Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

So nobody is willing to dig into the details of why Warren's pivot from copying Sanders' health proposal to now copying Buttigieg is bound to fail? Nobody willing to admit that the public option would be a nuclear bomb, and would turn people away from a full M4A push? Gee, I'm shocked...

Somehow I'm labeled as not being willing to critique my candidate, yet all the Warren supporters here ignore my detailed analysis.

Wasn't the ACA a public option? The idea that a public option would collapse because private insurance would force high cost clients off their plans is easily combated by making such moves impossible for private insurers.

Also, what will Sanders put forth once Med4All fails to pass? That seems like 100% what would happen, so why is his unwaivering support for Med4All or bust a mark of merit for him over the other candidates? What am I missing? Where would the votes be,, even if the Dems win both Congress and the Senate? Do you think all those blue dogs and other moderates are gonna vote for a 32 trillion dollar plan? You follow this stuff a lot. Help me see the path to Med4All getting passed.

[The Feral Slasher]

Because some of them are the only democrats I have seen who seem to be for their first choice or no one.

Whatever. 100% of the blame belongs with the Democratic Party for selecting a candidate who couldn't defeat Donald Trump. They better not fuck it up again.

[Sour Masher]

Whatever. 100% of the blame belongs with the Democratic Party for selecting a candidate who couldn't defeat Donald Trump. They better not fuck it up again.

So glad we agree that Sanders voters are partly to blame, since most of them are part of the Democratic Party .

Which candidates do you think would beat Donald Trump in the general?

[The Feral Slasher]

Whatever. 100% of the blame belongs with the Democratic Party for selecting a candidate who couldn't defeat Donald Trump. They better not fuck it up again.

How many times have we heard Bernie isnt even a real Democrat ? That is the world we live in, deal with it. maybe we should expect all the Democratic party consultants to figure this out and put out a message that appeals to more people instead of blaming a few extremists ?

[The Feral Slasher]

So glad we agree that Sanders voters are partly to blame, since most of them are part of the Democratic Party .

Which candidates do you think would beat Donald Trump in the general?

I have an opinion , but That's not my job.

[Sour Masher]

I have an opinion , but That's not my job.

Are you a voter? Then it is your job. Voters determine who the nominee is, no matter how much party leaders may want someone else, and maybe even put their thumbs on the scales. Unless you believe in rampant voter fraud in the primaries, or believe super delegates will go against the voter preferences, voters pick the nominee.

[Sour Masher]

I would really and truly love for someone to show me the path toward passing Sanders' version of Med4All. Sincerely. If it is possible, I want to see how. It would change how I see the primaries and the 2020 election. If such a thing were possible, I could understand the Sanders or bust voters, because I can see how Med4All could be worth the stakes of potentially losing to Trump. That would be an historic get, but I don't see how now, when never before it was possible, it could happen. Those who think it can, please show me the path.

I wish Frae were posting. He seems to know all the angles in terms of potential seats flipping in 2020. To me, it would take overwhelming Dem majorities to make it happen, and even then, we'd have to count all the moderates to see how many would need to be flipped.

Here is an article that matches my understanding of what would be needed. It seems insurmountable to get everything Sanders would want: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-byrd-rule

[The Feral Slasher]

Are you a voter? Then it is your job. Voters determine who the nominee is, no matter how much party leaders may want someone else, and maybe even put their thumbs on the scales. Unless you believe in rampant voter fraud in the primaries, or believe super delegates will go against the voter preferences, voters pick the nominee.

Well then it is every American's job and guess what, they screwed up. So how are the Dems goimg to do better , apparently by blaming Sanders supporters. Good luck with that

[The Feral Slasher]

Well then it is every American's job and guess what, they screwed up. So how are the Dems goimg to do better , apparently by blaming Sanders supporters. Good luck with that

Because if it is sanders supporters fault then dems apparently need them in the next election. So why label their ideas as crazy ? Is that goimg to help ?

[Sour Masher]

Well then it is every American's job and guess what, they screwed up. So how are the Dems goimg to do better , apparently by blaming Sanders supporters. Good luck with that

I am not blaming Sanders' supporters in general, but those Sanders' supporters who absolutely positively knew the country would be worse off under Trump than HRC, but didn't vote for HRC--yeah, I think they are partly to blame for Trump's election. I understand their perspective, but I don't agree with it.

But as I've said many times, I blame HRC most of all. She basically elbowed out the rest of the team to take the shot and air balled it. She screwed it up in epic fashion. She should have tried to reach out to Sanders' supporters much better than she did. She should have campaigned in the states that mattered more. She should have done a million things different.

[Sour Masher]

Because if it is sanders supporters fault then dems apparently need them in the next election. So why label their ideas as crazy ? Is that goimg to help ?

There is a difference between attacking ideas and candidates. Progressives malign neo-liberal ideas all the time. They should. And they should support their candidate, of course. The primaries are a time to do that. Fight the good fight. But in doing so, going so far as to make every other candidate out as demons and devils, basically as bad as Trump, that is counter-productive to the goal of defeating Trump. Some moderates calling Sanders' plans crazy, because they seem impractical is not as damaging to his general chances as progressives calling moderates corrupt scumbags with no integrity. I respect Sanders tremendously, but I don't despise every other candidate, and I don't understand why some Sanders' supporters specifically do, even Warren, who should be a clear second choice for them, many attack so aggressively, it makes it seem like voting for her in the general would be immoral, just as they say it was for HRC.

I think a big difference is that extreme progressives seem to think anyone who does not support policies they believe to be moral must be inherently immoral. If you do not support Med4All 100%, you are basically a murderer, letting millions suffer and die because they don't want to pay some more taxes or maybe wait longer for their own health care. That worldview makes everyone as bad as Trump, doesn't it? How does thinking like that NOT lead to supressed voter turn out for any candidate but Sanders? ANd where does that lead us in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?

ETA: Also, help me see how Med4All passing as Sanders puts it forth is not a crazy pipe dream--it would really help me understand the Sanders or bust position much more. I linked above, but here is an article the explains the obstacles. Help me see why this article is wrong and Sanders can get Med4All passed, please: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-byrd-rule

[Teenwolf]

So glad we agree that Sanders voters are partly to blame, since most of them are part of the Democratic Party .

Which candidates do you think would beat Donald Trump in the general?

Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and as much as I hate him, Andrew Yang. Populism wins, traditional politicians lose vs Trump and his cultists. If Warren were in the general, Sanders supporters would try to push her across the line. But her numbers in the midwest are terrible, and her current base is too white and too wealthy and too insulated. Pivoting away from M4A this early is a sign that she would run more centrist, and possibly lose. I would give those top 3 100% shot against Trump, Warren 40% shot to beat him, the rest no hope in hell.

Tulsi polls highest with Republicans, so as long as traditional Dems vote in line, she could turn enough Trump voters, since he ran on her policy of ending "stupid wars", but hasn't delivered.

65+ voters are the most likely voters, on this everyone agrees. That's Joe Biden's base. So the key to winning an election is turning out the least likely voters, age 18-29. Bernie obliterates the field in youth voting and millenials outnumber boomers. This math shouldn't be hard.

[Sour Masher]

Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and as much as I hate him, Andrew Yang. Populism wins, traditional politicians lose vs Trump and his cultists. If Warren were in the general, Sanders supporters would try to push her across the line. But her numbers in the midwest are terrible, and her current base is too white and too wealthy and too insulated. Pivoting away from M4A this early is a sign that she would run more centrist, and possibly lose. I would give those top 3 100% shot against Trump, Warren 40% shot to beat him, the rest no hope in hell.

Tulsi polls highest with Republicans, so as long as traditional Dems vote in line, she could turn enough Trump voters, since he ran on her policy of ending "stupid wars", but hasn't delivered.

65+ voters are the most likely voters, on this everyone agrees. That's Joe Biden's base. So the key to winning an election is turning out the least likely voters, age 18-29. Bernie obliterates the field in youth voting and millenials outnumber boomers. This math shouldn't be hard.

What about the math for Congress and the Senate? Where will the votes for Med4All come from? Which Dino's are gonna flip to vote for it? If the votes can be there, I get Sanders' being special in the hearts of voters, since he is the only one 100% committed to Med4All.

[The Feral Slasher]

There is a difference between attacking ideas and candidates. Progressives malign neo-liberal ideas all the time. They should. And they should support their candidate, of course. The primaries are a time to do that. Fight the good fight. But in doing so, going so far as to make every other candidate out as demons and devils, basically as bad as Trump, that is counter-productive to the goal of defeating Trump. Some moderates calling Sanders' plans crazy, because they seem impractical is not as damaging to his general chances as progressives calling moderates corrupt scumbags with no integrity. I respect Sanders tremendously, but I don't despise every other candidate, and I don't understand why some Sanders' supporters specifically do, even Warren, who should be a clear second choice for them, many attack so aggressively, it makes it seem like voting for her in the general would be immoral, just as they say it was for HRC.

I think a big difference is that extreme progressives seem to think anyone who does not support policies they believe to be moral must be inherently immoral. If you do not support Med4All 100%, you are basically a murderer, letting millions suffer and die because they don't want to pay some more taxes or maybe wait longer for their own health care. That worldview makes everyone as bad as Trump, doesn't it? How does thinking like that NOT lead to supressed voter turn out for any candidate but Sanders? ANd where does that lead us in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?

ETA: Also, help me see how Med4All passing as Sanders puts it forth is not a crazy pipe dream--it would really help me understand the Sanders or bust position much more. I linked above, but here is an article the explains the obstacles. Help me see why this article is wrong and Sanders can get Med4All passed, please: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-byrd-rule

I will just point out that not providing healthcare to people being the same as causing there death has a long history on RJ, and guess which side promoted it ?

[Teenwolf]

There is a difference between attacking ideas and candidates. Progressives malign neo-liberal ideas all the time. They should. And they should support their candidate, of course. The primaries are a time to do that. Fight the good fight. But in doing so, going so far as to make every other candidate out as demons and devils, basically as bad as Trump, that is counter-productive to the goal of defeating Trump. Some moderates calling Sanders' plans crazy, because they seem impractical is not as damaging to his general chances as progressives calling moderates corrupt scumbags with no integrity. I respect Sanders tremendously, but I don't despise every other candidate, and I don't understand why some Sanders' supporters specifically do, even Warren, who should be a clear second choice for them, many attack so aggressively, it makes it seem like voting for her in the general would be immoral, just as they say it was for HRC.

I think a big difference is that extreme progressives seem to think anyone who does not support policies they believe to be moral must be inherently immoral. If you do not support Med4All 100%, you are basically a murderer, letting millions suffer and die because they don't want to pay some more taxes or maybe wait longer for their own health care. That worldview makes everyone as bad as Trump, doesn't it? How does thinking like that NOT lead to supressed voter turn out for any candidate but Sanders? ANd where does that lead us in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?

ETA: Also, help me see how Med4All passing as Sanders puts it forth is not a crazy pipe dream--it would really help me understand the Sanders or bust position much more. I linked above, but here is an article the explains the obstacles. Help me see why this article is wrong and Sanders can get Med4All passed, please: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-byrd-rule

This is from within the Vox article:

Almost everyone I spoke with did think the Medicare eligibility age could be changed under reconciliation. It’s not a surefire win, and there is one worrying precedent from the 1990s when Congress tried to raise the eligibility age. But the general consensus was that a change to the qualifications for Medicare — reducing the age threshold to 0, for example, so every American is eligible — would actually pass muster under reconciliation.

Also within the article, it mentions taxes needing to be raised meet the budgetary requirements. Those 2 components, lowering eligibility age and using taxes to partially fund the transition, that's Sanders' M4A plan. So he seems the most realistic to get a M4A bill passed, based on that Vox piece.

Also, I've gone into the difference between a Sanders presidency and others, but I'll rehash. Sanders has said he would act as "organizer in chief". That means fighting those within the Democratic party as well as Republicans, and rallying people to organize against senators in purple districts to pressure them to support. Bernie said he would hold a rally against Manchin in his home district if he didnt support M4A. When Warren was asked how she would convince someone like Manchin to join her on M4A she said "allow me to make a spirited defense of Joe Manchin." Its night and day. Those are the only 2 saying the support M4A, but Warren clearly doesn't support it seriously, as her plan demonstrates.