Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

So hey, all of you Warren voters. Tell me what you think of Warren's Medicare for All funding proposal.

I've heard it's really terrible from both mainstream and more deep dive lefty sources. Nobody seems happy with it. The head tax per worker at a flat rate of $9,500 is regressive and problematic. The 50 employee limit will hurt workers, as companies try to fit under 50, and large companies set up affiliated smaller companies as a workaround to paying the head tax. Businesses are incentivized to hire more contractors instead of workers, hurting the working class. She also strangely draws immigration reform into her funding plan (gee, that will make it easy to pass...), and she claims to reduce military spending to help pay for it (despite passing 3 consecutive bloated Trump military spending increases)... also, with businesses eating the cost of the head tax, they will find ways to scrape that back from workers. Just like Amazon re-worked company stock options and other benefits when they went to $15/hr. With Sanders' payroll tax, there aren't any easily exploitable ways to avoid the charge. It all seems like a terrible workaround to avoiding Sanders' payroll tax, from everything I've read and heard.

Anybody with alternative readings of her proposal? I'd welcome one of her supporters' thoughts on it.

[B-Fly]

He would be a game changer. I imagine he is doing this because of how well Warren and Sanders are doing. Who do you think he'd pull most from if he entered? Biden, I assume, but who else would lose out? Mayor Pete? Would he take over the middle lane? I know he is well liked, but he is another guy well into his 70s. I still think a younger candidate like Pete will emerge. Any of these over 70s winnings would be unprecedented.

I don't think one can just think in terms of the ideological spectrum or "lanes". I think each candidate brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Bloomberg is not an inspirational visionary or a feel-your-pain empath. He's a hyper-competent executive with decency and common sense. If you believe that the American system basically does work or can work, but we need the right leadership to manage the government effectively and efficiently, holding government administrators accountable for effective execution, and steering clear of scandal, nepotism, corruption, etc. -- then Bloomberg brings a heck of a lot to the table, and it's something I don't think the other candidates in the field can necessarily point to. The New York City government, and particularly the Office of the Mayor and the Mayoral agencies, is the largest executive government system in the country outside of the federal government. There's arguably no better proving ground of executive leadership and competence. Whereas DeBlasio successfully timed and caught a progressive wave and has been able to hold on despite serious questions/concerns about his leadership and competence, and Giuliani effectively meshed his tough-on-crime policies with national downward crime trends and rallied the City after 9/11 while otherwise being a paranoid, egotistical and divisive ass, Bloomberg largely transcended division and ideology for three terms and earned massive support and trust for executive/managerial competence. I don't line up with him on ideology and policy as much as I do with Warren, but I believe there are a lot of serious strengths he brings to the table.

[Gregg]

I don't think one can just think in terms of the ideological spectrum or "lanes". I think each candidate brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Bloomberg is not an inspirational visionary or a feel-your-pain empath. He's a hyper-competent executive with decency and common sense. If you believe that the American system basically does work or can work, but we need the right leadership to manage the government effectively and efficiently, holding government administrators accountable for effective execution, and steering clear of scandal, nepotism, corruption, etc. -- then Bloomberg brings a heck of a lot to the table, and it's something I don't think the other candidates in the field can necessarily point to. The New York City government, and particularly the Office of the Mayor and the Mayoral agencies, is the largest executive government system in the country outside of the federal government. There's arguably no better proving ground of executive leadership and competence. Whereas DeBlasio successfully timed and caught a progressive wave and has been able to hold on despite serious questions/concerns about his leadership and competence, and Giuliani effectively meshed his tough-on-crime policies with national downward crime trends and rallied the City after 9/11 while otherwise being a paranoid, egotistical and divisive ass, Bloomberg largely transcended division and ideology for three terms and earned massive support and trust for executive/managerial competence. I don't line up with him on ideology and policy as much as I do with Warren, but I believe there are a lot of serious strengths he brings to the table.

Thank you for posting this. I very much enjoyed everything about it. Much food for thought in this one.

[B-Fly]

So hey, all of you Warren voters. Tell me what you think of Warren's Medicare for All funding proposal.

I've heard it's really terrible from both mainstream and more deep dive lefty sources. Nobody seems happy with it. The head tax per worker at a flat rate of $9,500 is regressive and problematic. The 50 employee limit will hurt workers, as companies try to fit under 50, and large companies set up affiliated smaller companies as a workaround to paying the head tax. Businesses are incentivized to hire more contractors instead of workers, hurting the working class. She also strangely draws immigration reform into her funding plan (gee, that will make it easy to pass...), and she claims to reduce military spending to help pay for it (despite passing 3 consecutive bloated Trump military spending increases)... also, with businesses eating the cost of the head tax, they will find ways to scrape that back from workers. Just like Amazon re-worked company stock options and other benefits when they went to $15/hr. With Sanders' payroll tax, there aren't any easily exploitable ways to avoid the charge. It all seems like a terrible workaround to avoiding Sanders' payroll tax, from everything I've read and heard.

Anybody with alternative readings of her proposal? I'd welcome one of her supporters' thoughts on it.

I think it's to her credit that, as is her m.o., she's sweating the details and putting them out there. Since a President does not and cannot enact legislation by fiat, it's ultimately a starting point. And it can be and should be subject to extensive analysis by experts in the field to vet the numbers and think through likely impacts as much as possible before any bill comes to the floor. The old political adage is that you campaign in poetry but have to govern in prose. Warren, perhaps foolishly and perhaps at great political risk, is at least trying to write the prose during the campaign, while Sanders, among others, are largely sticking with the poetry so far.

[Teenwolf]

I think it's to her credit that, as is her m.o., she's sweating the details and putting them out there. Since a President does not and cannot enact legislation by fiat, it's ultimately a starting point. And it can be and should be subject to extensive analysis by experts in the field to vet the numbers and think through likely impacts as much as possible before any bill comes to the floor. The old political adage is that you campaign in poetry but have to govern in prose. Warren, perhaps foolishly and perhaps at great political risk, is at least trying to write the prose during the campaign, while Sanders, among others, are largely sticking with the poetry so far.

Yeah, the question is whether you think voters will be more drawn to the wonky difficult to decipher white paper approach, or something easy to understand like the way Sanders describes Medicare for All.

I would say poetry implies something fantastical whereas prose implies serious thinking. I think Warren's funding proposal is much more fantastical in its attempt to avoid taxation to pay for the plan, whereas Sanders' plan is more pragmatic and serious. So far, voters consistently trust Sanders more on health care than Warren. I don't think that will change.

[nots]

Compare Bloomberg’s 12 year run as NYC mayor vs. the lazy excuse making current mayor. Bloomberg is a highly effective, highly organized leader and his job running the toughest big city in the world is a testament to that.
I hope he enters the race and quickly.

[Sour Masher]

Compare Bloomberg’s 12 year run as NYC mayor vs. the lazy excuse making current mayor. Bloomberg is a highly effective, highly organized leader and his job running the toughest big city in the world is a testament to that.
I hope he enters the race and quickly.

I wouldn't mind it either. People need a more moderate candidate to choose from that has more experience and less flaws than the ones currently available. That will make the primaries a real test of ideology rather than personality.

[B-Fly]

Yeah, the question is whether you think voters will be more drawn to the wonky difficult to decipher white paper approach, or something easy to understand like the way Sanders describes Medicare for All.

I would say poetry implies something fantastical whereas prose implies serious thinking. I think Warren's funding proposal is much more fantastical in its attempt to avoid taxation to pay for the plan, whereas Sanders' plan is more pragmatic and serious. So far, voters consistently trust Sanders more on health care than Warren. I don't think that will change.

That's not what I mean when I speak of poetry vs. prose as an analogy. I think of poetry as inspiration and themes and broad outlines and prose as the nitty-gritty details. Both are super important and I didn't intend to denigrate either one.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, the question is whether you think voters will be more drawn to the wonky difficult to decipher white paper approach, or something easy to understand like the way Sanders describes Medicare for All.

I would say poetry implies something fantastical whereas prose implies serious thinking. I think Warren's funding proposal is much more fantastical in its attempt to avoid taxation to pay for the plan, whereas Sanders' plan is more pragmatic and serious. So far, voters consistently trust Sanders more on health care than Warren. I don't think that will change.

Sanders' plan is more straight forward and honest in its taxation, but it isn't going to be more popular. Both candidates face an uphill battle on this issue. I still think you have a skewed vision of American voters' political ideology, perhaps because of how much progressive media you consume. Yes, there are many people, especially younger people, who are willing to go as far as Sanders in State run everything (most of my students lean that way), but most older Americans are still wary of it. That include those like me who want to embrace it on moral grounds, but can't help acknowledge that the Sanders path, for all its noble intentions, is basically the textbook first step toward Marxism, and it nor any of its iterations has ever worked even remotely close as well as capitalism, with all its amorality and flaws.

That is why, personally, I am more drawn to Warren, because she wants many of the same things, but ideologically wants them under a system of empathetic and regulated capitalism. And even there, and even on the one issue where I agree with state control--health care, because I believe it should be a basic human right--she faces tremendous headwinds. And I get it. It is going to cost a fortune, and many are wary that for all that cost, it still might not be better than a more moderate plan that gives state run healthcare to those currently not covered while letting those currently covered keep what they have. I, like you, want people suffering and in need of care to get it. I think most people want that. I am willing to even pay for it, but I find many who are actually making money, as opposed to my students, do not.

That includes folks like my wife (who does like Mayor Pete, btw) and her parents, who are black--from Jamaica, specifically. Her parents are the hardest working people I know. They came from abject poverty and after decades of hard work, have earned a nice life. They are not looking to pay more taxes for a government run system. My father-in-law especially bristles at Sanders' calls for "free" everything. His progressivism extends so far as to want to ensure health coverage to every child, disabled person, and elderly person. But he doesn't want free anything for able bodied adults. He doesn't want to pay toward a system that supports able bodied adults that he thinks work less than him. He doesn't want state control of everything. And he isn't alone in America, or the black community. I've said before, if the GOP wasn't so racist, wasn't so openly antagonistic to minorities and immigrants, was more moderate, on the whole, it would draw so many more minorities into its tent than it does now. That is why, long term, I think the move to Trumpism will be catastrophic for the party. Demographics are changing, and the sharp turn to the right, and the alt-right, are going to sink the GOP long term.

[nots]

Sanders' plan is more straight forward and honest in its taxation, but it isn't going to be more popular. Both candidates face an uphill battle on this issue. I still think you have a skewed vision of American voters' political ideology, perhaps because of how much progressive media you consume. Yes, there are many people, especially younger people, who are willing to go as far as Sanders in State run everything (most of my students lean that way), but most older Americans are still wary of it. That include those like me who want to embrace it on moral grounds, but can't help acknowledge that the Sanders path, for all its noble intentions, is basically the textbook first step toward Marxism, and it nor any of its iterations has ever worked even remotely close as well as capitalism, with all its amorality and flaws.

That is why, personally, I am more drawn to Warren, because she wants many of the same things, but ideologically wants them under a system of empathetic and regulated capitalism. And even there, and even on the one issue where I agree with state control--health care, because I believe it should be a basic human right--she faces tremendous headwinds. And I get it. It is going to cost a fortune, and many are wary that for all that cost, it still might not be better than a more moderate plan that gives state run healthcare to those currently not covered while letting those currently covered keep what they have. I, like you, want people suffering and in need of care to get it. I think most people want that. I am willing to even pay for it, but I find many who are actually making money, as opposed to my students, do not.

That includes folks like my wife (who does like Mayor Pete, btw) and her parents, who are black--from Jamaica, specifically. Her parents are the hardest working people I know. They came from abject poverty and after decades of hard work, have earned a nice life. They are not looking to pay more taxes for a government run system. My father-in-law especially bristles at Sanders' calls for "free" everything. His progressivism extends so far as to want to ensure health coverage to every child, disabled person, and elderly person. But he doesn't want free anything for able bodied adults. He doesn't want to pay toward a system that supports able bodied adults that he thinks work less than him. He doesn't want state control of everything. And he isn't alone in America, or the black community. I've said before, if the GOP wasn't so racist, wasn't so openly antagonistic to minorities and immigrants, was more moderate, on the whole, it would draw so many more minorities into its tent than it does now. That is why, long term, I think the move to Trumpism will be catastrophic for the party. Demographics are changing, and the sharp turn to the right, and the alt-right, are going to sink the GOP long term.

Maybe your father-in-law should run for office. Sounds like I would vote for him.

[Sour Masher]

Maybe your father-in-law should run for office. Sounds like I would vote for him.

Ha, he is a good dude. Wish I had a dad like him growing up. He supported Bennett, but he is obviously dead in the water.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I thought this was an interesting interview/forum with Biden on our foreign policy with respect to Russia:

It's an hour long, but I felt I left it knowing Biden a lot better.

[revo]

Rep. Peter King, who represents Nassau County on Long Island, becomes the 20th GOP rep to announce they're not seeking re-election. But he is in a district that is trending more Democratic, and despite having been in Congress since 1993, he beat a very little known Democratic challenger by just 6% in 2018.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pete-king-retires-republican-20191111-a3r2ib6n7jaqloivynq2s5xaa4-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0K_hKPM_i-roXtFHAx2HGtaq_q9kjUb18IW40Pip40q-a336mhrprzUwM

[Teenwolf]

Elizabeth Warren consistently fails when faced with tough questions. Her answer this weekend regarding the voting order of the primary states was particularly revealing. She acted annoyed at having to answer a tough question, and her ultimate response "I'm just a player in the game" sure doesn't sound like someone out to enact big structural change.

This commentary analyzes Warren's problems with answering tough questions, and "needing to get an A".

[Sour Masher]

Elizabeth Warren consistently fails when faced with tough questions. Her answer this weekend regarding the voting order of the primary states was particularly revealing. She acted annoyed at having to answer a tough question, and her ultimate response "I'm just a player in the game" sure doesn't sound like someone out to enact big structural change.

This commentary analyzes Warren's problems with answering tough questions, and "needing to get an A".

The compilation doesn't make her look great. It clearly has an agenda of doing so as well, though. I suspect you could do this with any of the candidates, although, I admit, Bernie is in a constant state of agitation, so he probably wouldn't get caught getting flustered/agitated at a question . I kid, I kid. He answers tough questions head on more than most. But I'd bet you could find some fumbles even from him.