|
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 | ||
|
mandatory lesbian posted:I forgot the Mueller report was a thing happening for like 3 months, I'm pretty sure other disengaged people will have forgot about it in a week or two Mueller report dropping now was the best thing that could have happened. We were always going to have to vote out Trump in 2020, and the report was looking more and more like it wasn't going to be the smoking gun. If it dropped in October, it might have dampened Dem turnout in 2018. If it dropped too much later than now, it might have affected the 2020 cycle. But it coming out now? We haven't even started to weed out the Dem candidates.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:They recognized them, but didn’t put anywhere near enough systemic safeguards to mitigate their impact (because they saw it as a much smaller problem than monarchy or mob rule). Like I think the founders would dismiss a Trump scenario as implausible because *obviously* Congress would remove a President this unfit to serve. Wasn't the entire point of the Electoral College to keep wildly unqualified and dangerous candidates like Trump out of office? Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Gravel > Bernie > Warren > Inslee > booty guy > kill me
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Wasn't the entire point of the Electoral College to keep wildly unqualified and dangerous candidates like Trump out of office? It also provides for a semi-democratic method to figure out who is president if there is no clear majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
The American system makes a bit more sense when you understand that the founders never even considered that political parties would rise to prominence. They basically assumed that each state would vote for a candidate from that state, so the EC would decide who gets to be president most of the time.
The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:What are Pete’s actual positions on the big issues? His website sucks. https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 Killing people is bad unless they have brown skin, then it’s patriotic
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 Well lots of brown and black people dying to firearms in this country, mayor butt is ok with it on foreign soil though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
Mayor Pete is a chill cool guy who says some good things but yeah why isn’t he listing actual policy yet and updating his site dunno. He’s third behind Sanders and Warren.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
I could have sworn that I read a Buddha Judge quote saying that he isn't going to AIPAC because he wasn't invited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I could have sworn that I read a Buddha Judge quote saying that he isn't going to AIPAC because he wasn't invited. yeah . He’s a succdem liberal . but he speaks 8 languages !!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How does the conclusion reached by Mueller's Report impact chances in 2020? I'd like to think not much, but I've been hearing alot of doomsaying elsewhere. It's unlikely to change many minds, though maybe it'll finally break down the Mueller worship. I just don't think there are that many people who were on the fence about whether or not Trump is a corrupt sack of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
It would be good if Mayor Pete came at Bernie from the left on guns, rhetoric about killing brown people off versus on US soil notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:Ahh it got implied he said it on the trail my bad. Regardless after Obama I'm not really willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these guys not trying to work with Republicans to gently caress our safety net when they clearly want to. The thing about Beto is that he doesn't seem to have any ideology. He'll just go where the wind blows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
I like Bernie's stance on guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The thing about Beto is that he doesn't seem to have any ideology. He'll just go where the wind blows. That's the image he wants to project but it's pretty clear he's very right wing on economic matters (and all the social problems that leads to). He would be another Obama that mysteriously stacked his cabinet with a bunch of industry people and then just be forced to lead based on their counsel. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Mar 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
And once he's in office anyone complaining about his pivot to big business conservatism should shut up because his record was out there and they should have seen this coming and the time to bring it up was the primary
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
No one has no ideology, especially not a rich politician.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Yeah Beto is a Trojan horse and nominating him would mean the democrats have learned absolutely nothing since 2016. Pete is the compromise candidate and Sanders is ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:It would be good if Mayor Pete came at Bernie from the left on guns, rhetoric about killing brown people off versus on US soil notwithstanding. In a rally the other day, Bernie called for a ban like the one New Zealand passed. Of course, be called them assault weapons, so we might get toothless garbage, but I line to think he's calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
If mayor Pete supports single payer he passes my threshold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Mayor Pete has said (on a Fox News interview) that single payer is the obvious ideal to work towards, but he is pushing "Medicare for all who want it" by offering a public option on the marketplace, and if it is as successful as he hopes, then keep going onto single payer. Take that how you will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:Mayor Pete has said (on a Fox News interview) that single payer is the obvious ideal to work towards, but he is pushing "Medicare for all who want it" by offering a public option on the marketplace, and if it is as successful as he hopes, then keep going onto single payer. That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place. Assuming, of course, that the public option is designed in a way that allows it to fairly compete, and isn't badly watered down as soon as it starts upending the private insurance market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place. I don't totally disagree in principle but you know they're going to make sure to run the public option by their good friends at Aetna to vet/gut it. Private insurance companies are smart and if public option will kill them they will neuter it
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place. Assuming it's allowed to. Insurance companies will lobby hard to make sure it isn't, and that's a very easy vote to make because it's complicated to explain to the public exactly why "the public option will compete on a level playing field" actually means higher costs in both public spending and out-of-pocket charges to patients. Which is why, when the public option is actually written, the CBO consistently finds that " The option would have minimal effects on the number of people with other sources of coverage and on the number of people who would be uninsured", in other words it's never written to be equivalent to single payer or even universal healthcare at all. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44890
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Was there still anyone hoping for the basta man to run?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Yeah Beto is a Trojan horse and nominating him would mean the democrats have learned absolutely nothing since ftfy
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/connerhabib/status/1110177772675096577?s=21
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Feel the Butt
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
"I'm here to set up your pumping machine." (I'm assuming that's what the blocked sign says)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Was there still anyone hoping for the basta man to run? they are all gone now rip
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 Yeah, I can’t vote for anyone that said this stupid poo poo. What a time that was when every troop dem chimed in with this exact same statement. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Some Buttiguys set up https://www.meetpete.com which is a pretty good if not exhaustive resource on his talking points and policies and whatnot. His campaign strategy (and I'm not saying it's a good one) might be to have very little info on his website and make people go listen to what he has to say. edit: holy poo poo new avatar day, thanks PPJ!!  idk what it is, but i love it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Assuming, of course, that the public option is designed in a way that allows it to fairly compete, and isn't badly watered down as soon as it starts upending the private insurance market. That amounts to a debate over the exact content of the specific proposed public option. Like, technically speaking ,Medicare is a "public option," because you can buy private insurance on top of it. Sabotage isn't guaranteed and literally any health care proposal is vulnerable to this same kind of "well, it won't work because corporate interests will sabotage it" attack.  ("We can't have single payer because the corporations will never let it pass," etc.)Either it's good or it isn't, but that's a policy debate to have on the merits of a specific proposed policy, not something you can just knee-jerk and dismiss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That amounts to a debate over the exact content of the specific proposed public option. Like, technically speaking ,Medicare is a "public option," because you can buy private insurance on top of it. Sabotage isn't guaranteed and literally any health care proposal is vulnerable to this same kind of "well, it won't work because corporate interests will sabotage it" attack. OK so what can we conclude about the fact that anytime specifics for a public option have been proposed it's been a corporate wet dream that is so crippled as to be useless, and all the candidates proposing a public option refuse to give any specifics and are deliberately vague. If your argument is "we need to argue about the merits of a specific proposed policy" only one exists and that's Medicare-for-All, everything else is just buying a pig-in-a-poke. Also if any proposal is an equally difficult fight to pass over corporate lobbying, then the logical conclusion is to fight for the best proposal, as worse proposals are not easier to pass and come with other drawbacks like higher costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:all the candidates proposing a public option refuse to give any specifics and are deliberately vague. It's still two years out, that's expected. What to do is, ask the candidates for specifics. Candidate events at this stage are still generally pretty small population, individual people can ask questions. Challenge and clarify and push. People have this weirdly eschatonic approach to the health care debate, like if we're all sufficiently pure of heart then Magic Single Payer will descend from the heavens. Even "medicare for all" isn't that clear. For example, Buttigieg claims to support "Medicare for All" but would also allow optional private coverage to continue to exist. That's still within the limits of the term and not a misnomer or dishonest because current Medicare also allows that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
You can't criticize the specifics of Beto's healthcare policy because he doesn't have a healthcare policy, checkmate single-payerailures 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
I guess I have trouble seeing the point of a public option. The problem is that privatized healthcare is too expensive and/or provides insufficient coverage. The only reason to create a public option is to solve one/both of those problems. If it does, private insurance is fundamentally inferior, and will immediately implode, which would be great (for everyone not a private insurance employee who doesn't immediately get transitioned to a public employment position). Is there anything positive beyond providing some form of buffer to the institutional change/cost?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:
Nah, that's it. It's just a way to ease the transition to the public system. What you're missing is that private insurance won't "immediately" implode. It'll happen over a 5-10 year timeframe and will end up with private insurance still existing, just for non-essential care (cosmetic surgery, luxury nursing home retirement, etc.); frills and bonuses. Plenty of other nations have such systems, including England.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That works. Any public option is functionally equivalent to single payer, as the public option will outcompete in the market place. gently caress the market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's still two years out, that's expected. What to do is, ask the candidates for specifics. Candidate events at this stage are still generally pretty small population, individual people can ask questions. Challenge and clarify and push. Your approach to politics is so fundamentally wrong that I don't even know if we can communicate but I'll try. These candidates are coming to us trying to convince us that they should be President. Why should they be given that job if they don't even have a healthcare policy? Why the gently caress haven't they figured that out yet, they've had two years. And why is "hey here's a specific policy cosponsored by a bunch of congressmen" described as "waiting for Magic Single Payer from the sky"? Medicare For All is the only serious concrete well-defined proposal, everyone else is running on wishes and unicorn farts and assuring us if we just trust them a magic plan will come into being. So enough with the gaslighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 20:28
|
|