Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

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 ?

I may have said it myself (pretty sure I did, and got called out for it, though I didn't intend to express the idea with malice, more of a question), so I'm guessing whatever side I'm on. But I try to understand that not everyone thinks like I do on this issue, and I try not to judge folks who don't agree with me on it as monsters.

Moderates marginalize progressives in the party. Progressives villianize moderates. I just hope we all get on the same team when it comes time to beat Trump.

[Sour Masher]

Those are the only 2 saying the support M4A, but Warren clearly doesn't support it seriously, as her plan demonstrates.

You did call this early--I'd say her plan proves you right about her lack of live or die commitment to Med4All. I still think she is sincere in wanting it to happen, but she clearly thinks a quicker, easier to get done improvement is the way to go rather than live and die on getting the most significant social program since the New Deal passed in one shot. I still haven't seen enough evidence to convince me she is wrong on this.

But you make a good point that if she has the majority in her first two years, there is a big risk in waiting and losing that majority. That makes me wonder why she'd announce this plan as her only plan, regardless of who holds the majority when she is elected.

[The Feral Slasher]

I may have said it myself (pretty sure I did, and got called out for it, though I didn't intend to express the idea with malice, more of a question), so I'm guessing whatever side I'm on. But I try to understand that not everyone thinks like I do on this issue, and I try not to judge folks who don't agree with me on it as monsters.

Moderates marginalize progressives in the party. Progressives villianize moderates. I just hope we all get on the same team when it comes time to beat Trump.

I have no idea what u posted in the past, but that idea was often mentioned against repubs and trump. So it would be nice if those posters were consistent, whoever they are. I dont have any desire to search.

[Sour Masher]

I have no idea what u posted in the past, but that idea was often mentioned against repubs and trump. So it would be nice if those posters were consistent, whoever they are. I dont have any desire to search.

I was on the side saying a version of that. It shut down dialogue, which is not what I intended, and it made me reassess how I phrase my support for universal health care. It wasn't my intent to call those who don't support it murderers or even callous to the suffering of their fellow Americans, but that is how it was taken, I believe from a poster who doesn't engage anymore. I forget who it was, but I remember being bummed out that he took my comment as an attack on his integrity. At the time, I was simply following a train of logic without seeing that it would lead to a dead end.

[Sour Masher]

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.

The problem with Sanders using a progressive bully pulpit to strong arm moderate Dems is that moderate Dems get elected in moderate districts. They may very well run and win on being a check to Sanders, so him telling voters in their moderate districts to pressure or vote out these moderates is very unlikely to work.

[Teenwolf]

The problem with Sanders using a progressive bully pulpit to strong arm moderate Dems is that moderate Dems get elected in moderate districts. They may very well run and win on being a check to Sanders, so him telling voters in their moderate districts to pressure or vote out these moderates is very unlikely to work.

You think it's unlikely to work because you see everything as fitting in a right-left spectrum. Sanders actually draws the 2nd most Republican voters after Tulsi because his populist messages which Trump ran on resonate with those voters. I actually think he would be able to sway enough Republicans and moderates, who voted for Trump out of economic desperation, that they deserve M4A. When you ask the question accurately, you get slightly over 50% of Republicans supporting it, and that's without the Democratic party supporting it, with the media maligning it, and without the bully pulpit. I think Sanders would stand a good shot.

Thank you for the recognition that I called Warren backing away from M4A months ago. I still think she's better than everyone other than Bernie or Tulsi, but on M4A, she telegraphed her pivot early, and I've been calling it out consistently. I wish Sanders would do the same, but he keeps letting her ride his coattails. Maybe this will be the push he needed to make the distinction in stronger terms... but he also realizes the only way he gets elected at this point is likely a unity ticket with Warren, so he needs to play gentle. Hate to see it play out. Just have to hope folks figure it out.

[Sour Masher]

You think it's unlikely to work because you see everything as fitting in a right-left spectrum. Sanders actually draws the 2nd most Republican voters after Tulsi because his populist messages which Trump ran on resonate with those voters. I actually think he would be able to sway enough Republicans and moderates, who voted for Trump out of economic desperation, that they deserve M4A. When you ask the question accurately, you get slightly over 50% of Republicans supporting it, and that's without the Democratic party supporting it, with the media maligning it, and without the bully pulpit. I think Sanders would stand a good shot.

I need clarity on this--are you saying that by swaying enough Republican voters he can pressure Republican members of the House and Senate to vote for Med4All? I wish that was the country we were living in right now, but it isn't. GOPers were a united front against Obama and his more moderate agenda. They will all do the same this time, especially against Sanders. I see no way Republicans are voting for Med4All--maybe one or two flukes, but even that would shock me. It would mean immediate excommunication from the party--a total pull of support for them.

Or are you now talking about Sanders beating Trump by swaying moderates and Repubs moved by his populist message? If that is your point, I agree. Some Trump voters voted for things they saw in Trump that they will see in Sanders, in a much more moral, experienced, and noble candidate. But my post was about support for Med4All after Sanders is elected, not him getting elected. And even is many Republican voters want Med4All, it isn't a do or die issue for them. What is are things like abortion, and I'd bet that gets used against Med4All at some point. Will abortion be covered by it? If so, there goes ANY Repub support for it.

[Teenwolf]

I need clarity on this--are you saying that by swaying enough Republican voters he can pressure Republican members of the House and Senate to vote for Med4All? I wish that was the country we were living in right now, but it isn't. GOPers were a united front against Obama and his more moderate agenda. They will all do the same this time, especially against Sanders. I see no way Republicans are voting for Med4All--maybe one or two flukes, but even that would shock me. It would mean immediate excommunication from the party--a total pull of support for them.

Or are you now talking about Sanders beating Trump by swaying moderates and Repubs moved by his populist message? If that is your point, I agree. Some Trump voters voted for things they saw in Trump that they will see in Sanders, in a much more moral, experienced, and noble candidate. But my post was about support for Med4All after Sanders is elected, not him getting elected. And even is many Republican voters want Med4All, it isn't a do or die issue for them. What is are things like abortion, and I'd bet that gets used against Med4All at some point. Will abortion be covered by it? If so, there goes ANY Repub support for it.

I realize I wasnt very clear. I was trying to say, he only needs 51 votes to get it passed under budget reconciliation. Seeing as that appears to be his approach, he needs to hope his general election populism leads to extra Senate seats to work with, and if he only needs to whip the centrists in line. He could garner enough Republican and independent support in swing districts based on his populism to effectively whip right-leaning senators like Kristen Sinema or Joe Manchin into line. Does that make a bit more sense?

Question for you. If Elizabeth Warren will face equally strong opposition to passing the public option as Sanders would to M4A, which is something we hear constantly, why do you think she's more likely to pass it given her clear unwillingness to go after weak Democrats? Doesn't it seem like the issues from your article make it more likely that lowering the age requirements year over year through budget reconciliation seems much more likely than a public option bound to explode in cost as the private market shuts out the sick and expensive cases? Will the wealth tax be more likely to pass as a funding mechanism than Sanders' moderate tax increase? I don't think Warren has a higher likelihood to succeed simply because the public option is less progressive.

[revo]

If Buttigieg's rise comes at the expense of Biden and Warren, I'm happy.

If Iowa finished with Buttigieg 1st, Biden 4th, that would totally shift the rest of the race. I wonder how South Carolina would vote in that scenario.

Of course things can change once the real vote gets underway, but Biden has a 28% lead in SC in a CBS poll taken yesterday.

[Sour Masher]

Of course things can change once the real vote gets underway, but Biden has a 28% lead in SC in a CBS poll taken yesterday.

If MSNBC is any indication, the black vote will not be abandoning Biden for Buttigieg any time soon. I don't watch the network directly, but my wife watches it constantly, and every time I hear a PoC guest speak about Mayor Pete, it is to put him down as a kid from a po-dunk town with no shot of beating big bad Trump.

[Sour Masher]

Question for you. If Elizabeth Warren will face equally strong opposition to passing the public option as Sanders would to M4A, which is something we hear constantly, why do you think she's more likely to pass it given her clear unwillingness to go after weak Democrats? Doesn't it seem like the issues from your article make it more likely that lowering the age requirements year over year through budget reconciliation seems much more likely than a public option bound to explode in cost as the private market shuts out the sick and expensive cases? Will the wealth tax be more likely to pass as a funding mechanism than Sanders' moderate tax increase? I don't think Warren has a higher likelihood to succeed simply because the public option is less progressive.

You may be right. The ACA was much more modest, but faced tremendous opposition. And Warren isn't making friends right now or using the play-nice rhetoric Obama did (though, a lot of good that ended up doing for him). I guess, to me, it comes down to the fact that your concern about a public option exploding in cost as the private market shuts out the sick and expensive cases is an easy fix--mechanisms and penalties can be worked into the deal to ensure that does not happen. So, assuming that, we are left with a more modest and less costly solution that I believe more moderates will get behind, because of the following:

1. I think most people, including most politicians, feel like some kind of improvement needs to be made that helps in some way.
2. Many of those same people don't have the stomach for the much bigger and more costly Med4All plan/fight.
3. A public option will make the aforementioned group feel like they have contributed to helping improve things, which will make everyone feel good and accomplished, appeasing their consciences while not breaking the bank or forcing real sacrifices to get the bigger reform done.
4. The politicians involved can point to supporting change for the better for millions of Americans, but on both sides of the aisle, they can have it both ways by also saying they did what was reasonable AND affordable and sustainable without driving the country deeper into debt, raising everyone's taxes, and taking away everyone's freedom of choice when it comes to private insurance.

ETA: Any time there is a deal where politicians on both sides can claim victory for different reasons--here, on the one hand, by insuring more people to constituents who want to hear that, and also saying they did this in a less costly and more sustainable way that maintained private systems that give freedom/choice for voters who like that the most--you have something with a real shot of getting done. Then, the only barrier is who gets to take credit for it. If Warren is smart and allows credit to be shared, I think she can get it done.

[Teenwolf]

Remember when Obama capitulated on the open Supreme Court seat by nominating someone center-right whom the Republicans had previously stated they could support? Remember when he created the ACA, but ended up caving to make it look like RomneyCare? How did this strategy work out? Why do you think Elizabeth Warren capitulating would work out any better? Obstruction is the new strategy on every issue. I prefer Bernie's fighter mentality to Warren's "make everybody happy" approach. I think you need to intimidate them to get what you want, otherwise you end up with what they want.

I understand your carrot and stick philosophy, I just think of it more like carry a giant stick and hit them mercilessly. The carrot is when you praise them for doing what YOU wanted.

[Sour Masher]

Remember when Obama capitulated on the open Supreme Court seat by nominating someone center-right whom the Republicans had previously stated they could support? Remember when he created the ACA, but ended up caving to make it look like RomneyCare? How did this strategy work out? Why do you think Elizabeth Warren capitulating would work out any better? Obstruction is the new strategy on every issue. I prefer Bernie's fighter mentality to Warren's "make everybody happy" approach. I think you need to intimidate them to get what you want, otherwise you end up with what they want.

I understand your carrot and stick philosophy, I just think of it more like carry a giant stick and hit them mercilessly. The carrot is when you praise them for doing what YOU wanted.

As you say, you may be right. I wish some of the republicans who used to post still did, because while I agree that Obama did try to play nice and reach across the aisle, I recall most folks on the other side had a very different version of things. The right-wing media certainly didn't paint him that way. And I recall many posters here saying he didn't compromise or engage at all, and if only he had, etc.

Perhaps Warren or whoever can learn from that are fight harder to counter that narrative. Perception is sometimes more important than reality, and for such a compromise strategy to work, I think you'd have to take it to the people aggressively hitting on the fact that this plan is a compromise and letting everyone take the win to get it done. I think on that front, it would help that Warren or Sanders are progressives, so it will be obvious if something short of Med4All gets done that it is a compromise. With the ACA, it was easier to paint Obama as getting what he wanted.

I will concede the hardline approach has worked much better for Trump. However, i think the GOP is much more a united front for their "team" than the Dems are. So I don't think a hardline approach will work as well on the left. Too many moderate dems will break right.

[Gregg]

I will concede the hardline approach has worked much better for Trump. However, i think the GOP is much more a united front for their "team" than the Dems are.

And don't you find this truly amazing?!

[revo]

And don't you find this truly amazing?!

Well, there is only one GOPer vs. 20+ Dems. Once there's a single Dem, I'm sure this will change.