Election 2020

[The Feral Slasher]

I'll run. My entire platform: Try to not be an asshole.

This ought to end well

[umjewman]

I'll run. My entire platform: Try to not be an asshole.

"Trying is the first step towards failure."

-Homer Simpson-

[Bernie Brewer]

I'll run. My entire platform: Try to not be an asshole.

You have my vote!

[onejayhawk]

Being a contrarian and all, isn’t this exactly like 2016? The Dems comfortably ahead and trump believes he is doing much better than the poles? And, as Paul Harvey once said, and now you know the rest of the story.

Except that the Democrats were further ahead and Trump was not incumbent.

J

[Teenwolf]

Elizabeth Warren stumbled in her CNN Town Hall on the question of Medicare for All. Now, she's actively avoiding the topic. One of her campaign slogans is "I want big structural change". Other policy she is running on includes women's choice, child care, student debt, and green jobs. Yet she's running away from the 1 progressive policy that even some centrists like Kamala Harris have been better at answering to.

I don't think her stance on health care will do well in the debates. I hope the debates clarify this, but it might take a while to pare down the pretenders and get more substantive dialogue.

[Teenwolf]

Jacobin article on Warren's refusal to support Medicare for All was very good.

Warren had several opportunities in the town hall to address the health care crisis. Instead, she avoided the topic almost entirely. Even when discussing issues directly related to health care like repealing the Hyde Amendment and improving access to hearing aides, she neglected to propose a comprehensive policy solution.

Unfortunately, this was not a simple case of forgetfulness. In fact, it continues a disturbing trend with the Warren campaign. Check her website: in a long and thorough issues page full of bold plans to alleviate Americans’ suffering, Warren makes no mention of health care. View her campaign materials: Warren has yard signs dedicated to several of her major policy proposals, but not a single one about health care. Follow her campaign appearances: you’ll hear the usual platitudes (“health care is a human right;” “everyone deserves access to care”), but you won’t hear her endorse a specific policy.

Warren’s avoidance of the issue is shocking. Health care repeatedly polls as the most important issue to voters — 80 percent told Gallup recently it’s “extremely” or “very” important to their vote. This is no surprise, as nearly 30 million Americans lack health insurance, and those who have it face prohibitive out-of-pocket costs and the ever-present fear that their employer will throw them off of their plan. The system is a colossal mess, and Americans are desperate for a solution.

The majority of voters (as many as 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans) support Medicare for All for this very reason. The sweeping single-payer policy, popularized by Bernie Sanders, would eliminate all out-of-pocket costs and guarantee lifelong, comprehensive coverage to every American resident through a single, public program. While Warren is a cosponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill, she doesn’t talk about it in her campaign appearances and keeps her answers ambiguous when pressed.

Take for instance Warren’s March town hall on CNN. When asked directly whether she supports Medicare for All, Warren suggested that Medicare for All is merely a slogan for expanded public coverage, rather than a specific piece of single-payer legislation.

“When we talk about Medicare for All, there are a lot of different pathways,” she said, before listing a slew of incremental proposals without explicitly endorsing any of them, from lowering the age for Medicare eligibility to allowing employers to buy in to Medicare. “For me, what’s key is we get everyone to the table on this.”

Taking this answer at face value, it seems Warren sees herself pursuing an incremental approach that expands public coverage while preserving the private insurance industry should she be elected president. This would likely surprise many of her supporters, who might view her co-sponsorship of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill as an endorsement of single-payer health care.

It’s fair to ask why Warren, who supports bold, progressive policies on a number of major issues, is avoiding the most important issue to voters. It could be a reluctance to attach herself to a rival candidate’s signature policy, or it could be a way to avoid conflict with the powerful health care corporations in her home state of Massachusetts.

Either way, it meshes well with a years-long effort by Democrats to blur the meaning of Medicare for All by gesturing goodwill toward single-payer advocates while attempting to redefine the phrase and apply it to public option proposals that preserve the private insurance industry. By following this playbook, Warren is actively supporting the corporate effort to kill the growing Medicare for All movement.

Warren’s supporters shouldn’t tolerate this.

B-Fly, this is what I've been talking about. Glad an intelligent writer was able to illustrate my point so clearly. I still support Warren as Bernie's VP, but she's behind him on policy.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/e...th-care-policy

[Teenwolf]

In other news, the DNC announced the slate of 20 candidates for the first 2 debate nights.

Those who did not meet the threshold for the first debate include: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock; former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel; Miramar, Florida Mayor Wayne Messam; and Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts.

I wanted Gravel in the debates for funsies, but oh well.

They still haven't announced the lineups for each night, but I'm anxiously anticipating how they attempt to protect Biden. I bet they keep him off the same stage as Sanders and Warren, and maybe even Tulsi (although they probably don't fear her as much).

[frae]

Except that the Democrats were further ahead and Trump was not incumbent.

J

Well it isn't apples to apples as we didn't know Clinton would be the nominee the way we do with Trump but we all assumed she would be. Here is a Q poll from May 2015 that had Clinton 4 points up on Rand Paul and 4 points up on Marco Rubio and in no poll against a possible opponent did she break 50%...

In a general election matchup, Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio. She leads other top Republicans:
46 - 37 percent over Christie;
47 - 40 percent over Huckabee;
47 - 37 percent over Bush;
46 - 38 percent over Walker;
48 - 37 percent over Cruz;
50 - 32 percent over Trump.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

In the 2019 Q poll we get the following...

In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 - 40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 - 42 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 - 41 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 - 42 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 - 42 percent;
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 - 42 percent.

Biden and Bernie top 50% and Harris and Edwards get 49 which is more than anyone did last time besides Clinton v Trump.

So what is my point? The polls almost mean nothing, but your assertion that the Democrats were further ahead doesn't play out if we go back to the same time period. Again not one R candidate at that time the way we had one D candidate, but the "front runners" of Paul and Rubio last time were within 4 of Clinton and this time the closest race is Booker and Mayor Pete up 5 but none of us would call them the front runners so Biden is up 13, Bernie up 9, Harris up 8, Warren up 7. I won't say the Dems are definitely up more as the data is a bit different, but to say they were further ahead last time against the top of the field seems inaccurate as well.

[revo]

Latest poll, California. Not good news for favorite daughter Kamala Harris, who polled a stunning 4th in her home state:

California Democratic Primary	LA Times/Berkeley IGS	Biden 22, Sanders 17, [B]Harris 13[/B], Warren 18, Buttigieg 10, O'Rourke 3, Booker 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Yang 1, Inslee 0	Biden +4

[frae]

Latest poll, California. Not good news for favorite daughter Kamala Harris, who polled a stunning 4th in her home state:

California Democratic Primary	LA Times/Berkeley IGS	Biden 22, Sanders 17, [B]Harris 13[/B], Warren 18, Buttigieg 10, O'Rourke 3, Booker 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Yang 1, Inslee 0	Biden +4

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/13/warren-california-poll-2020-election-1363619

Just the article about the poll that provides some secondary data.. Harris will need a surge at some point, but there is a long way to go. I am excited to see a debate and see who stands out, hoping for strong showings from Harris and Mayor Pete.

[B-Fly]

Jacobin article on Warren's refusal to support Medicare for All was very good.

"It's fair to ask why Warren, who supports bold, progressive policies on a number of major issues, is avoiding the most important issue to voters. It could be a reluctance to attach herself to a rival candidate's signature policy, or it could be a way to avoid conflict with the powerful health care corporations in her home state of Massachusetts."

B-Fly, this is what I've been talking about. Glad an intelligent writer was able to illustrate my point so clearly. I still support Warren as Bernie's VP, but she's behind him on policy.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/06/e...th-care-policy

Or it could be that she honestly has concerns about the possibility of passing and implementing the existing broad plans and is still working on hers and sweating the details. I like that she sweats the details.

I do think it's fair to ask - and she should be pressed - to better articulate why she hasn't presented a detailed plan for health care that measures up to her own established standards for policy proposals. But I'm not going to just assume that it's because she wants to protect or is beholden to special interests in the industry.

[Teenwolf]

Or it could be that she honestly has concerns about the possibility of passing and implementing the existing broad plans and is still working on hers and sweating the details. I like that she sweats the details.

I do think it's fair to ask - and she should be pressed - to better articulate why she hasn't presented a detailed plan for health care that measures up to her own established standards for policy proposals. But I'm not going to just assume that it's because she wants to protect or is beholden to special interests in the industry.

"Sweating the details", IMO, is simply not having a strong will to do the right thing. Bernie doesn't equivocate, and i appreciate that. As I've said, even Harris beats Warren on health care rhetoric. This is the biggest priority for primary voters, no excuse to not have a concrete plan, especially when you have detailed policy proposals out on every other major progressive issue.

I'm glad you see a problem, but I hope you continue to keep it in mind as a potential red flag.

[DMT]

Debate groups announced:

https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/1139568946934439936?s=19

[frae]

Debate groups announced:

https://twitter.com/reidepstein/stat...934439936?s=19

Harris and Mayor Pete get a shot at the front runners. Hopefully one has a big night. Warren and Beto in the other group. Maybe Klobuchar or Booker breaks through. Beto has to have a big night.

[DMT]

Harris and Mayor Pete get a shot at the front runners. Hopefully one has a big night. Warren and Beto in the other group. Maybe Klobuchar or Booker breaks through. Beto has to have a big night.

I think this sets up well for Warren.