2020 Democratic Nominee

[Message Board User 12388]

 

[David Dennison 18487]

22 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Never change, Jonathan. Troll us with your concerns from the middle.

Edited September 14, 2019 by David Dennison

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

Never change, Jonathan. Troll us with your concerns from the middle.

I don’t think that’s trolling. I believe the largest single voting coalition, certainly the plurality of voters, can be assembled around the theme of restoring America to factory default settings. That’s what progressive maximalists don’t get about Biden and the reason why they underestimate the durability of Biden’s lead.

At some point the progressive left are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Democratic Party is a loose, fluid coalition of interests that are not assembled around leftist ideology. We all just buy into procedural liberalism because it gives us a fair shake and that’s about all we can agree on.

And that’s not an appeal to moderation, by the way, that’s the reality of this party. Take your message to the voters and sell it if you can, but you can’t expect other factions to stop doing the same.

[DixonHur 11017]

If the Dems trot out Biden for the general then they deserve to lose.  Not saying they will, but they'd deserve it if they did.  If the last election showed us anything at all, it's that the public is hungry for change, any change.  Yes, I know Hillary got more votes, and Trump only won because of the electoral college, but guess what...that same system is still in place.

Trump sucks and his base is dumb, but they will vote for him in lock step.  On the other hand, Bernie and Liz fans, along with many independents like myself might just stay home if Biden is the nominee.  He doesn't bring anything new to the table.  In fact, I'd argue he's part of the problem, not the solution.  I'm 48 and he's been in Washington since I was in diapers.  

I get that some in the center might not be thrilled about going all-in on Bernie/Liz's plans, but I do think most people they are hungry for change which, again, is why Trump beat Hillary in the first place.  

Nominating Biden is just running Hillary 2.0...except the crazy uncle Rico version.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by DixonHur

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

I don’t think there’s any chance that Liz and Bernie voters stay home. Sanders primary voters came out for Clinton. A larger percentage of Clinton primary voters in 2008 flipped to McCain.

Clinton most because she took the Democratic labor vote in the rust belt for granted.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

3 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when Trump was just running to be president of Twitter.   That analysis proved a bit short-sighted as well. 

IMO, analyses like these tend to be biased by assumption that voters are ideologically static.   Yeah, there are a ton of moderates in the Dem party, but plenty of them are just following the crowd and conventional wisdom in a party that, at the leadership level, has moved to the center since the 1990s.  Their ideological position isn't written in stone; they just want policy that speaks to their core values.   They can get behind MFA just as easily as an Obamacare tinker; it's workable universal coverage that they want.  Just like on the other side, Trump took advantage of a decade-long deterioration in Republican core values to lead the party to open white nationalism and the violation of every principle the party had professed to holding before, apart from on abortion.    Turns out, most of the people who claimed to hold moderate conservative positions weren't actually all that attached to them. 

To me, the question isn't whether there's a candidate who speaks for where most of the voters are; it's whether there's a candidate who can lead them to where that candidate wants them to go.  A centrist can be an inspiring leader, like Bill Clinton, but I don't see any inspiring leaders among the moderate crowd in this race (maybe Pete, with a few more years to ripen).   The only real leaders I see are Warren and Bernie, and Bernie seems to have hit his ceiling. 

[David Dennison 18487]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t think that’s trolling. I believe the largest single voting coalition, certainly the plurality of voters, can be assembled around the theme of restoring America to factory default settings. That’s what progressive maximalists don’t get about Biden and the reason why they underestimate the durability of Biden’s lead.

At some point the progressive left are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the Democratic Party is a loose, fluid coalition of interests that are not assembled around leftist ideology. We all just buy into procedural liberalism because it gives us a fair shake and that’s about all we can agree on.

And that’s not an appeal to moderation, by the way, that’s the reality of this party. Take your message to the voters and sell it if you can, but you can’t expect other factions to stop doing the same.

At some point the moderates in the Democratic Party are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the party is going to move left or continue to lose elections because the base won't support bullshit moderate garbage. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

52 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If the Dems trot out Biden for the general then they deserve to lose.  Not saying they will, but they'd deserve it if they did.  If the last election showed us anything at all, it's that the public is hungry for change, any change.  Yes, I know Hillary got more votes, and Trump only won because of the electoral college, but guess what...that same system is still in place.

Trump sucks and his base is dumb, but they will vote for him in lock step.  On the other hand, Bernie and Liz fans, along with many independents like myself might just stay home if Biden is the nominee.  He doesn't bring anything new to the table.  In fact, I'd argue he's part of the problem, not the solution.  I'm 48 and he's been in Washington since I was in diapers.  

I get that some in the center might not be thrilled about going all-in on Bernie/Liz's plans, but I do think most people they are hungry for change which, again, is why Trump beat Hillary in the first place.  

Nominating Biden is just running Hillary 2.0...except the crazy uncle Rico version.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Why would the center have to go all in on Bernie or Warren's plans? Most of the things that Liz or Bernie want but the center supposedly doesn't require Congress to implement.  If moderate Dem representatives don't want single payer, they won't implement it. The Senate is probably still going to be GOP.

Bernie, in particular, won't get any moderates on board for anything. He is too cantankerous. Warren could get more accomplished, but there will still be compromise.  We suck as an electorate so baby steps will be taken toward positive reforms or nothing will be done. 

I like both Warren's and Bernie's plans and will probably vote for Warren in the primary. If I was in the center, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for either one over Trump even if I wanted to keep my private insurance death panel and keep my multiple foreign wars. Neither of those things are going away any time soon unfortunately. 

So they can vote for a guy that is actively working to dissolve a century of good will with our allies, shredding a century of built up public knowledge and expertise in science and intelligence, giving away American leadership in Asia and Europe, and funneling our tax money into his own pockets. Or they can vote for an evil socialist who will rebuild all that while maybe making United healthcare pay for their cancer treatment instead of throwing them out in the back alley behind the hospital. 

Same goes for Biden and you. He's a buffoon, but he will bring back others who have actual expertise to run our various bureaucracies. He'd also be an ally to our allies. 

Imagine a US President who could mediate the Brexit process while giving a shit about both sides rather than a firebrand who wants to dissolve their alliances with one another. Obama and even W would have sat down with May, Merkel, Macron, Tusk, and Juncker and had this figured out already. They'd be in a Norway deal and it would be fine for everyone but Farage.  No shithead Trump and shithead Johnson never takes over. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

At some point the moderates in the Democratic Party are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the party is going to move left or continue to lose elections because the base won't support bullshit moderate garbage. 

In missing the point, you made it.

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

To me, the question isn't whether there's a candidate who speaks for where most of the voters are; it's whether there's a candidate who can lead them to where that candidate wants them to go.  A centrist can be an inspiring leader, like Bill Clinton, but I don't see any inspiring leaders among the moderate crowd in this race (maybe Pete, with a few more years to ripen).   The only real leaders I see are Warren and Bernie, and Bernie seems to have hit his ceiling. 

 

 

 Obama was the most ideologically centrist politician of the modern era and institutionalized/normalized more of what Democrats want than anybody since LBJ, despite being hamstrung by the greatest economic catastrophe in 80 years.

 

By the way- I reject the idea that Elizabeth Warren is part of the radical left. She’s like a regular liberal Democrat from 1965. So I get the chuckles when Warren fans chide about how they aren’t gonna stand for any moderate bullshit.

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Like Obama, Bill Clinton didn’t originally run as a centrist.  Go look at his platform from 1992 and it looks more like Elizabeth Warren’s today than Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. Obama and Clinton won because they could articulate a vision of what they wanted America to be.  Their messaging resonated with voters. People wanted to live in the America they were advocating for. 

It had less to do with ideology/policy and more to do with connecting on an emotional level.  People listened when Bill Clinton and Obama spoke and they wanted more of what they were selling.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Platform 

http://www.4president.org/brochures/billclinton1992brochure.htm

Fighting for the Forgotten Middle Class’

 

"America is in trouble. Our people are hurting. The rich keep getting richer and the politicians just seem to be taking care of themselves. It's time we took care of our own. If America's not strong enough at home, we'll never be able to stand up for what we believe in around the world. National security begins at home."

 

BILL CLINTON OFFERS AN ECONOMIC PLAN TO COMPETE AND PROSPER IN THE WORLD ECONOMY

Bill Clinton will cut taxes for the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share.

Bill Clinton will encourage and maintain commitment to better education at every level.

Bill Clinton will make sure American workers can get training and retraining throughout their careers -- so that America can achieve a high-skill, high wage economy.

Bill Clinton will fight for tough, effective trade laws and encourage investment in research and development for emerging technologies.

Bill Clinton will make certain there are more FHA loans so middle-income families can buy homes.

Bill Clinton will speed up building and repair of our roads and bridges.

 

BILL CLINTON OFFERS A NEW AMERICAN HEALTH CARE PLAN

Middle-class working families are living in fear everyday that if they get sick they'll lose everything. That's wrong. In his last year as President, Bill Clinton will present a new American health care plan to: 

 

Cover everybody.

Control costs, improve quality, expand preventive and long-term care. 

Maintain consumers' choice of doctors.

Take on the insurance companies and the medical bureaucracy, and demand reform.

 

BILL CLINTON OFFERS A PLAN TO ENSURE WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION

The key to our economic future is education. A nationally-recognized leader in education reform, Bill Clinton will be a real "Education President As President", he will:

 

Fully fund Head Start for all eligible young children.

Demand accountability and quality of every school, teacher and student. 

Establish a national apprenticeship program for young people who don't want to go to college but don't want to end up in dead-end jobs. 

Launch a domestic GI bill to guarantee a college education to everyone if they're willing to pay it back as a small percentage of income or through two years of national service in their communities as police officers, teachers, health care personnel, and other vital professions.

 

BILL CLINTON

A Lifetime of Fighting for the American Dream

Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas 45 years ago. For 16 years, he has been married to Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons have an 11-year-old daughter named Chelsea.

Bill Clinton is now serving his fifth term as governor of Arkansas. A former chairman of the National Governors' Association, he has been ranked by his fellow governors as the most effective governor in the country.

Bill Clinton has worked hard to improve education and increase employment, and he has served as Co-chair of the President's Education Summit with the nation's governors. He has also served as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Bill Clinton earned his law degree from Yale University and his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University. He was also a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University.

"I don't want my child or your children to grow up in a world that is coming apart instead of coming together."

 

‘Putting People First’

It's Time to Put People First.

That is the core of our national economic strategy for America. And that will be the fundamental idea that guides every day of our Administration.

 

For more than a decade our government has been rigged in favor of the rich and special interests. While the wealthiest Americans get richer, middle-class Americans work harder and earn less while paying higher taxes to a government that fails to produce what we need: good jobs in a growing economy, world-class education, affordable health care, and safe streets and neighborhoods. Economic growth will not come without a national economic strategy to invest in people and meet the competition. Today we have no economic vision, no economic leadership and no economic strategy.

 

Our political system has failed us, too. Our government doesn't work. Hard-working Americans who play by rules have no voice in Washington.

 

Our National Economic Strategy puts people first by investing more than $50 billion annually over the next four years to put America back to work -- the most dramatic economic growth program since World War II. To pay for these investments and reduce our national deficit, we will save nearly $300 billion by cutting spending, closing corporate tax loopholes, and requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.

 

No one will agree with all the details of our plan. But you have a right to know what we'll do and where we stand. 

 

Put America to Work.

To restore economic growth, we must put our people back to work and invest in our nation. Our strategy will:

 

Create a Rebuild America Fund with a $20 billion annual federal investment for each of the next four years, leveraged by state, local, private sector and pension fund contributions. This fund will be used to renovate roads, bridges and highways and create the world's best transportation, information and environmental protection technologies and networks.

 

Convert our defense-based economy to a peacetime one to ensure that the communities and workers who won the Cold War don't get left out in the cold. Create a civilian research and development agency to encourage conversion and cutting-edge technologies.

 

Invest in our communities by creating a nationwide network of community development banks to provide loans to entrepreneurs and homeowners; requiring companies that bid on city projects to set up shop in enterprise zones to employ local residents; and easing the inner-city credit crunch to prevent "redlining."

 

Make our streets safer and create jobs by adding 100,000 new police officers, with incentives for military personnel to join.

 

Demand Corporate Responsibility.

Our National Economic Strategy will make large corporations accountable to the American people and provide incentives for entrepreneurs and small businesses, which create most of the jobs in our nation. We will:

 

Ensure tax fairness by cracking down on foreign companies that manipulate our laws to evade taxes. Eliminate deductions for companies that ship American jobs overseas and reward outrageous executive pay.

 

Encourage private investment with tax credits that reward companies that make long-term commitments to new business, and reward those who invest in research and development.

 

Open up world markets by passing tougher trade legislation, creating a national Economic Security Council and stopping our trade representatives from cashing in on their contacts when they leave government.

 

Ensure worker retraining by requiring every employer to spend 1.5 percent of payroll on training for all workers -- not just executives.

 

Reward Work and Families.

Our National Economic Strategy will put people first by rewarding work, demanding responsibility and ending welfare as we know it. We will:

Make welfare a second chance, not a way of life by scrapping the current system and empowering those on welfare by providing the education, training and child care they need to go to work.

 

Reduce the middle-class tax burden by giving working families a choice between a children's tax credit and a rate cut -- and pay for it by making the rich pay their fair share.

 

Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit so that no one with a family who works full time has to raise children on poverty.

 

Sign the Family and Medical Leave Act to give American parents the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or a sick relative.

 

Crack down on deadbeat parents by reporting those delinquent in child support payments to credit agencies, using the IRS to collect child support and starting a national deadbeat databank.

 

Lifetime Learning.

Governments fail when our schools fail. Education today is more than the key to climbing the ladder of opportunity, it is an imperative for our nation. Our strategy will:

 

Prepare children for school by helping disadvantaged parents build a learning ethic at home and fully funding programs like Head Start and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program that save taxpayers several dollars for every one spent.

 

Overhaul America's public schools with tough standards and national exams in core subjects, and provide public school choice. Enact a "Safe Schools Initiative" to help ensure a positive learning environment.

 

Giving dropouts a second chance by giving them a chance to develop skills and learn self-discipline through a Youth Opportunity Corps.

 

Develop a national apprenticeship program that brings business, labor, and educators together to offer non-college-bound students valuable training.

 

Give every American the right to borrow for college by establishing a National Service Trust Fund, maintaining Pell Grants, and scrapping the current student loan program. Students will repay their loans either as a small percentage of their income after graduation or by going home to do community service as teachers, counselors or police officers.

 

Provide Affordable Quality Health Care.

Our health care system costs too much and does not work. Washington has favored the insurance companies, drug manufacturers and health care bureaucracies. Putting people first means guaranteeing every American the right to affordable quality health care. We will:

 

Control health care costs to ensure that they do not rise faster than the rate of inflation.

 

Eliminate tax breaks for drug companies that raise their prices faster than Americans' incomes.

 

Take on the powerful insurance lobby to prevent consumers from subsidizing billions in administrative waste.

 

Guarantee a core benefits package that includes ambulatory physician care, inpatient hospital care, prescription drugs, basic mental health, and expanded prenatal, preventive, and long-term care. The package will be set by a health standards board made up of consumers, providers, business, labor and government.

 

Make health care a right, not a privilege, by giving employers and employees the right to buy private insurance or opt for a public package.

 

Streamline the health care bureaucracy and protect small business by instituting a "community rating" program.

 

Break the Washington Stalemate.

No plan to put our people first, no strategy to make the economy grow, can succeed unless we break the stalemate in Washington. It is time to cut the bureaucracy, limit the special interests, stop the revolving door and cut off the unrestricted flow of campaign funds. We will:

 

Cut 100,000 unnecessary bureaucratic positions through attrition and mandate 3 percent across-the-board savings in every federal agency.

 

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies for lobbyists and special interests. Toughen and streamline disclosure requirements.

 

Reduce the White House staff by 25 percent, and challenge Congress to do the same.

 

Stop the revolving door from public service to private enrichment by requiring senior Administration officials pledge never to become registered agents for foreign governments, and challenging Congress to do the same.

 

Enact strong campaign reform legislation that caps spending on Congressional campaigns: slashes political action committee (PAC) contributions to the individual legal limit of $1,000; and lowers the cost of air time so that TV becomes an instrumentation of education, not a weapon of political assassination.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 Obama was the most ideologically centrist politician of the modern era and institutionalized/normalized more of what Democrats want than anybody since LBJ, despite being hamstrung by the greatest economic catastrophe in 80 years.

 

By the way- I reject the idea that Elizabeth Warren is part of the radical left. She’s like a regular liberal Democrat from 1965. So I get the chuckles when Warren fans chide about how they aren’t gonna stand for any moderate bullshit.

 

 

 

I agree that Warren isn't part of the radical left, but a 1965 liberal Democrat isn't a moderate either, right?  I mean, she has been against all of the bank protection/deregulation New Democrat bullshit over the last 20 years, plus she strongly opposed the TPP. 

[Js1 84995]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

At some point the moderates in the Democratic Party are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the party is going to move left or continue to lose elections because the base won't support bullshit moderate garbage. 

Moderates are going to have to come to terms with the fact that President Biden in 2021 is a stop gap measure that doesn’t prevent or neutralize the more savvy Trump candidate winning in 2024 (i.e., Tom Cotton).  You’re just giving them the “more politics as usual by the Democrats” message they can run and win on. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Js1

[DixonHur 11017]

48 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why would the center have to go all in on Bernie or Warren's plans?

They don't, that's my point.  It's easier to get middle ground folks to get excited about a vision of America, than it is for to get those pushing for the change to get excited about the same ole same ole.

That's why I think it's better for the Dems to nominate either Liz or Bernie rather than Biden. 

[David Dennison 18487]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Moderates are going to have to come to terms with the fact that President Biden in 2021 is a stop gap measure that doesn’t prevent or neutralize the more savvy Trump candidate winning in 2024 (i.e., Tom Cotton).  You’re just giving them the “more politics as usual by the Democrats” message they can run and win on. 

I wonder if it would help Joe Biden if he pledged not to run for re-election in 2024.

[Hank Kingsley 20592]

The current conversation reminds me of a Buttigieg interview from March 2017 that I found after he announced his exploratory committee. 

He talks about how Republicans in the 60s/70s/80s effectively moved the American politic center rightward, so much so that someone like Bill Clinton would sound conservative to a 60s Republican. I've timestamped it below.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

wonder if it would help Joe Biden if he pledged not to run for re-election in 2024.

This would hurt him. You’re sacrificing the incumbency advantage for what?  

[Message Board User 12388]

42 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder if it would help Joe Biden if he pledged not to run for re-election in 2024.

Doubtful.

If you're too old for 2024, you're probably too old for 2020.

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like Obama, Bill Clinton didn’t originally run as a centrist.  Go look at his platform from 1992 and it looks more like Elizabeth Warren’s today than Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. Obama and Clinton won because they could articulate a vision of what they wanted America to be.  Their messaging resonated with voters. People wanted to live in the America they were advocating for. 

It had less to do with ideology/policy and more to do with connecting on an emotional level.  People listened when Bill Clinton and Obama spoke and they wanted more of what they were selling.

Agree completely, but that's not the same thing as moderation, either. Or put another way, there are people who respond to the darkest places in trump's vision. But can we agree that Trump isn't ideological? Can we also agree that he is in no way a moderate?

 

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I agree that Warren isn't part of the radical left, but a 1965 liberal Democrat isn't a moderate either, right?  I mean, she has been against all of the bank protection/deregulation New Democrat bullshit over the last 20 years, plus she strongly opposed the TPP. 

Absolutely not, and those are good examples. 
This what I meant about the use of the word "moderate" by the progressive left  - they usually just mean insufficient box-checking by of their priorities by other factions of Democrat voters.  

I'm in financial services and there are LOTS of people from across the spectrum in my industry who see the Clinton-Bush regulatory approach to banking as damaging to both banking and capitalism. It's not "moderate" to want to reinstate Glass-Steagal.  It would cause huge upheaval and a disruptive reordering of the power structure. But it's not ideological to want to do that, either. 

On the other hand, Warren's (and Trump's) opposition to TPP is fueled by a sort of protectionist economic nationalism that is almost exclusively ideological by my lights. Opposition to TPP is a mainstream,  moderate, status quo position held by leaders and broad coalitions in both parties that doesn't disrupt or disestablish any dominant interest, but is also very bad and stupid. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But can we agree that Trump isn't ideological? Can we also agree that he is in no way a moderate?

Yes and yes.  Trump was actually an effective candidate because he was radical and he owned his radicalism.  His unapologetic bluntness, as dumb and wrong as it was, resonated with people.  Hillary couldn’t do that and neither can Joe Biden because they play to the center which comes off as full of shit and just another empty suit.  No one wants to build a movement around that. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yes and yes.  Trump was actually an effective candidate because he was radical and he owned his radicalism.  His unapologetic bluntness, as dumb and wrong as it was, resonated with people.  Hillary couldn’t do that and neither can Joe Biden because they play to the center which comes off as full of shit and just another empty suit.  No one wants to build a movement around that. 

Obama stood at the front of a centrist movement. Biden wont inspire one,  but ideology doesn't have anything to do with it and from a policy standpoint they are identical. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Obama stood at the front of a centrist movement

Semantics here but I’d call it an anti-extremist movement instead of centrist.  

When I hear “centrist” I think, “no foundational beliefs” and “pro status quo”.

 When I hear “anti-extremist” I think “normative and pragmatic.”

It’s just a quirk on my part. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Obama stood at the front of a centrist movement. Biden wont inspire one,  but ideology doesn't have anything to do with it and from a policy standpoint they are identical. 

Obama enacted centrist policies, but I don't really see him as heading a centrist movement.   His success was built more around his personality and tone, sort of independent of ideology.  He was a vocal "I'll take good ideas from all sides" guy.   And he's such an inspiring and admirable guy personally that it smoothed over policy differences within the party.  But he had no coattails, and the party pretty much fell apart throughout his tenure—even as he handily won re-election and ended office with high popularity.  He never got anyone behind an ideological vision, centrist or otherwise, that other Dems could build on.

I agree that Biden will be identical on policy.  And that scares the shit out of me, because I don't want to know wtf happens to this country if Dems elect yet another leader who has no answer on wealth/income inequality, which I think is the defining domestic issue of our time.  We know where the GOP's answer of racism and xenophobia leads. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13115]

Harris is garbage.

Shot:

 

Chaser:

 

[bad_teammate 13115]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Pete has really evolved over the last five months. 

[BradInATX 9208]

23 hours ago, David Dennison said:

At some point the moderates in the Democratic Party are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the party is going to move left or continue to lose elections because the base won't support bullshit moderate garbage. 

The base of the democratic party is moderate.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Just now, BradInATX said:

The base of the democratic party is moderate.

Prove it.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Prove it.

12% of the country wants policies left of Obama. It was in the last big polling data dump with the 200 pages of detail. 

Twelve percent.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13115]

People do not self-identify accurately and there is no consistent idea of what is "left" and "right" for the larger voting public. Policies like single-payer, high inheritance tax, and a federal jobs guarantee are broadly popular.

The only voters who go into the booth thinking about broad categorizations of "left" or "right" are already ideologically aligned. Swing/independent/reluctant voters don't care about that.

[BradInATX 9208]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

People do not self-identify accurately and there is no consistent idea of what is "left" and "right" for the larger voting public. Policies like single-payer, high inheritance tax, and a federal jobs guarantee are broadly popular.

The only voters who go into the booth thinking about broad categorizations of "left" or "right" are already ideologically aligned. Swing/independent/reluctant voters don't care about that.

Single payer is polling at 13%. Almost the exact same percentage as those who want us to be left of Obama. Not a coincidence. You and Hugo can jerk each other off and lament all of the centrist Republicrats all you want, but you are in the very small minority.

LOL at your second paragraph. Your entire identity is built around proving that you are further left than everyone else, and labeling anyone you don't agree with a Republican or Libertarian. You're an awful shell of a grown man trying to troll.

Edited September 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18487]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Single payer is polling at 13%. Almost the exact same percentage as those who want us to be left of Obama. Not a coincidence. You and Hugo can jerk each other off and lament all of the centrist Republicrats all you want, but you are in the very small minority.

 

So are Republicans.

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So are Republicans.

Also true. But they run our country right now, unfortunately.

Edited September 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[GSU&UT 1798]

LMAO, Corn Pop

 

[David Dennison 18487]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Also true. But they run our country right now, unfortunately.

Not all of it.

[bad_teammate 13115]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Single payer is polling at 13%. Almost the exact same percentage as those who want us to be left of Obama. Not a coincidence. You and Hugo can jerk each other off and lament all of the centrist Republicrats all you want, but you are in the very small minority.

"Single payer" is not a term that exists in the American political lexicon and it's not something that has been discussed. Americans want universal health coverage for everyone and can be very easily sold on methodology if the numbers make sense and the arguments are clear.

The idea that 87% are ideologically opposed to "single payer" is fucking laughable.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

"Single payer" is not a term that exists in the American political lexicon and it's not something that has been discussed. Americans want universal health coverage for everyone and can be very easily sold on methodology if the numbers make sense and the arguments are clear.

The idea that 87% are ideologically opposed to "single payer" is fucking laughable.

87% are opposed to Single Payer that gets rid of private insurance.  88% want us at or right of Obama policies. 

Keep trying. Even your dumb ass should know better than to argue with numbers (narrator: he doesn't). 

Edited September 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Harris is garbage.

Shot:

 

Chaser:

 

Is that quote real?  That is GOP level out of touch with reality.  Criminals choosing venues to commit crime based on bail amounts. Lol. I guess they planned on getting caught too. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

87% are opposed to Single Payer that gets rid of private insurance.  88% want us at or right of Obama policies. 

Keep trying. Even your dumb ass should know better than to argue with numbers (narrator: he doesn't). 

Yep, we all love living in a country you're beholden to your employer offered healthcare insurance (you know, if they don't just switch providers or offer much worse options each year) where you not only have premiums, deductibles, but out-of-pocket maximums and co-insurance. We love the possibly of waking up in an ambulance that may be taking you to an out-of-network hospital (or an in-network hospital that has out-of-network doctors practicing) which forever change our lives by having debt collectors hound us year after year because neither the hospital nor your magnificent ~*MARKETS*~ driven health insurer footed any real portion of the bill.

Love it so damn much

[bad_teammate 13115]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

87% are opposed to Single Payer that gets rid of private insurance.  88% want us at or right of Obama policies. 

Keep trying. Even your dumb ass should know better than to argue with numbers (narrator: he doesn't). 

And what were the percentages in support of being "right at Obama policies" before the Obama policies were enacted?

Spoiler alert: It was heavily opposed and then flipped later once people realized what it actually was.

The same is true of single-payer M4A.  Due to Republicans (like you) and shitlibs (like many here) who are on a sustained and industry-backed public relations crusade against the idea of "single-payer", negative opinion is going to be high regardless of the merits of the policy or the fundamental values of the larger voting public.

[David Dennison 18487]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

87% are opposed to Single Payer that gets rid of private insurance.  88% want us at or right of Obama policies. 

Keep trying. Even your dumb ass should know better than to argue with numbers (narrator: he doesn't). 

What does "gets rid of private insurance" mean?

If we apply Medicare to the entire population, private insurance isn't going anywhere.

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

Progressive Maximalists: eliminate private insurance or we will insult you again!

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what were the percentages in support of being "right at Obama policies" before the Obama policies were enacted?

Spoiler alert: It was heavily opposed and then flipped later once people realized what it actually was.

The same is true of single-payer M4A.  Due to Republicans (like you) and shitlibs (like many here) who are on a sustained and industry-backed public relations crusade against the idea of "single-payer", negative opinion is going to be high regardless of the merits of the policy or the fundamental values of the larger voting public.

 

"But it's not fair!!"

LOL what a crybaby. Go home, kid. You've lost.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[Bama Chick 28596]

Oh Pete.

This is so terrible and so weak.

Quit letting the Republicans define the debate. They’re going to call you a gun grabber too no how much you placate.

I bet you’re glad Democrats stopped worrying about “playing into Republicans’ hands on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.

[David Dennison 18487]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Progressive Maximalists: eliminate private insurance or we will insult you again!

What are the odds that private insurance is going away in a Medicare for All system when traditional Medicare includes Medicare Part C, aka, Medicare Advantage?

[Bama Chick 28596]

On that note, guess he was full of shit here.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

30 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Single payer is polling at 13%. Almost the exact same percentage as those who want us to be left of Obama. Not a coincidence. You and Hugo can jerk each other off and lament all of the centrist Republicrats all you want, but you are in the very small minority.

LOL at your second paragraph. Your entire identity is built around proving that you are further left than everyone else, and labeling anyone you don't agree with a Republican or Libertarian. You're an awful shell of a grown man trying to troll.

 

21 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

87% are opposed to Single Payer that gets rid of private insurance.  88% want us at or right of Obama policies. 

Keep trying. Even your dumb ass should know better than to argue with numbers (narrator: he doesn't). 

You keep running with the 13% nonsense. I assume that is from the Hill Harris poll.  That is for single payer that bans private or supplemental insurance.  Nobody is even proposing that and I don't think it even exists anywhere else in the world that matters. 

Medicare for all polls between 56% and 70%, allows for supplemental private insurance, and is pretty much the only version of "single payer" that is being proposed.  Even Bernie's version polls at 45% in the very poll you cite. 

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

You keep running with the 13% nonsense. I assume that is from the Hill Harris poll.  That is for single payer that bans private or supplemental insurance.  Nobody is even proposing that and I don't think it even exists anywhere else in the world that matters. 

Medicare for all polls between 56% and 70%, allows for supplemental private insurance, and is pretty much the only version of "single payer" that is being proposed.  Even Bernie's version polls at 45% in the very poll you cite. 

Bernie's version allows for a private option? That's news to me. And to Bernie.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Bye Pete