Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

11315171819

Comments

  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    Gore is younger than Biden. Gore is younger than Sanders. (Actually Gore is younger than me, but I'm not eligible or remotely suitable, but who is?)

    Anyway, given the seventeen dwarves currently trying, he might be thought to be as good as any. Oh well, perhaps not.
  • Gore isn't bad because of his age but I don't really see anything policy-wise that would set him apart from the other centrist democrats running.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Since my first assessment of the various candidates' electoral prospects back in March we now have actual polling data (and better public awareness of the candidates to make that data meaningful). At the moment there seem to be only five real contenders in the race.

    The Front Runner
    • Joe Biden

    Biden has lost some ground since the first debate but is still the only candidate consistently polling above 20%. In some polls his support is as high as 30%.

    The Second Tier
    • Kamala Harris
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    These three are currently tied for second place, all polling at ~15%. For Harris and Warren this is an improvement. For Sanders it's a come-down from previous polling, though second place in a Democratic presidential primary should at least be familiar to him by now.

    The Long Shot
    • Pete Buttigieg

    Buttigieg is the only other Democratic candidate polling at (barely) above 5%.

    No Chance/Running for Cabinet
    • Michael Bennet
    • Corey Booker
    • Steve Bullock
    • Julián Castro
    • Bill de Blasio
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Mike Gravel
    • John Hickenlooper
    • Jay Inslee
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Wayne Messam
    • Seth Moulton
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson
    • Andrew Yang

    All the candidates on the above list are polling below 3% support. Some closer to 0% than to 3%.

    The Dropouts
    • Richard Ojeda
    • Eric Swalwell

    These candidates have ended their run for the nomination.

    So that's the current state of the race, but as the shake-up following the first debate demonstrated the race is still very volatile and these standings could be changed on a single, well-turned (or badly-turned) phrase.
    The UK Tory party leader race had multiple contenders for a bit. The Last Leg, a late night news/current events comedy series, asked their audience to pick them out from a series of photos. They snuck in random pics other people, including one of their camera men.
    The camera man got more selections than several of the real candidates.
    You should do that with this list and see if anyone notices.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    love how that show kicked on after the Paralympics. Hills knows how to sweet talk people.
  • agingjb wrote: »
    Gore is younger than Biden. Gore is younger than Sanders. (Actually Gore is younger than me, but I'm not eligible or remotely suitable, but who is?)

    Anyway, given the seventeen dwarves currently trying, he might be thought to be as good as any. Oh well, perhaps not.

    I don't think Biden or Sanders ought to be running either. Their age is a problem, yes, but Biden has baggage and doesn't even want to run, and Sanders doesn't have many accomplishments despite thirty years in Congress.

    There was a good Washington Post article a few days ago about the generational divide among Democratic politicians. (Sorry it's paywalled- I tried to find a free version but couldn't.) The author's thesis is basically that older Democrats are fixated on compromise with Republicans because it was the only way they survived the early eighties, politically, and they remember the days when there was civility. Whereas Democrats under forty or so have never seen a Republican party that was interested in bipartisanship or good government at all, so they're more inclined to stand up and fight.

    I don't think that Democrats of any age whose starting position is compromise with Republicans should be running in this cycle.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I don't think that Democrats of any age whose starting position is compromise with Republicans should be running in this cycle.
    Obama certainly learned that the hard way.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Al Gore should have become President in 2001, and we should have paid attention to is warnings about climate change. But I can't see him running in 2020.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 11
    agingjb wrote: »
    Gore is younger than Biden. Gore is younger than Sanders. (Actually Gore is younger than me, but I'm not eligible or remotely suitable, but who is?)

    Anyway, given the seventeen dwarves currently trying, he might be thought to be as good as any. Oh well, perhaps not.

    I don't think Biden or Sanders ought to be running either. Their age is a problem, yes, but Biden has baggage and doesn't even want to run, and Sanders doesn't have many accomplishments despite thirty years in Congress.

    Sanders has forced the Democratic party to talk seriously about things that would have been considered political suicide not too long ago. We have him to thank, more than any other politician, for the fact that single-payer healthcare is being discussed in mainstream politics as a serious proposal. Hell of an accomplishment, IMO. The reason he doesn't have many legislative "accomplishments" is because he has persistently taken lonely, progressive positions while Democrats were playing Republican lite.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Sanders has forced the Democratic party to talk seriously about things that would have been considered political suicide not too long ago. We have him to thank, more than any other politician, for the fact that single-payer healthcare is being discussed in mainstream politics as a serious proposal. Hell of an accomplishment, IMO.
    My problem is that I'm not convinced that some of the things he has the Democratic Party talking about now aren't still political suicide when it comes to the general electorate. As much as I like some of the ideas he has Democrats treating seriously, I have fears that enough of the electorate feels differently such that we'll end up with 4 more years of Trump.

  • Everything I've seen indicates that Medicare for all is a popular proposal, even if the details are tricky. I don't know if Sanders is a safe bet but running yet another centrist Democrat is definitely not. Looking at the areas that really swung the election, Trump didn't do any better than Romney in 2012. The biggest difference is people who came out for Obama didn't come out for Clinton. And yes, Obama was a centrist democrat too but he was good at projecting himself as something vaguely more than that.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Sanders has forced the Democratic party to talk seriously about things that would have been considered political suicide not too long ago.

    This observation should be the final nail in the coffin of trying to change American politics through third party vanity campaigns for the presidency. Sanders, a nominal independent, moved the American political discussion further left by running within the Democratic primary than all the leftist third party runs of the last half century put together. Yet there are still voters who regard elections as some kind of atomistic, customizable consumer good rather than a collective decision-making and policy-setting process.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Everything I've seen indicates that Medicare for all is a popular proposal, even if the details are tricky.
    Yes, until you ask people if they support Medicare for all if it means giving up their private plans, which is the single-payer health plan Sanders supports. Support drops pretty markedly if the proposal is single-payer. What has popular support is making Medicare available to all.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Everything I've seen indicates that Medicare for all is a popular proposal, even if the details are tricky.
    Yes, until you ask people if they support Medicare for all if it means giving up their private plans, which is the single-payer health plan Sanders supports. Support drops pretty markedly if the proposal is single-payer. What has popular support is making Medicare available to all.
    People understand Medicare* and they have it. They do not understand single-payer and the people they listen to have spent years decrying it.
    They see themselves as having "earned" Medicare, whilst single-payer will be "given" to the undeserving.

    *Or, more accurately, they think they do.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Point:
    There was a good Washington Post article a few days ago about the generational divide among Democratic politicians. (Sorry it's paywalled- I tried to find a free version but couldn't.) The author's thesis is basically that older Democrats are fixated on compromise with Republicans because it was the only way they survived the early eighties, politically, and they remember the days when there was civility. Whereas Democrats under forty or so have never seen a Republican party that was interested in bipartisanship or good government at all, so they're more inclined to stand up and fight.

    I don't think that Democrats of any age whose starting position is compromise with Republicans should be running in this cycle.

    Counterpoint:
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    My problem is that I'm not convinced that some of the things he has the Democratic Party talking about now aren't still political suicide when it comes to the general electorate. As much as I like some of the ideas he has Democrats treating seriously, I have fears that enough of the electorate feels differently such that we'll end up with 4 more years of Trump.

    One of the more popular genres of American political think-pieces is some pundit chin-stroking about how Democrats need to moderate their positions in order to win over Republican voters, or moderates. You never see this approached from the other way, suggesting that Republicans need to tone things down to have a broader appeal. Until now.
    Why Isn’t Trump Trying to Win the Center?
    In theory, that’s what he should be doing. In practice, forget it.

    What is President Trump going to do to win the voters who rejected him in 2016?

    It’s a serious question. Roughly 137 million people voted in the last presidential election. Most of them — about 74 million people, or 54 percent of all ballots cast — did not vote for Trump. His self-proclaimed “massive landslide” rests on a thin margin of victory in just three states.

    Once in office, Trump abandoned the heterodox Republicanism of his campaign for hard-right policies opposed by most Americans. He fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. When that failed, he pushed for an unpopular upper-income tax cut. He reveled in cruelty toward immigrants and took the side of racist demonstrators in Charlottesville, Va. He governs for his base alone, with no sense or understanding of the collective good.

    “I have a base that’s a phenomenal — it’s just a phenomenal base,” Trump said in a recent interview with Time magazine. “It’s a very loyal base and I’m loyal to them also.” When asked if he should reach beyond his supporters, he answered simply, “ I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that.”

    As a result, the narrow coalition that put him in office is even narrower. The 2018 backlash that gave Democrats a majority in the House of Representatives was built on major gains in Republican-leaning suburbs throughout the country, as a small but still substantial number of 2016 Trump voters either cast a ballot for Democrats or didn’t vote at all.

    Trump’s approval rating is nearly 10 points under water, meaning that over all, people disapprove of his performance as president by a large margin (52.3 to 42.7 percent); in several recent polls he loses hypothetical matchups with Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg; and as of April, 52 percent of registered voters said they “definitely” wouldn’t vote for him in 2020. He still has the economy on his side, but if the president doesn’t try to reach out to voters outside of his base — if he doesn’t try to appeal to Democrats and Republicans who rejected him in 2016 — there’s a good chance he’ll lose re-election.

    It goes on from there to get into policy specifics if you're interested enough to spend one of your monthly New York Times clicks.

    On one level this is Jamelle Bouie trolling Donald Trump. On another level it's him trolling fellow New York Times columnists like David Brooks or Bret Stevens who spend endless column inches bemoaning the fact that Democrats won't adopt positions to appeal to conservatives (like David Brooks and Bret Stevens). Thank you, Mr. Bouie, for filling this gap in American political punditry!
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Took my car in for service yesterday. In the waiting room was a gentleman (sorry, that's not the right word -- male creature) wearing a "Trump 2020 Keep America Great" t-shirt. I turned my chair so that my back was to him -- couldn't bear even to breathe the same molecules of air that had been in his lungs -- but several other customers flocked around him and engaged him in conversation, everyone with smiles on their faces.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Bleurrgghh if the smiles and chat had to do with the male creature's political choices. Let's hope he's an otherwise nice guy who, because he doesn't take in any actual news coverage, just doesn't know any better.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    I think it's very possible that we may be very surprised by who winds up being the Democratic nominee. Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Kerry was not expected to win the nomination at this point.

    Does anyone know what political donations made now would best help the Democratic candidate, regardless of who that may be?

    Should one donate to the:

    -DNC (I'm not exactly sure what it does and if donating to it really helps the Democratic presidential nominee much)
    -State Democratic parties, especially in battleground states (I'm also not exactly sure what they do and if donating to them really helps put boots on the ground to build and get out the Democratic vote in their states)
    -DCCC (helps elect House Democrats, many of whom are in safe seats but get DCCC money anyway, and push out non-establishment candidates)
    -DSCC (helps elect Senate Democrats, ditto)
    -DGA (helps elect Democratic governors, important because of 2020 redistricting)
    -DLCC (helps elect Democrats state legislators, important because of 2020 redistricting)
    -Democratic Senate and House candidates in presidential swing states, as those candidates become known (the problem is, it's too early now to know who many of those nominees will be)
    -Some PAC, SuperPAC, or 501c4 group that basically exists to elect Democrats, although each will have its own agenda

    I've heard that there are drawbacks to donating to any of the above groups that are not actual candidates' campaigns. The whole redistricting issue, along with the importance of keeping the House and trying to take the Senate or at least prevent losses in the Senate, makes donating to some of the above groups seem like a good idea.

    HOWEVER, I would like to know where the best place to put my money (and volunteer hours) is now to elect a Democratic president, and I just don't know. We need to start building infrastructure on the ground in swing states that will help any candidate, along with building a powerful social media operation and smart use of ads and data. I don't want, at this early stage, to donate to a candidate who may lose the nomination and I worry about donating to a committee or organization that might be more focused on protecting the status quo or promoting a narrow policy agenda than it is on electing a Democratic president.

    Any thoughts?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    small target politics works in Australia. Single payer seems open to a massive scare campaign and strikes me as a target. The tried and true method here is to run on patriotism and platitudes and implement your more complicated policies when you have your arse on the Government benches. But our executive govt is a creature of the legislature.

    If the US had our system Paul Ryan would have been President and Nancy Pelosi would be President right now. A Trump Presidency would be unlikely because to win the support of your colleagues you have to hide the fact that you are a self-centred blowhard.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I'm donating to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's running against Mitch McConnell. Crowbarring him out of his Senate perch/coffin looks like a priority to me. There are ways in which he's worse than Trump.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    I'm donating to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's running against Mitch McConnell. Crowbarring him out of his Senate perch/coffin looks like a priority to me. There are ways in which he's worse than Trump.

    Kentucky resident here. I endorse all of the above. For one thing McConnell is focused and competent - you can't rely on him to lose interest and blunder on to the next thing in a few days as you can with Trump.

    I am a bit concerned as to whether any Democrat could beat McConnell in a national election. I doubt Amy McGrath can do it. Our former governor Steve Beshear might have a chance, he was generally popular and even kept his office during the Tea Party sweep in the early 2010s when a lot of other Democrats were pushed out.

    But if we make a lot of noise and bump up turnout, maybe the national Democratic party will actually give us some help next time?
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    I'm donating to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's running against Mitch McConnell. Crowbarring him out of his Senate perch/coffin looks like a priority to me. There are ways in which he's worse than Trump.

    I'm planning to do the same.

    I've never contributed to a campaign before (except one tiny donation for a state-wide office), but this year I've made contributions to one candidate for President, and one candidate for Senate (we only have one Democrat running in Arizona).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am a bit concerned as to whether any Democrat could beat McConnell in a national election. I doubt Amy McGrath can do it. Our former governor Steve Beshear might have a chance, he was generally popular and even kept his office during the Tea Party sweep in the early 2010s when a lot of other Democrats were pushed out.

    Just a point of information here: McConnell is not standing for any national election. He is a US Senator representing the state of Kentucky. The only one that needs to defeat him is a Democrat--or anyone else--in the state election.
  • I threw a dollar at the Mike Gravel campaign so he can yell at Biden.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    I'm donating to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's running against Mitch McConnell. Crowbarring him out of his Senate perch/coffin looks like a priority to me. There are ways in which he's worse than Trump.

    I'm planning to do the same.

    Done!
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    I guess my question was what is the best organization to donate to now to help a Democrat be elected president in 2020, without donating to a specific candidate.

    Beating McConnell would be great, as would taking the Senate and getting some say in redistricting in states across the country - we need to do all those things too. But I'm focusing on the presidential race for the purposes of this question.

    Does anyone know what the DNC does exactly, or the state Democratic parties?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I have read about a fund run by the Democratic Party to help the eventual nominee but I don't know what its called.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Would you like to hear some good news? Well, you won't get that from the Warren campaign today which is warning about an impending economic crisis. Warren has some credibility here since she first got into politics warning about the economic weaknesses that would eventually metastasize into the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The sources of instability this time around, according to Warren, are:
    • House debt, which was a problem last time around
    • Corporate debt, which seems to have been commodified and sold to investors like sub-prime loans in the aughts
    • A slowdown in the manufacturing sector, which Warren notes is technically already in recession

    The Warren campaign then suggests several measures which can be taken to resolve (or reduce) the problem, many of which she's already suggested in other contexts and which tie back in to her central campaign narrative. That's one of the things I've been impressed with about the Warren campaign. Not just all the plans, but the way the plans are always tied back to the central narrative of making the American economy work for all Americans, not just the already wealthy.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    It’s a fair bet that a recession is impending just based on the cycle of recessions that’s been taking place in this country since the Civil War. The thing I don’t like about Warren here is that it does a similar kind of fear thing to what Trump did: the world is collapsing, and only I can fix it. Of course, that’s a good tactic that many people would use or are using, but I dislike it all the same.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited July 22
    I don't think she's saying she's the only one who can fix it. And if she didn't think she had good ideas about how to fix it, she'd have no business running for office.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Thing is, she's smart enough (unlike T) to know and tap other smart people, and she knows what she knows and doesn't know. I like several of the Dems running, but hope Warren is our next Prez. God alone knows why anyone would want the job once the Menace departs. It'll make cleaning the Augean stables look like Spa Day.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    She’s definitely smart and more than capable for the job. I suppose I’m also naturally inclined to dislike anyone who describes themselves as a “capitalist to my bones.” But then, I’m a socialist to my bones.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I will cream my jeans if Warren becomes President.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Would you like to hear some good news? Well, you won't get that from the Warren campaign today which is warning about an impending economic crisis.
    Well, does it qualify as a silver lining if an economic crisis deprives Trump of a strong economy to run on?

  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited July 23
    [*] Corporate debt, which seems to have been commodified and sold to investors like sub-prime loans in the aughts

    The commodification of corporate debt is nothing new or inherently destructive. Individual investors rarely if ever (unless their pockets are like Mariana's Trench) buy that directly, though the institutions with which they have bundled investments (e.g various funds) do so. It's a simple way of floating cash for the borrower over the short term. They are not like sub-prime loans in the least. Re: interest rate they were quite the opposite.

    That said, commercial paper was often just overnight. It was like it was crack for the traders. Easy high. For me, who did the collaterisation for the bank, it was a royal pain because almost no institution would take that paper overnight - some not even interday - and those that did, it was reluctantly and pretty much on the basis of personal trust that I had built up over years on the street. I had such difficulty using commercial paper as collateral in 2005 that I recognised the house of cards, and warned the trading group that issuing almost useless (for my purposes) overnight paper meant that it had a very negative impact on both my collateral and cash positions, resulting in their trades failing completion.The instrument was not in itself destructive - in fact, useful - but it's the difference between a tot of brandy and a flagon.

    I left that bank when I had a rather vocal exchange with a trader on this issue (unintended pun).

    Cleaned up quote code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Would you like to hear some good news? Well, you won't get that from the Warren campaign today which is warning about an impending economic crisis.
    Well, does it qualify as a silver lining if an economic crisis deprives Trump of a strong economy to run on?

    It says a lot about the current state of politics that I (living in my cozy affluent liberal bubble) worry when I hear good news about the economy under Trump, and secretly and guiltily fantasize about a financial downturn that helps Trump be voted out of office. (This is the exact opposite to the way I reacted to news about the economy under Obama. I feel like the worst of hypocrites. Plus wishing for a downturn that would cause tremendous amounts of suffering - and may even significantly hurt comfortable people like myself - is plain wrong.)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    meh. It doesn't have to be a disaster. Just enough to deprive him of a credible boast.
  • It will always be a disaster for somebody, since so many are in already quite a precarious state. And of course many are in a disastrous state.

    Unfortunately crises are inevitable in the present system- governments can forestall or mitigate them but not eliminate them.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad

    Did you really have to use a vulgar term in reference to Warren?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    huh? cream my jeans? apologies for offence. I enjoy vulgarity and swearing, and I do think I would faint from orgasmic pleasure if she was elected President.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    I'm not sure what to make of this poll. (It doesn't seem to be a one-off. I've seen other polls like it.)

    I support most of Warren's and Sanders' policies, although not on trade, but I worry a lot about how some of their policy positions might help Trump get reelected or, even if one of them beats Trump, hurt Democrats' numbers in Congress, make governing and getting anything passed in Congress difficult, even if Mitch McConnell isn't Senate Majority Leader anymore. It's not spineless, in response to Warren, to make sure that the Democratic party does not run on policy changes that a strong majority of voters do not want.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    huh? cream my jeans? apologies for offence. I enjoy vulgarity and swearing, and I do think I would faint from orgasmic pleasure if she was elected President.

    I think it's best for men (I'm assuming you are male) like you and I to not use sexual language to describe our affinity for Warren and her policies. I don't care how crude the language is Granted, you or I (and I happen to be queer) might use the same language for a male candidate without any intention of implying that we want to have sex with them, but it's best not to do that also, especially in settings where we don't know everyone we are talking to that well. The fact that Warren is a woman, given the patriarchy and all, makes it even less of a good idea, even if many women may think it's fine and funny and talk that way about candidates of all genders that they themselves like.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Everytime I hear Warren I wonder what I could do to help. But Australian-NZ interference is probably a bad as Russian.

    A news service in NZ I get daily updates from pointed to Marianne Williamson's audience-reaction as rather good, despite not having as well-fleshed out policy ideas. They pointed to this article, saying she needs to be taken seriously, also.

    I also somehow missed that Williamson as she previously has said her first call as President would be to Jacinda Ardern:
    "My first call is to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the place where it's the best place in the world for a child to grow up," Williamson said.

    "I would tell her: 'girlfriend, you are so on', because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up."
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    stonespring--

    (notworthy) re your cautioning post on speaking about women candidates.
  • It's not spineless, in response to Warren, to make sure that the Democratic party does not run on policy changes that a strong majority of voters do not want.

    That's the thing, though... a majority of voters do want medicare for all and student loan forgiveness. A weak majority, to be sure, but "moderating" on these issues is indeed spineless, and criminal. What "moderate" means now is more of the same. That is not acceptable, not sustainable, not survivable. We can no longer afford a choice between insane Republicans and slightly less insane Democrats.

  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    That's the thing, though... a majority of voters do want medicare for all and student loan forgiveness. A weak majority, to be sure, but "moderating" on these issues is indeed spineless, and criminal. What "moderate" means now is more of the same. That is not acceptable, not sustainable, not survivable. We can no longer afford a choice between insane Republicans and slightly less insane Democrats.

    What polls show a majority of voters supporting Medicare for All when the question explains that the Medicare for All plan in question is one that would eliminate/replace employer-provided private insurance?
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »

    What about Tom Steyer?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    That way lies Trump in office until 2024.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    That's the thing, though... a majority of voters do want medicare for all and student loan forgiveness. A weak majority, to be sure, but "moderating" on these issues is indeed spineless, and criminal. What "moderate" means now is more of the same. That is not acceptable, not sustainable, not survivable. We can no longer afford a choice between insane Republicans and slightly less insane Democrats.

    What polls show a majority of voters supporting Medicare for All when the question explains that the Medicare for All plan in question is one that would eliminate/replace employer-provided private insurance?
    None that I have seen. A majority support making Medicare available to all, but that’s not Warren’s or Sanders’ proposal.

    Besides, it’s not enough to say a majority support it. It matters where that majority is; it doesn’t do any good if that majority is concentrated in places like California. What does support for single-payer Medicare for All look like in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan?

    I very much wish the US had a single-payer health plan, and would advocate moving toward that if at all possible. But I wish more for Trump not to inflict four more years of damage on the country, and I think that could well be what we’re looking at if we nominate someone like Warren. I think she could be a great president. But I think if she’s the nominee, Trump will continue to be president.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    That way lies Trump in office until 2024.

    Yes, that's what I think too. But he is claiming to offer an alternative (despite being a Dem) to the current Dems and Reps.
Sign In or Register to comment.