Election 2020

[revo]

is Moody's respected by dems and left?

...The Moody’s models have been backtested to 1980 and were correct each time — except in 2016, when they indicated Clinton would get a narrow victory. The authors attributed “unexpected turnout patterns” in Trump’s favor caused the error and they adjusted for that in the latest projections. They also said the will be updating the projections as conditions develop and change...


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/mood...-holds-up.html

This model assumes the President is not an incompetent, racist, soon-to-be-impeached lunatic. Hard not to take that into account.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I think your perspective as a hardline progressive skews your view on how other voters see this issue. Your phrasing that Warren wants to do anything she can manage to implement that would improve on our current health care situation is probably accurate, but whereas you see that as evidence she is inferior to Sanders, many voters see that as preferable to a "give me Med4All or give me death" approach that 1. would significantly raise taxes, 2. take away private options from millions who want to keep them, and 3. would never happen.

That last point especially, I'd love for you to address. I see it is similar to what Mayor Pete said to Beto on gun buy back. In pushing for that, it turns off many and makes it so something more practical doesn't get done. What makes you think, after how hard it was for Obama to pass even a watered done band aid that was the ACA, that Sanders would actually be able to pass M4All in the time he'd have in office? As I've argued before, I do think, with proper buy in, a M4All system could work in this country, but I just don't see that buy in happening any time soon. You have too many people who will continually try to undercut and fight against the system. I just don't see it happening. Making Med4All a purity test for the Democratic candidate, to me, is like saying you will only vote for the candidate who extra pinky swear promises to cure cancer in their first term. It is a great and noble goal, but it ain't happening.

So again, whereas you see Warren's lack of commitment to pursuing Med4All above and beyond all else as a negative, I see it as an opportunity for her to improve healthcare in ways that can actually happen, and also have the money and political capital to implement many other progressive solutions to current problems facing our country.

ETA: But saying all that, as my previous post indicates, it is annoying she is being cagey about paying for M4All. I agree that she did well overall in the debate, but that one bit of elusiveness was disappointing. She usually doesn't play that annoying politician game, and I suspect she wants to say, ""look, I want Med4All, but stop asking me how I will pay for it, because, if I am being honest, unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to get that done, and what I do think I can get done will fit within the budget I have already thought out with my wealth tax on the uber rich." As always, Sanders, in contrast, is honest and upfront about who he is and what he wants to do, even if what he wants ain't gonna happen.

[Sour Masher]

I assume you posted this to contradict the notion that Warren won't fight for and prioritize Med4All, because she is saying in this clip, she knows how to "dream big, fight hard." I agree she is a leader who can get things done, and I support her, because I think she can get more done on health care and other issues than any other candidate. But she has also been cagey on how she plans to get Med4All done and pay for it. Do you disagree with that assessment? If not, why do you think she has been uncharacteristically vague on this one issue. She is typically clear, thoughtful, and articulate about her plans and strategies for implementation. Also, do you really think Warren, Sanders, or anyone could actually get Med4All done as the next president?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I assume you posted this to contradict the notion that Warren won't fight for and prioritize Med4All, because she is saying in this clip, she knows how to "dream big, fight hard." I agree she is a leader who can get things done, and I support her, because I think she can get more done on health care and other issues than any other candidate. But she has also been cagey on how she plans to get Med4All done and pay for it. Do you disagree with that assessment? If not, why do you think she has been uncharacteristically vague on this one issue. She is typically clear, thoughtful, and articulate about her plans and strategies for implementation. Also, do you really think Warren, Sanders, or anyone could actually get Med4All done as the next president?

I see the debate exactly as you have, I have always liked Warren, but am still in Bernie's camp--though I'd like to see more of the Sanders I saw last night--he was very engaging and personable to balance his occasional gruffness. Warren did Politic the answer, I hope she formulates one before the next opportunity she has to speak on it.

As for enacting Med4All, I think that if the Dems control the house, the Senate and the White House they're going to return the favor the GOP and Trump have gifted them--Unilateral decision making--At the very least they'll do what they want until the harm of the past 4 years is undone. That could easily include restoring the ACA or transition the ACA (what's left of it) to a Med4All platform.

[Sour Masher]

I see the debate exactly as you have, I have always liked Warren, but am still in Bernie's camp--though I'd like to see more of the Sanders I saw last night--he was very engaging and personable to balance his occasional gruffness. Warren did Politic the answer, I hope she formulates one before the next opportunity she has to speak on it.

As for enacting Med4All, I think that if the Dems control the house, the Senate and the White House they're going to return the favor the GOP and Trump have gifted them--Unilateral decision making--At the very least they'll do what they want until the harm of the past 4 years is undone. That could easily include restoring the ACA or transition the ACA (what's left of it) to a Med4All platform.

I agree until the very last phrase--transition the ACA to a Med4All platform. It isn't just republicans you'd have to convince to get that done. It is the all the many moderate Dems who don't think it is the right move. I have talked about this before--some folks aren't the brightest bulbs. You ask them, do you want Med4All, and many say yes, but then you ask them, okay, so obviously you are cool with giving up your private insurance and paying more taxes to make that happen, and many are like, wha?!, no way!" That is where we are right now, and sure, leadership isn't just doing what people want, it is convincing them of what they should want, I get that. I just think this is too heavy a lift for the foreseeable future. There are so many other repairs that need to be made from the Trump era, so many doable repairs that have much broader bases of support and cost way less money and political capital to get done. It is a way, way, way bigger lift that Trump's failed wall, as a point of comparison, or Obama closing Gitmo, as another thing a president wanted but couldn't get done.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree until the very last phrase--transition the ACA to a Med4All platform. It isn't just republicans you'd have to convince to get that done. It is the all the many moderate Dems who don't think it is the right move. I have talked about this before--some folks aren't the brightest bulbs. You ask them, do you want Med4All, and many say yes, but then you ask them, okay, so obviously you are cool with giving up your private insurance and paying more taxes to make that happen, and many are like, wha?!, no way!" That is where we are right now, and sure, leadership isn't just doing what people want, it is convincing them of what they should want, I get that. I just think this is too heavy a lift for the foreseeable future. There are so many other repairs that need to be made from the Trump era, so many doable repairs that have much broader bases of support and cost way less money and political capital to get done. It is a way, way, way bigger lift that Trump's failed wall, as a point of comparison, or Obama closing Gitmo.

Well if it's Warren that gets the nod and is elected, we can have the Med4All Option for those who need it and private insurance for those who want to pay for it. as long as you keep the pay for the doctors, nurses and techs reasonably close to what they were making in their other gigs, the quality shouldn't diminish. I just want to see everyone covered and no denial of service because someone can't afford it. I don't really care how they get there--just get it there.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I assume you posted this to contradict the notion that Warren won't fight for and prioritize Med4All, because she is saying in this clip, she knows how to "dream big, fight hard." I agree she is a leader who can get things done, and I support her, because I think she can get more done on health care and other issues than any other candidate. But she has also been cagey on how she plans to get Med4All done and pay for it. Do you disagree with that assessment? If not, why do you think she has been uncharacteristically vague on this one issue. She is typically clear, thoughtful, and articulate about her plans and strategies for implementation. Also, do you really think Warren, Sanders, or anyone could actually get Med4All done as the next president?

I wasn't posting it necessarily to take a position on Warren's stance on Med4All--which, as an aside, having support for that as a litmus test seems suboptimal--but to say that when people describe her as more pragmatic than Sanders and more willing to compromise, that may be true in a sense, but I actually think she stands a good chance of making a lot more progress on issues than Sanders does because she has a track record to prove it. I don't know if I support her on all the issues, but I do believe she's more likely to get things done than almost any of the other candidates in the field.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Well if it's Warren that gets the nod and is elected, we can have the Med4All Option for those who need it and private insurance for those who want to pay for it. as long as you keep the pay for the doctors, nurses and techs reasonably close to what they were making in their other gigs, the quality shouldn't diminish. I just want to see everyone covered and no denial of service because someone can't afford it. I don't really care how they get there--just get it there.

More or less, this is what I want as well. ACA was supposed to be a big step in this direction until it got hamstrung at every turn, whether at the federal or state levels.

[Sour Masher]

I wasn't posting it necessarily to take a position on Warren's stance on Med4All--which, as an aside, having support for that as a litmus test seems suboptimal--but to say that when people describe her as more pragmatic than Sanders and more willing to compromise, that may be true in a sense, but I actually think she stands a good chance of making a lot more progress on issues than Sanders does because she has a track record to prove it. I don't know if I support her on all the issues, but I do believe she's more likely to get things done than almost any of the other candidates in the field.

I agree with all of this. I think her platform only falls short when comparing it to some promises other candidates are making for which they have little to no evidence of actually being able to accomplish.

[Sour Masher]

More or less, this is what I want as well. ACA was supposed to be a big step in this direction until it got hamstrung at every turn, whether at the federal or state levels.

Me too, and many that I know also support this, but do not support Med4All. Warren may be wiser to just embrace this as her platform in the general. I guess doing it now would lose any hardline progressives that may have concerns about Sanders' health, though.

[Sour Masher]

Well if it's Warren that gets the nod and is elected, we can have the Med4All Option for those who need it and private insurance for those who want to pay for it. as long as you keep the pay for the doctors, nurses and techs reasonably close to what they were making in their other gigs, the quality shouldn't diminish. I just want to see everyone covered and no denial of service because someone can't afford it. I don't really care how they get there--just get it there.

I agree and hope to see this happen, and I think Warren can get this done. I am surprised to see you find this acceptable. I thought you were a hardline Med4All guy like TW.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree and hope to see this happen, and I think Warren can get this done. I am surprised to see you find this acceptable. I thought you were a hardline Med4All guy like TW.

As I've tried to explain--I'm a hardline "do the right thing" kinda guy-- How it gets done in always negotiable.

[Sour Masher]

Some thoughts.

Bernie killed it, very strong voice, very good hit on Biden, which needs to be his biggest focus to draw voters. Not much more to say.

Tulsi Gabbard was awful. She attempted to attack Warren and was cut off going to commercial, but she spent way too much time talking about her qualifications to lead up to the Warren attack, so I was okay with her being cut off. Her right wing positioning seemed awkward and forced at times, and the overuse of "regime change wars" was an attempt to simplify, but made her rhetoric too clunky. Just a bad performance.

I agree on Bernie. He was sharp and funny. I am happy to see him well and back in the fight. I am also happy to see you coming around on Tulsi. I've long been perplexed by the support she gets from progressives.

[Sour Masher]

Many here seem to agree that Biden's poll numbers seem to reflect his name recognition more than his performance and platform. At what point will the latter two things change the former? Biden continues to do as well or better than anyone against Trump in polls.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Many here seem to agree that Biden's poll numbers seem to reflect his name recognition more than his performance and platform. At what point will the latter two things change the former? Biden continues to do as well or better than anyone against Trump in polls.

I wouldn't be surprised if that lasts all the way to the Iowa caucuses. It's possible there is some major issue or performance in a debate that changes things between now and then, but I don't expect the nation at large to start to pay much attention until that point. It's also possible that Biden continues to be buoyed during the impeachment process by all the time he spends in the news as Trump's main target.