Election 2020

[B-Fly]

So vote for the lesser of two evils? Perhaps what the middle is doing is punishing both parties by withhold their votes because there is no alignment. So by being deaf to the middle, these two parties are the reason for the decline in the Republic.

Incremental change...

Either way, one of those two major party nominees is going to be the next president. So if you're in a swing state, you presumably have to imagine yourself as the deciding vote, no?

[In the Corn]

Either way, one of those two major party nominees is going to be the next president. So if you're in a swing state, you presumably have to imagine yourself as the deciding vote, no?

Minnesota is not a swing state. I'm all about getting rid of Mr. Trump, but I will most likely be pretty dissatisfied with Mr. Sanders, as well.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Minnesota is not a swing state. I'm all about getting rid of Mr. Trump, but I will most likely be pretty dissatisfied with Mr. Sanders, as well.

Is Policy more important to you than Integrity?

[Teenwolf]

New Bernie video (not an ad, independently produced) put together by the guy who did the previous viral ad. This one shows Bernie echoing MLK, and both making the case against Trump. I think it's pretty well done.

[In the Corn]

Is Policy more important to you than Integrity?

Believe me, Bernie would be an upgrade over Donald. I don't doubt Bernie's integrity, his policies on the other hand, I'm suspect of some of them.

[The Feral Slasher]

Clearly his promotion of Rogan's endorsement allowed the media to attack him over it. Do you wish he hadn't given it the signal boost for strategic reasons or moral reasons? I wonder if it would have been smarter not to highlight it, but I think strategically it helps more than hurts.

A little bit of both. I don't think it should be an huge issue either way, but people will certainly try to make it a huge issue.

[Sour Masher]

Is Policy more important to you than Integrity?

Was policy or integrity more important in affecting the lives Colin Powell affected in his tenure? He seems like a man of integrity to me. I feel the same way about George Bush, but look how much more important their policies were to consider than their personal integrity.

In my previous post, I mentioned I was persuaded somewhat by consequentialist arguments. Ironically, those are made by Bernie supporters most often. I care a lot about integrity, and that is why I like Bernie. But policies matter more. I loathe Trump mostly for his integrity issues, but practically speaking, he is not all the different on policy that another conservative republican would be. My vote against him is for both reasons. I think his policies are bad for this country, and he is an embarrassment to the office as well. On the flip side, I can understand why someone who respects and likes Bernie would not vote for him (I would hope such a person would just not vote in that case or vote 3rd party rather than vote for Trump).

[B-Fly]

The policy vs. integrity discussion also misses some other variables to which I give very heavy weight, namely competence and judgment. I would certainly score Trump as highly negative across policy, integrity, competence and judgment. Sometimes his lack of competence helps to dampen the impact of his terrible policies and terrible integrity, but other times it blends with his bad judgement to create major risk for the United States.

[Kevin Seitzer]

The policy vs. integrity discussion also misses some other variables to which I give very heavy weight, namely competence and judgment. I would certainly score Trump as highly negative across policy, integrity, competence and judgment. Sometimes his lack of competence helps to dampen the impact of his terrible policies and terrible integrity, but other times it blends with his bad judgement to create major risk for the United States.

I agree very much with this.

I also give weight to what drives or motivates a person. Maybe that's part of integrity and policy, but it can be different, too, or it can supersede those things.

I see Biden motivated by a desire to serve his country and protect its institutions.
I see Warren motivated by a desire to improve systems to help her fellow Americans.
I see Bernie motivated by a desire to help the economically oppressed.
I see Trump motivated by a desire to have other people praise him.

[The Feral Slasher]

So vote for the lesser of two evils? Perhaps what the middle is doing is punishing both parties by withhold their votes because there is no alignment. So by being deaf to the middle, these two parties are the reason for the decline in the Republic.

Incremental change...

I find this really fascinating. Do you think if the Dems and Republicans met in the middle and compromised that the results would be beneficial for most Americans ? Is the inability to compromise what is leading to the decline of the Republic ?

[The Feral Slasher]

As a moderate, and a someone who has been very displeased with Trump, I find it hard to let the pendulum swing so far the opposite direction. I'm afraid the Democrats are going to pick someone so far-left that the middle just won't be left with a mainstream candidate they can feel good about.

I spent the weekend with relatives and their friends that I rarely see. They are all college educated and well off. It was interesting to me to see how crazy leftist they think of Bernie and Medicare for all. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, since away from work my friends are also college educated and upper middle class and they all think he is crazy as well. It was also kind of interesting to watch Fox News for 8 hours a day. When you watch it, it doesn't seem extreme or biased. Just like MSNBC I suppose.

Anyway, I just found it very interesting where people get their information and how difficult it is for "successful" people to buy in to Bernie Sander's policies which would be fairly middle of the road in Europe, but are considered communist here in the US. Random Feral Slasher musings....

[Sour Masher]

Anyway, I just found it very interesting where people get their information and how difficult it is for "successful" people to buy in to Bernie Sander's policies which would be fairly middle of the road in Europe, but are considered communist here in the US. Random Feral Slasher musings....

It isn't that surprising to me. In this county, while many poorer folks struggle with insurance, many with good jobs have good insurance provided to them through their employers. They know it, the often like it, and changes that might disrupt/alter the coverage and treatment they know and are used to scares them. Most that I know that have compassion want to help those who don't have coverage, but they want to do it by adding a coverage option for them that doesn't change their own coverage and insurance. Basically, a public option, the ACA on steroids, what the moderates in this primary are advocating for.

The thought process is, yes, many folks need coverage, so lets come up with a way to give them it without changing what is working for the majority that have coverage and like their insurance plans. The ACA had many flaws, but it did provide coverage to 20 million people that did not have it before the ACA. The number of uninsured went from 47 million to 27 million people. The moderates talk about a public option that covers the remaining 14% of people who need it. I understand the flaws and practical concerns with that plan and with un-mandated public options in general, but that is the stance I think a lot of the folks who have coverage have on this. They think--let's do something that adds coverage for the 14% without changing too much for the other 86%. It seems like a smaller, less scary change.

[The Feral Slasher]

It isn't that surprising to me. In this county, while many poorer folks struggle with insurance, many with good jobs have good insurance provided to them through their employers. They know it, the often like it, and changes that might disrupt/alter the coverage and treatment they know and are used to scares them. Most that I know that have compassion want to help those who don't have coverage, but they want to do it by adding a coverage option for them that doesn't change their own coverage and insurance. Basically, a public option, the ACA on steroids, what the moderates in this primary are advocating for.

The thought process is, yes, many folks need coverage, so lets come up with a way to give them it without changing what is working for the majority that have coverage and like their insurance plans. The ACA had many flaws, but it did provide coverage to 20 million people that did not have it before the ACA. The number of uninsured when from 47 million to 27 million people. The moderates talk about a public option that covers the 27 million people who need it without changing much for the other 300 million people. I understand the flaws and practical concerns with that plan and with un-mandated public options in general, but that is the stance I think a lot of the folks who have coverage have on this.

I guess what I found interesting was the complete lack of context regarding the U.S. system vs other countries and as you noted the self interest and total lack of consideration for the people without insurance or those with crappy insurance. I think people who grow up in middle/upper family structures, go to college, get good jobs and have good insurance have no idea about how half or more of the country struggle with health insurance. Or even understand that most Americans don't live an upper class lifestyle like they do.

EDIT - my comment came across much harsher than intended as has been pointed out. I was not trying to point out that college educated people are selfish and heartless, just that it appears possible to me that many of them are somewhat insulated from the costs and impacts that our current system has on many Americans. And therefore M4A seems like an extreme an unneccessary change.

[Sour Masher]

I guess what I found interesting was the complete lack of context regarding the U.S. system vs other countries and as you noted the self interest and total lack of consideration for the people without insurance or those with crappy insurance. I think people who grow up in middle/upper family structures, go to college, get good jobs and have good insurance have no idea about how half or more of the country struggle with health insurance. Or even understand that most Americans don't live an upper class lifestyle like they do.

I don't think it is just those who grew up well off who think this way, and I think the callousness you assume all these folks have may not be entirely accurate. I grew up poor--single mother making minimum wage when I was young, a series of my mother's husbands and boyfriends that didn't help and often made things worse, till she eventually worked her way up to making decent money, before then going on disability and being poor again. I hardly ever went to the doctor growing up, even when I needed to, and that continued in college, as my grad student union did not successfully win insurance rights until the year after I graduated. My sister still has no coverage at age 30 (for her, but luckily in Florida, her kids have full coverage with kid-care) and has 10s of thousands in medical debt that has ruined her credit. My wife is an immigrant whose family did not have coverage for awhile when they came here, and struggled to get the jobs that provided that coverage, but eventually they did. Despite all of this, I have many in my family who believe in the private insurance set up we have now, and are afraid of it changing.

Change is scary, especially with all the FUD out there. Working toward coverage in the flawed system we have now is a devil one knows--work to get a job that provides the coverage you need is the model folks grew up with. What will change bring? Higher taxes for all? Long waits to see doctors, not being able to see the doctor you are used to, etc. I have seen all of these fears raised. I worked at a same-day surgery center when I was young part time and I saw doctors saying stuff like this--to their patients, even. It scares people. I think you are overstating the lack of empathy of this group (though there is certainly some) and underrating the fear factor (definitely some of this too).

[The Feral Slasher]

I don't think it is just those who grew up well off who think this way, and I think the callousness you assume all these folks have may not be entirely accurate. I grew up poor--single mother making minimum wage when I was young, a series of my mother's husbands and boyfriends that didn't help and often made things worse, till she eventually worked her way up to making decent money, before then going on disability and being poor again. I hardly ever went to the doctor growing up, even when I needed to, and that continued in college, as my grad student union did not successfully win insurance rights until the year after I graduated. My sister still has no coverage at age 30 (for her, but luckily in Florida, her kids have full coverage with kid-care) and has 10s of thousands in medical debt that has ruined her credit. My wife is an immigrant whose family did not have coverage for awhile when they came here, and struggled to get the jobs that provided that coverage, but eventually they did. Despite all of this, I have many in my family who believe in the private insurance set up we have now, and are afraid of it changing.

Change is scary, especially with all the FUD out there. Working toward coverage in the flawed system we have now is a devil one knows--work to get a job that provides the coverage you need is the model folks grew up with. What will change bring? Higher taxes for all? Long waits to see doctors, not being able to see the doctor you are used to, etc. I have seen all of these fears raised. I worked at a same-day surgery center when I was young part time and I saw doctors saying stuff like this. It scares people.

I agree. Change is scary, and people who benefit from the current system like to make it even scarier.