on the back of that 70%. And all the other dems fall in line supporting that implementation because it's so overwhelmingly popular.

Cerebral Bore posted:

It's kinda funny that you don't even try to defend your claim that Bernie's policies aren't popular when called on it. I guess you hoped that nobody would notice?

KFF Poll posted:

This month’s KFF Health Tracking Poll finds the net favorability of attitudes towards a national Medicare-for-all plan can swing significantly, depending on what arguments the public hears.

Net favorability towards a national Medicare-for-all plan (measured as the share in favor minus the share opposed) starts at +14 percentage points and ranges as high as +45 percentage points when people hear the argument that this type of plan would guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans. Net favorability is also high (+37 percentage points) when people hear that this type of plan would eliminate all premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs. Yet, on the other side of the debate, net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments. Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).

While most Americans (77 percent) are aware they would have to pay more in taxes to cover the cost of health insurance if a national Medicare-for-all plan was put into place, there is some confusion about whether people would be able to keep their current health insurance. Most people under the age of 65 and who currently have employer-sponsored insurance say that if a national health plan was put into place, they would be able to keep their current coverage (55 percent) while about four in ten (37 percent) are aware they would notbe able to keep their current coverage.

And while majorities say low-income people and people who currently don’t have health insurance would be “better off” if a national Medicare-for-all plan was put into place, there is less certainty among the public about how much it would impact them, personally. Across demographic groups, about four in ten say that if a national Medicare-for-all plan was put into place it “would not have much impact” on them.

Despite the recent attention on proposals to expand Medicare or Medicaid, when asked to choose Democrats would rather the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives focus their efforts on “improving and protecting the ACA” rather than “passing a national Medicare-for-all plan.” Half (51 percent) of Democrats say House Democrats should focus on the ACA while four in ten (38 percent) say they should focus on passing a national Medicare-for-all plan. The share of Democrats who want Congress to focus on passing a national Medicare-for-all plan is down 10 percentage points from March 2018.

Condiv posted:

yeah, people will definitely be scared off. i mean, look at how bernie is the least popular politician in the country thanks to embracing an extremist label like "socialist" and talking poo poo about millionaires and billionaires. people really want moderates, which is why trump won in 2016 over hillary

KingNastidon posted:

Yet Hillary won the primary. Yes, it's not a fair comparison because Sanders is much more well known now, will run more seriously, super delegates, etc. But the centrists also don't have 20+ years of baggage like Hillary. I don't think conventional wisdom within democratic party is that she lost the general because she was too moderate, but because she's Hillary Clinton or Russia or laziness or bad luck in swing states.

I'm not going to convince you that Sanders isn't likely to win nor discourage you from voting for him. I think he has better odds than any other single candidate, just not the field. Especially with Warren in that field. I think he's very likely to get ganged up on because he is the front runner and the furthest left. Every single candidate can truthfully say they're proposing what would be the most progressive platform in the history of the party without going full Bernie. I could very much be wrong and will toxx on it, but he and his policies are not immune to valid criticisms. And the primaries are a very long ways away for the shine to come off.

Ghost Leviathan posted:

It's pretty clear at this point that the popularity of 'moderation' is massively, critically overestimated, and that it's becoming clear to more people that it basically means total inaction or capitulation to the right.

What are these 'valid arguments' against Bernie's policies?

Cerebral Bore posted:

Yeah, I'm sure that if you make some bullshit push poll about M4A you can get the answers you want.

gourdcaptain posted:

Who are these people who like their private health insurance? Even when I've got a job that gives decent insurance in principle like my current one, I lose multiple hours a month arguing with them to actually get them to pay out for my regular prescriptions that they did last month and are denying this month with no explanation, or that they ignored a letter from a doctor or something.

gourdcaptain posted:

Who are these people who like their private health insurance? Even when I've got a job that gives decent insurance in principle like my current one, I lose multiple hours a month arguing with them to actually get them to pay out for my regular prescriptions that they did last month and are denying this month with no explanation, or that they ignored a letter from a doctor or something.

Z. Autobahn posted:

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1095415793406361600?s=20

Harris is definitely the one to worry about

(Sanders and Biden aren't in yet of course, so enormous grain of salt, but her ascendancy from the bottom of the lists to the top in the last month is noteworthy)

(also lol Schultz)

Phlegmish posted:

No Klobuchar?

gourdcaptain posted:

Who are these people who like their private health insurance? Even when I've got a job that gives decent insurance in principle like my current one, I lose multiple hours a month arguing with them to actually get them to pay out for my regular prescriptions that they did last month and are denying this month with no explanation, or that they ignored a letter from a doctor or something.

Vox/KFF Poll posted:

The polling bears out this sentiment: 83 percent of people with employer-sponsored insurance said in March 2016 that they thought their health insurance was excellent or good, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The status quo is powerful in American health care — while there are problems, people are worried about big changes that could upend the system they rely on today.

Cease to Hope posted:

rich people, and people who fear having to switch to yet another bureaucracy that will inevitably screw them over through indifference or poorly-conceived policy. i can empathize with fearing change, even if i think it's a self-destructive impulse that must be guarded against.

KingNastidon posted:

Condiv posted:

at quoting a study done by the kff

KingNastidon posted:

Then share polling or market research orgs you trust more. Specific data points that refute KFF's findings would be helpful.

What's your complaint with KFF's methodology, anyway? Why are they so broadly cited?

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

you are quoting the Phillip Morris Institute on the health benefits of smoking.

KingNastidon posted:

Ok, Yeowch. Also more than happy to consider your preferred polling and market research orgs with different results for similar questions.

KFF isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente, but if you have any articles explaining why they're biased or their methodology is flawed would love to see those too.

quote:

The Foundation was established in 1948 by Henry J. Kaiser. The Kaiser Family Foundation was originally set up in Oakland, California, the same city in which Kaiser Permanente's headquarters were located.

Condiv posted:

not affiliated

KingNastidon posted:

Ok, Yeowch. Also more than happy to consider your preferred polling and market research orgs with different results for similar questions.

KFF isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente, but if you have any articles explaining why they're biased or their methodology is flawed would love to see those too.

Morbus posted:

I mean, I wouldn't characterize the ideological differences between Warren and Sanders as necessarily "large" when compared against the broader context of Warren or Sanders vs. Harris, Klobuchar, Biden or Trump.

KingNastidon posted:

Well, their website says otherwise and I don't think two orgs being based in Oakland or San Francisco means that much. A common name doesn't mean the polling methodology is wrong. FiveThirtyEight gives the Fox News pollsters the same rating as Gallup and better than Pew.

Open to reading any articles you have that say otherwise! Might be more useful than an emote.

gourdcaptain posted:

Who are these people who like their private health insurance? Even when I've got a job that gives decent insurance in principle like my current one, I lose multiple hours a month arguing with them to actually get them to pay out for my regular prescriptions that they did last month and are denying this month with no explanation, or that they ignored a letter from a doctor or something.