Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

11920212325

Comments

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    So again, without falling on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if we are given a choice between a range of reasons for not voting for Clinton, which seems more likely? More straightforward? More respectful of these people as thinking human beings?

    A. That these voters were enthusiastic about Obama because they saw something in him that they did not see in Clinton?

    Or

    B. Or that they were all ready to turn out in the same numbers for Clinton until some tweets and memes overpowered their weak minds?

    Wait a sec. In order to present those as mutually exclusive options...

    Which I didn't.
    I'm not sure I buy your claim that black Americans are uniquely immune to propaganda.

    I'm not sure I buy that you actually think I said this. In fact I think you know perfectly well I didn't.

    Also, I hope you are not suggesting an equivalence between the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and very real problems like mass incarceration.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 24
    Journalist Yasha Levine does a great job of putting the current Ukraine drama in context here (part of a continuing series).
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    So again, without falling on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if we are given a choice between a range of reasons for not voting for Clinton, which seems more likely? More straightforward? More respectful of these people as thinking human beings?

    A. That these voters were enthusiastic about Obama because they saw something in him that they did not see in Clinton?

    Or

    B. Or that they were all ready to turn out in the same numbers for Clinton until some tweets and memes overpowered their weak minds?

    Wait a sec. In order to present those as mutually exclusive options...

    Which I didn't.
    I'm not sure I buy your claim that black Americans are uniquely immune to propaganda.

    I'm not sure I buy that you actually think I said this. In fact I think you know perfectly well I didn't.

    Also, I hope you are not suggesting an equivalence between the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and very real problems like mass incarceration.
    Pizzagate is a symptom of a very real problem, one that emphasises the ease in which the public is manipulated. The Mass incarceration laws also show this.
    There was significant support in the black communities for the tough on crime laws. In 1973, 1986 and 1994. There was certainly debate on the effect such laws would disproportionally have on black people, but there was also the thought that crime was bad enough that they were risks to take.
  • As Michelle Alexander writes,

    Of course, it can be said that it’s unfair to criticize the Clintons for punishing black people so harshly, given that many black people were on board with the “get tough” movement too. It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness. They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare. In the end, they wound up with police and prisons. To say that this was what black people wanted is misleading at best
  • So, was that to illustrate the debate of which I spoke?
  • It was a response to your victim-blaming. Of course the bizarre attempt to draw a parallel between Pizzagate and the prison industrial complex is as serious as Trump comparing his impeachment to a lynching.
  • You should be a comedian. I was doing nothing of the sort.
    The main point was that those laws were not as simplistic as you pretend.
    I am not equating Pizzagate with mass incarceration.

    The "prison industrial complex" is a complicated thing. One that disadvantages POC, especially black people, but not all the roads getting to it were intentional. Some of them very much were, yes. Some also did not look to consequence as they and theirs were not as likely affected.
    They whys of who supported them is a variable thing.
    Sanders, BTW, voted for the 1994 law.
    Regardless, the 1994 law was not the cause of mass incarceration. That was already on the rise and it is state laws which are mostly responsible for the increase in sentences and harsher punishments.*
    The real question on any politician is what are they doing to reduce the inequities that POC, especially black people, are facing. Those inequities contribute to crime, and the perception of crime, in black neighbourhoods.
    In hindsight, one wonders why black leaders though white politicians would change their stripes and actually help POC. The reality is that they were looking for something to decrease the violence in the neighbourhoods of the people they represented.

    *The law was still bad and still racist in effect.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    I'll probably regret this, but . . . sleazy how, exactly? She's been investigated up, down, & sideways for multiple issues multiple times, yet no deliberate wrongdoing has ever surfaced and even some of her opponents praise her ethics. While I personally don't find her especially likable, she's highly intelligent, eminently competent, extremely knowledgeable, deeply experienced and knows her way around government. I think she'd have made a fine president. It's a shame she puts so many people off, but . . . sleazy?

    I don’t think you need to have done anything illegal for voters to feel you are tainted by the swamp, getting colossally wealthy thanks to a Washington establishment far removed from most people’s lives. It’s Why we need to talk about Hunter Biden.
    This [that Hunter Biden has broken no laws] is all true, and arguably these are the right lines vis-a-vis the long overdue impeachment proceedings. What’s harder to shake is the fact that Hunter Biden’s career is undeniably shady in the way that only the son of a longtime Washington insider could muster, failing upwards into positions of influence and power on the merits of his last name.


    I agree with you that Hunter Biden had opportunities because of who he is. There is an Aussie TV show, Planet America, which is threatening to go through it in detail.

    Biden's situation is not comparable to Hillary Clinton's though, or her husband's career either. Both of them came from humble backgrounds, not money. Hillary had the double penalty of being neither rich nor male. Nonetheless she eschewed high-paying jobs after Yale, working for and then setting up community organisations aimed at assisting women and children. In Arkansas, where she came to live with Bill, she was pilloried in the press for being too forward, too immodest, and just not behaving appropriately as a woman. This set of complaints has followed her throughout her career in public life.

    Hillary has been involved in most major decisions in the United States federally for decades. She has never done anything that was unreasonable, erratic, unstable or corrupt in any of her many offices. She has been involved in the waging of war and the maintainence of peace, and has always acted appropriately and in line with what must be done to exercise power in a country whose activities and influence are worldwide.

    She laughed at the death of Ghadaffi, it is said. If she did, I laugh with her. The death of that man was well overdue.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 25
    Do you laugh likewise about the jihadists and warlords ruling Libya now, and the reintroduction of slave markets to the country? Do you laugh at the jihadist militias now murdering Kurds with US arms in Syria?
  • I’m even more excited to hear Simon’s masterful narration of the illustrious career of Henry Kissinger
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited October 25
    Sanders on Kimmel the other day. The two minute explanation of his health care plan at the end is quite clear and concise.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Tulsi Gabbard has announced that she is leaving Congress at the end of her term.
    Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard announced on her presidential campaign website today that she will not seek reelection to Congress in 2020.

    “Mahalo, Hawaii,” the message says on the Tulsi Gabbard for President website.

    She also asks the people of Hawaii for their support for her candidacy for president of the United States.

    “I believe I can best serve the people of Hawaii and our country as your President and Commander-in-Chief,” she writes on the website.

    Gabbard had been facing state Sen. Kai Kahele for the Democratic nomination for her House seat representing Hawaii’s 2nd district.

    Hawaii has neither U.S. Senate nor gubernatorial elections in 2020, so she's not planning on running for some other office.
  • Do you laugh likewise about the jihadists and warlords ruling Libya now, and the reintroduction of slave markets to the country? Do you laugh at the jihadist militias now murdering Kurds with US arms in Syria?

    You draw very very very long bows.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    @Simon Toad
    Biden's situation is not comparable to Hillary Clinton's though, or her husband's career either. Both of them came from humble backgrounds, not money.

    Well, it depends upon what you mean by "humble."

    Hillary Rodham grew up comfortably middle class in the Chicago suburbs, with a father who owned his own small business and a mother who did not work outside the home. Before she went to Yale Law School she went to Wellesley, a private liberal arts college for women, one of the Seven Sisters, i.e., a prestigious institution where she got an excellent education, about the best on offer to American women at the time. She doesn't come from money, but she has never been poor. Her mother, though, had a positively Dickensian childhood.

    Bill Clinton likes to portray his background as humble ("The Man from Hope"!), and his family life was difficult -- his father died before he was born, and his stepfather was an abusive drunk. But Roger Clinton owned a car dealership, and from fairly early on, Bill Clinton's life all sounds reasonably middle class. He went to an excellent public high school, where he played in the school band, took Latin, and went to Boys Nation, and then he went to Georgetown. Compared to a lot of others at Georgetown, his background was anything but elite; he was on scholarship and worked part-time to make ends meet. But was his background humble? Compared to the Kennedys? Sure. But he didn't face anything like the obstacles overcome by folks such as Elijah Cummings and Shirley Chisholm.
  • Yep, all that's what I understood to be the case. Was Hilary a scholarship girl? I'm not sure. I think middle class white parents of that generation might have scrimped and save to get their sons at least an education. My guess is that both parent and child would need to be extraordinary for a girl to go to law school.

    Having said that my fictive American parents, now in their mid 80's, met at College, his study paid by the Army while she did nursing. I'm not sure where they went.

    I'm contrasting my attitude to Hillary and her supposed faults with those of Jared Kushner as a landlord and working out why I condemn Kushner but laud Clinton. I think I have it right in my head but will write it from another device.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The DNC seems to have gotten serious about thinning the field for the December debate. That would be the sixth Democratic debate and they've ratcheted up the qualifying criteria again.

    The donor qualification: A candidate must have at least 200,000 unique individual donors with at least 800 donors in at least 20 states by December 13, 2019.

    The polling qualification: A candidate must have either
    • at least 4% support in four qualified national or early state (IA, NH, NV, SC) polls
      OR
    • at least 6% support in two qualified early state (IA, NH, NV, SC) polls

    To qualify polls must be released by a qualified polling agency between October 16, 2019 and December 12, 2019.

    There have only been polls by qualified polling agencies since October 16, but three candidates are already qualified.

    Already In
    • Joe Biden
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    The others of the consistent "top 5" Democrats have enough donors and are only one poll short of qualifying.

    Almost There
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris

    The four candidates below either have enough donors but no supporting polls yet (Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Yang) or have one supporting poll but haven't gathered 200,000 unique donors yet (Steyer).

    Tough Road Ahead
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tom Steyer
    • Andrew Yang

    The candidates below have neither polling nor donor qualification, but given their past ability to qualify and that we're less than two weeks into a two month qualifying period they still have a non-trivial chance of qualifying.

    Longshots
    • Cory Booker
    • Julián Castro
    • Tulsi Gabbard

    The following six candidates have no qualifying polls, have not met the donor threshold, did not qualify for the last (October) debate, and have not yet qualified for the next (November) debate. Their chances of qualifying for the December debate seem remote at best.

    Abandon All Hope
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • John Delaney
    • Wayne Messam
    • Joe Sestak
    • Marianne Williamson
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited October 29
    Just to close the circle on Hills, Jared Kushner was on my mind as I'd just read this article from ProPublica on his company's aggressive pursual of questionable debts it purchased as part of a property deal a few years ago. The article makes clear that Kushner is personally involved in setting the collections policy, and the point of inflicting distress on people and refusing to consider their individual situations is to enrich himself and his family. His conduct is 'commercial best practice', in that it is very similar to the way that many corporations deal with large scale collections and liability issues, especially insurance companies. I nevertheless condemn him and others who engage in this practice.

    When the US intervened in the Libyan civil war it did so in concert with its NATO allies. Its actions were authorised by the United Nations. The US did everything required to ensure that its military action was approved of and supported by international institutions. In the course of that action NATO forces attacked a convoy of vehicles in which Ghaddafi was travelling. That attack exposed Ghaddafi to capture by fighters who were his enemies, and his murder by them in a cruel manner. A video later circulated which showed him being sodomised by a bayonet.

    Hillary was informed by an aide during an TV interview that Ghaddafi had been killed. She was clearly very happy about it, and said "We came, we saw, he died", and laughed with the interviewer. This was her initial reaction to a great result, one long desired by a great many people in the West, including me. I visited the town where the plane Ghaddafi ordered to be bombed crashed in 1990. At the time of the interview, Clinton had not seen any footage of his death. All she knew was that he was dead. She was entitled to celebrate this victory, not only a victory for the USA, but a victory especially for Scotland, which had recently released one of the bombers of the aircraft on compassionate grounds, only to see him welcomed back to Libya as a hero and embraced by Ghaddafi. The death of Ghaddafi was an unmitigated good thing for the world. It was indeed something to celebrate, and it was celebrated with gusto in Libya.

    I do not accept that liability for the continued chaos in Libya rests with Clinton. The UN authorised intervention was an intervention in an already chaotic situation in which the longstanding regime of Ghaddafi was finally coming to a close. The intervention was an attempt to stabilise the situation and support the rebel force, and in that sense it failed. The USA was one element of that intervention, and decisions on its prosecution were made by NATO, not the US alone and not Hillary Clinton. The attack on Ghaddafi's convoy, for instance, was initiated by a US drone and executed by French aircraft. Hillary didn't kill Ghaddafi. The rebels the intervention was supporting killed him.
  • I just watched Judy Woodruff's interview with Biden. "He (Trump) doesn't want to run against me. Period."

    That is a powerful argument.
  • ...but was that said by Judy or Biden? ;)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Beto has now quit the race. He was polling only 1 % in Iowa and did not make the cut for the December debate. I am thinking he could not get traction in Iowa because of his stance on firearms.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Beto has now quit the race. He was polling only 1 % in Iowa and did not make the cut for the December debate.

    Had not yet made the cut for the December debate. The deadline to qualify is December 12 so it was still theoretically possible for O'Rourke to qualify. Heck, there are still almost two weeks left for candidates to qualify for the November debate.

    Five thirty-eight has a post mortem on the O'Rourke campaign. The tl;dr version is that there aren't enough young, white moderates in the Democratic primary voter pool to sustain a candidacy whose chief strategy is courting young, white moderates. (It could also be that Pete Buttigieg simply outplayed Beto O'Rourke in drawing the young, white moderate vote.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Tomorrow (November 5, 2019) is election day in the U.S. Not many states have odd-year elections, but there are a few.

    Louisiana (6:00 am to 8:00 pm) and Mississippi (7:00 am to 7:00 pm) are voting for state legislators and governor tomorrow.

    Kentucky (6:00 am to 6:00 pm) is holding an election for governor but not the state legislature.

    New Jersey (6:00 am to 8:00 pm) and Virginia (6:00 am to 7:00 pm) are voting for state legislators but not governor.

    If you are an American who is registered to vote in any of these states (or if you have county/municipal elections of some sort) you should visit the polls tomorrow (or today, if you're reading this on November 5).

    I've include poll opening and closing times as listed in Ballotpedia, but the true arbiter is your local election authority. If you have any doubt about polling hours check with them, not some internet rando. Note that Kentucky spans two time zones and polling hours are reckoned according to local time, so the polls in the eastern half of the state will close one hour before the polls in the western half.
  • I am gripped by my first bout of big fear at the moment. The cause of it is Medicare for All and Warren's plan to fund it. It is just so easy to slice and dice a plan like that, pouring over it for errors, or just bullshitting about it. I HATE my side coming up with big ideas. It scares the crap out of me. I much prefer empty promises and symbolism from my side, and the attention on the other and their manifest failures. Surely this election should be about the turd in the WH, not the Democrats. Can Warren turn herself into an attack dog after she wins the nomination, or at least use proxies to point out Trump's utter failure?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited November 5
    I think Sanders' plan for funding Medicare for All is better. I don't see this as an unsolvable problem at all anyway.

    In any case, the question of "how are we paying for this?" should be aimed right back at Republicans, for any number of their wasteful expenditures, from bloated military budgets and stupid wars, to smaller but still ridiculously wasteful projects like Trump's wall (who did he say was going to pay for that?)

    Not to mention the enormous savings in medical bills, premiums, etc. that Medicare for All will achieve.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    You know, I keep thinking about What's Missing from this election cycle. The Republican "strategy" is to keep Trumpiteers in power simply because they're Trumpiteers. IOW, this election, for Republicans, is a personality cult. The Democratic strategy is to get Democrats in power by dangling "Here's what government-by-our-side can do for you," when unfortunately we're smack in the midst of a crushing demonstration of Do-Nothing (unless it helps Russia) governmental power.

    What we need is a candidate ready, willing, and able to inspire Americans to do more than simply vote-and-crow or vote-and-kvetch. We don't need more complicated governmental plans; we need a program. We need something individual Americans can roll up their sleeves for, give time to, get personally involved in, volunteer for, root for -- not with money donations, but with personal commitment. That's what powered the Great Generation. That's what powered the Civil Rights movement, feminism, labor movements, etc. Dems need a People-Powered movement that can help Americans feel like they actually own and can have some real impact on government again.
  • The movement around Sanders, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc. is precisely that. "Not me, us." "I'm willing to fight for someone I don't know." Those aren't just slogans.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So the Tom Steyer campaign seems to be getting a lot of press today. Maybe he's finally breaking through!
    A South Carolina aide for Tom Steyer’s 2020 presidential campaign stole valuable volunteer data collected by Kamala Harris’ campaign using an account from when he worked with the S.C. Democratic Party, according to multiple state and national party officials.

    The Steyer campaign said that it does not have possession of the data and that Democratic officials were only aware of the download, which they said was inadvertent, because they proactively notified them. Both the Democratic National Committee and S.C. Democratic Party denied that.

    The Democratic National Committee said they quickly caught the attempt on Friday by Steyer’s deputy S.C. state director Dwane Sims to export Harris’ data, which contained thousands of volunteer contacts collected over the course of the campaign in this critical early-voting primary state.

    Or maybe not.

    The claim of virtue for calling the authorities someone noticed you looting the metaphorical cash register is particularly egregious. Harris has a particularly well-developed ground game in South Carolina and the data in question is likely voters, people who have offered to volunteer, things like that. Literal campaign gold, compiled through a lot of door knocking and shoe leather by the Harris campaign. The optics of a billionaire with no prior political experience stealing the hard work of a black woman (and her dedicated supporters) is . . . very bad.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well, it's hardly surprising. What would you expect of an alleged self-made moneypants whose TV campaign ad claims he quit his day job to to "fix our democracy?" He's a smaller-scale Trump wanna-be. Wouldn't vote him into the local dogcatcher post.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    The movement around Sanders, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc. is precisely that. "Not me, us." "I'm willing to fight for someone I don't know." Those aren't just slogans.

    Nope. Sanders-as-presidential-candidate is another personality cult. The Crew may have their hearts in the right places, but aside from the Green New Deal (mostly just another "gummit fix"), there's nothing for the ordinary citizen to do except vote and donate to and write letters to the dying press in their local hometown rag (if indeed they still have one).

    Americans have historically been "doers." That seems to have gone missing from our culture fairly recently and must be revived and restored. We have to stop over-professionalizing citizenship. We have to recall how we're the circa-1850 neighbors who help the newcomer raise the barn he'll need. We're the sharecroppers who, denied education by local whites, put together our own school and run it and staff it ourselves. We're the Victory gardeners who grow carrots instead of lawns in WWI and II, not so we can have organic veggies but to join in visible support our country's war efforts. We're the schoolkids who saved our pennies and bought war bonds or sent them to Washington to help fund the moonshot. We're the young adults who signed up as Peace Corps volunteers.

    What we need is a program with a concrete, measurable goal that at least 1/3 of Americans can rally around and get behind and which requires some sort of countable, visible, tangible action individuals can take.

    Dems need some candidate who can set a challenge of that nature in front of voters -- something public and visible beyond private donations and something outside our potentially stolen votes.


  • Ohher wrote: »
    The movement around Sanders, AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc. is precisely that. "Not me, us." "I'm willing to fight for someone I don't know." Those aren't just slogans.

    Nope. Sanders-as-presidential-candidate is another personality cult. The Crew may have their hearts in the right places, but aside from the Green New Deal (mostly just another "gummit fix"), there's nothing for the ordinary citizen to do except vote and donate to and write letters to the dying press in their local hometown rag (if indeed they still have one).

    Americans have historically been "doers." That seems to have gone missing from our culture fairly recently and must be revived and restored. We have to stop over-professionalizing citizenship. We have to recall how we're the circa-1850 neighbors who help the newcomer raise the barn he'll need. We're the sharecroppers who, denied education by local whites, put together our own school and run it and staff it ourselves. We're the Victory gardeners who grow carrots instead of lawns in WWI and II, not so we can have organic veggies but to join in visible support our country's war efforts. We're the schoolkids who saved our pennies and bought war bonds or sent them to Washington to help fund the moonshot. We're the young adults who signed up as Peace Corps volunteers.

    What we need is a program with a concrete, measurable goal that at least 1/3 of Americans can rally around and get behind and which requires some sort of countable, visible, tangible action individuals can take.

    Dems need some candidate who can set a challenge of that nature in front of voters -- something public and visible beyond private donations and something outside our potentially stolen votes.

    Grassroots activism still happens all over the place. Granted, it is led by a minority of people but that has almost always been the case. In terms of growing vegetables and buying war bonds, you're talking about total war footing. Can we please not have that, ever again? The mass mobilization you are idealizing was facilitated by enormous propaganda as well as ostracism or criminalization of dissent. Not to mention the enormous amount of death "over there." A lot of people joined the Peace Corps to avoid dying in a pointless, evil war.

    In terms of mass movements for social change, they happen at moments when things get acutely bad and the normal legal options prove to be dead ends. Which they likely will, soon. Sometimes this can result in good things. Sometimes it can result in something that looks a lot like fascism. Be careful what you wish for, because there are large sections of American society who could be mobilized for deeply reactionary purposes.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I'm not proposing war; we've already got those and need no more. Those were examples, though, of ways to pull a citizenry together -- something neither party really wants, because people-power reduces pol-power.
  • Sir Palomides got to this first, and I mostly agree with him. {Takes a whiff of restorative smelling salts.}
  • Only some of Ohher's examples were about a war effort. The others looked pretty good.

    I wonder how the candidates compare to Obama's "Hope" campaign? I trusted the American electorate back then (sort of), and didn't pay much attention.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So last night's elections had a few notable moments, though no real surprises. The closest thing to a surprise was Andy Beshear's probable victory over incumbent Matt Bevin for Governor of Kentucky. I say "probable" because the margin of victory is ~5,000 votes out of ~1.4 million ballots cast. Beshear has declared victory while Bevin is refusing to concede, both reasonable positions given the situation. Kentucky has no automatic recount law but a recount can be requested by any of the candidates. So, is this a bright new day for the Democrats in Kentucky? After all, this was a state that Donald Trump carried 63%-33% in 2016. Not really. Republicans easily won every other statewide office (Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, State Auditor). The only conclusion we can reach is that Matt Bevin is so personally offensive to the Kentucky electorate that a good number of voters who otherwise voted a straight Republican ticket pulled the lever* for his Democratic opponent. Though I suppose I should note that Matt Bevin is also the only Kentucky Republican Donald Trump bothered to personally come out and campaign for, so maybe that's a factor too.

    There are a couple of important likely results from a Beshear victory, if that indeed turns out to be the ultimate result. The first is that kynect, the state health care insurance exchange, will likely be restarted. The other result is that Democrats will control the Governor's veto power during the 2021 redistricting. Given the Republican's concerted gerrymandering campaign in multiple states after the 2010 census this is pretty big.

    And speaking of gerrymandering, Democrats won control of both houses of the Virginia state legislature last night, meaning they will be in charge of redistricting the state in 2021. This is notable because one of the contributing factors to last night's Democratic victory in this state was that the legislative districts were re-drawn following a ruling that the 2011 district map drawn by the Republican legislature was a racial gerrymander.


    *Apocryphally, of course. I'm pretty sure that all the old Roosevelt-era lever-and-gear voting machines have been retired by now.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    There are a couple of important likely results from a Beshear victory, if that indeed turns out to be the ultimate result. The first is that kynect, the state health care insurance exchange, will likely be restarted.

    This is a big one for people who are affected by the ACA. For our non-US shipmates, something like 75% of the population here still gets their insurance from their workplace. There aren't actually that many of us who are directly impacted by the improvements to individually purchased insurance - the Medicaid expansion was a far bigger deal for Kentuckians.

    Everybody who's experienced both systems (*raises hand*) knows Kynect was infinitely better than being part of Healthcare.gov. We were a model for the whole nation before Bevin wrecked it.
  • I thought Kynect was a yiddish word at first glance...
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I wonder how the candidates compare to Obama's "Hope" campaign? I trusted the American electorate back then (sort of), and didn't pay much attention.

    He sort of built a movement and then ignored it once he got into the White House.

  • yeah, but did he have detailed policies and costings like Warren in particular does? It just seems to me to be awfully risky to put yourself out there so early.
  • As I recall, no, not much detail. Just a sense that getting him into office was going to accomplish something big and important. He got this great machine going behind him and then basically shut it down. A big mistake.

    What is different in the current wave of leftist democrats is that, while getting someone like Sanders into office is important, it is not the lynchpin of the movement. There are specific policies being advocated and this requires mobilization at both the local and federal levels.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited November 6
    That strategy scares the crap out of me. It is proven electoral death for both sides in Australian politics, although mass movements are not needed to get people to the polls here.
  • Well sitting around and waiting for the party establishment to do everything has worked grandly for us so far.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Two days ago the Tom Steyer campaign was involved in theft. What are they up to today? Bribery, apparently.
    A top aide to Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer in Iowa has privately offered campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsing his White House bid, according to multiple people with direct knowledge of the conversations.

    The overtures from Pat Murphy, a former state House speaker who is serving as a top adviser on Steyer’s Iowa campaign, aren’t illegal — though payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed. There’s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer’s campaign as compensation for their backing.

    But the proposals could revive criticism that the billionaire Steyer is trying to buy his way into the White House. Several state lawmakers and political candidates said they were surprised Steyer’s campaign would think he could buy their support.

    Yes, trying to buy endorsements could very well "revive criticism" of "trying to buy his way into the White House", because that's what buying your way into the White House involves.
    Steyer has largely self-funded his presidential campaign, spending $47.6 million of his own money in the first three months since launching his bid, much of that on online fundraising and advertising.

    Okay, I get that modern presidential politics is expensive. Joe Biden has spent $27.8 million on his campaign so far, but it's made him the front runner. Warren and Sanders have spent $34.3 million and $40.1 million respectively to put themselves right behind Biden in polling. But spending $47.6 million of your own money on a vanity campaign that's polling about 1% support seems supremely wasteful. Think of all the other things that could be done with that money. If you want to give Democrats a leg up in 2020, how about dropping that cash on Democratic challengers to vulnerable Republican Senators? Or supporting vulnerable House Democrats? Anything other than the electoral equivalent of stacking $47.6 million in a big pile and lighting it on fire.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    As I've suspected all along, Steyer is just a Trump wannabe. Theft and bribery may well have formed part of his business practices; they seem to SOP for a fair number of folks from that world.

    Steyer's affect and language are somewhat more restrained, he's shorter and does less trash-talk, and he doesn't boom around overtly claiming "Only I can fix X," but his campaigns ads definitely wiff of that sort of "saviorism." Somebody needs to tell him that starting a personality cult will require first developing a personality. (Whatever else you can say about 45, you can't deny the guy has personality. Poisonous, yes, but a personality nonetheless.) Steyer has no relevant experience; I can't see how he could hope to get any agenda he really has through Congress, especially if Moscow Mitch is still around.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Somebody needs to tell him that starting a personality cult will require first developing a personality.

    Ouch! :lol:

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Today is the day the list of participants in the November Democratic presidential debate will be finalized. Ten candidates have fulfilled the requirements to participate in the next round of Democratic primary debates. In order to qualify a candidate had to receive at least 165,000 donations from unique donors and poll at least 3% support in four recognized national or early state polls or at least 5% in two early state polls. It's still technically possible for someone to qualify today, but multiple favorable polls would have to drop before midnight (Eastern Time) in order for that to happen so the list is pretty much set.

    There are ten qualifiers for the November debates, down from twelve in October. Missing from the stage will be Beto O'Rourke, who has withdrawn, and Julián Castro, who failed to meet the polled support requirement

    The Debatables
    • Joe Biden
    • Corey Booker
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Kamala Harris
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Tom Steyer
    • Elizabeth Warren
    • Andrew Yang

    The candidates with their names in bold have also already qualified for the December debate. The deadline to qualify for that debate is December 12 so there's still time for everyone else.

    There was one candidate who qualified by number of donors but fell short in polled support.

    Short of the Mark
    • Julián Castro

    Castro had zero national or early state polls showing him with 3% or more support in the required time frame, though he did have the requisite number of campaign donors. Castro has said that missing the November debate would be the end of his campaign. If he sticks to that position expect an announcement in the coming week.

    And then there were those who didn't qualify by either polled support or number of donors.

    Not Even Close
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • John Delaney
    • Wayne Messam
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Marianne Williamson

    If Castro abandons his campaign after failing to qualify for the November debate the justification for the continuing candidacy of anyone on the Not Even Close list is dubious at best.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Just to mix things up a bit, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has announced his (very late) entry into the Democratic presidential primaries. Most see this in similar terms to Bloomberg's hints at a run; Big Finance worried that Joe Biden's campaign won't make it and Elizabeth Warren (or Bernie Sanders) becomes the Democratic nominee. In Patrick's case using his post-governor years to work for Mitt Romney's chop shop seems like a singularly unhelpful item for a Democratic presidential candidate to have on their curriculum vitæ. Patrick's biographical page at Bain Capital has been taken down.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Oh, thank goodness Deval Patrick is running! -- said no one ever.
  • Maybe all of these centrist vanity campaigns will chip away at Biden. Good plan.
  • Oh, goody, we have another 75+-year-old throwing his hat in the ring. And he is not even a boomer.
  • Somewhere out there someone's saying a prayer, that we'll find an electable centrist, someone who will make democrat rich guy's dreams come true.

    OK so lyric substitution is the lowest form of comedy but its all I've got.
Sign In or Register to comment.