Biden holds big lead over 2020 Democrats in two new national polls

[tyrlaan]

There's a reason that Trump supporters keep trying to sales pitch Biden too us.

In case Biden hasn't provided you with enough reasons to want to see him laughed off the debate stage, Trump supporters shilling for Biden should just about cover it.

[Skroe]

If Biden gets the Primary, my opinion is it will be treated like it was Hilary vs Trump again. Status Quo vs Trump feels like it would ensure Trumps second term.

Indeed. Biden is the choice for people who think doing the same thing over and over will yield different results.

Biden isn't left-wing enough to win any elections.

Fuck the status quo, rather have Trump destroying the status quo further then...

Hillary Clinton lost because her campaign focused on big cities and not surburban and rural white women and working class towns in 3 states - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvannia. With regards to things in her campaign's control, that was legitimately it. Too much Pittsburgh and talking about techn (and I went to school in Pittsburgh and love it!) and not nearly enough (as in: any) presence in Altoona and surrounding areas.

Democrats won big in 2018 in suburban areas with women and working class districts that Trump won in 2016 by putting up candidates that can win in these areas and tailoring the message to them. Recall: Democrats had no "National Strategy" (something which pissed off progressives). THey had a "do whatever it takes to win your district in Pennsylvannia" strategy. And numerically, Nancy Pelsoi owes her House Majority to the Blue Dogs that won in districts that Trump won in 2016, not numerically inferior progressives.

The Democratic loss in 2016 wasn't about messages. Progressive interest groups say that because they want to be the kingmakers. There is legitimately zero difference to them saying things like that, and the Tea Party and hard right saying after Romney and McCain's losses "those guys lost to Obama because they didn't turn out the base enough and weren't true to our ideologies". It's the same thing.

The right wing and the left win alike ALWAYS want base elections and detest playing to the center, because in a base election they get to have a larger voice on policy and on decisions. In an election that plays towards independents, they get side lined after the Primary. And keep in mind, for both right and left, it's not even about winning. Winning for the next 4 years is nice. Being a kingmaker for the next 12 is better.

You three Democrats need to ask yourselves: are you really prepared for the implications of the Tea Party of the Left. Because these three things you said here... it's how the Tea Party paved the road for Trump.

Well, seeing as Biden has basically been a right-winger his entire career, this in unsurprising.

This is completely absurd. I was a relentless Obama policy critic for years despite voting for him twice. In the process of that I came to understand the decision making process in the Obama White House, the factions and how things made it from the inner circle to the podium.

Barack Obama was a chameleon. In the 2008 Primary, Obama ran to Hillary's left. In the 2008 General, he became Hillary. As President he was two scoops Bill Clinton and one scoop George H.W. Bush. Do you not recall all the articles of "Obama Supporters feeling betrayed in 2009" because apparently he promised a liberal revolution or something (he didn't)? I do. It was silly.

Obama is a midwestern Democrat. Liberal in some areas, conservative in others. He, like most Democrats, didn't say squat about LGBT issues, for example, until national legalization was nearly fait accompli.

This was reflected within the White House internally. In the first term, Obama had the team of rivals. The Biden faction - he, people from his campaign and historically in his orbit - formed the more liberal faction that had a rocky relationship with Hillary Clinton's faction, and with Robert Gates and Leon Pannetta and Peter Orszag. There was also a shitty relationship with Rahm Emanuel. Over the course of the first term, the "adults in the room" faction moved jobs or left after a few years, while "Biden / One Administration" faction grew.

In the second term, there was no Team of rivals, and the the White House policy making crew was generally more uniform, and a lot of them were of Biden and his faction's persuasion. I repeatedly hammered the Obama Administration on the topic of Syria (in 2012) and Ukraine (in 2014) for listening too much the Biden faction. John Kerry - not a conservative - found that in his role as Secretary of State, he was often to Biden's right.

Is Biden a Sanders like progressive? No. But on foreign and domestic policy, his record in the Obama Administration was quite clear. He always encouraged a pull of policy leftward, successfully or not successfully, where a succession of voices from the Democratic establishment urged a more center-line approach. Sometimes he lost on that (Financial crisis stuff). Sometime he won on that (particularly post-2012 foreign policy).

But to call him "basically a right winger" is ridiculous. It defines what it means to be a right winger to the point of ridiculousness. If he's a right winger, America is a very hard right country, and you might as well stay home election night, because you'll never see someone you define as 'left wing' do more than lose 45 states.

As President, Biden would be a more liberal Barack Obama. His cabinet would be more liberal. He personally, is more liberal. It won't be liberal enough for the stupid kids who started to call themselves "Democratic Socalists" (without really knowing what that is) because Saint Bernie introduced that into their lexicon as kind of a meme. But compared to his predecessors and actual real life peers and not hypothetical abstracts, yeah, he'd be quite liberal.

[tyrlaan]

You three Democrats need to ask yourselves: are you really prepared for the implications of the Tea Party of the Left. Because these three things you said here... it's how the Tea Party paved the road for Trump.

A) I don't consider myself a democrat because I have plenty of issues with the DNC and most of the "old guard" politicking you just defended.

B) I don't need to ask myself the question you threw out here because I disagree with the premises you laid out.

C) I get that you would like Biden the most; you're a disenfranchised conservative looking for someone you can vote for that connects to additional reasons beyond "they're not Trump".

[Skroe]

A) I don't consider myself a democrat because I have plenty of issues with the DNC and most of the "old guard" politicking you just defended.

I mean that's fine, you can consider yourself whatever you like. But this is a party primary and in many of these states only members of the party can vote in them and will decide who gets chosen. So the practical question isn't really "what's one of these candidates to tyrlaan". It's "what's one of these candidates to the states that will rack them the most delegates".

B) I don't need to ask myself the question you threw out here because I disagree with the premises you laid out.

I mean, ideologues on one side never like being compared to ideologues on the other, but the approach is almost always the exact same. What progressives are saying about who the nominee should be is exactly what the Tea Party said for years. Progressives want a base election, and movement groups on both the right and the left had pushed for them hard since 2004. That is a matter of history, not opinion.

More broadly, the concept of political groups positioning themsleves to be kingmakers is as old as politics themselves.

C) I get that you would like Biden the most; you're a disenfranchised conservative looking for someone you can vote for that connects to additional reasons beyond "they're not Trump".

I said I'd vote for an inanimate object with a (D) next to it. I want Trump gone. I don't care how it's achieved. I'd vote for Sanders. I'd vote for Warren. I'd vote for the corpse of JFK. It does not matter. This isn't a policy election. It's a referendum on Donald Trump.

More practically speaking, and deny it as progressives might, who gets elected almost does not matter. 2 Year Deal #3 is about to be signed - something I predicted would happen over 18 months ago. Well here we are. I was right. Shocking. Except it isn't. Because I've understood for much longer than that how well the 2 year budget deal model works for everybody in Congress except the hard right and the most progressive elements of the left (most progressives are fine with the deals). Congress has an extraordinary amount of consensus on how to spend money, and the issues of division are mostly at the edges, and on raising revenues (taxation). When Democrats and Republicans are arguing over what amounts to $30 billion out of a $1.4 trillion discretionary budget, there is agreement.

Which is all to say, because the grand transformative schemes of any candidate - Sanders, Biden, Harris, Warren - don't fit into the 2 year deal schema, they will not be funded and thus, will not happen. Period. Some Democrats want Medicare for all. They don't want it enough to starve their districts of the Federal funds they get via the the 2 year deals in order to force the issue. That's how America is getting a nice and hefty defense spending boost under a Nancy Pelosi built budget. It ain't "corporate Democrats" doing that. Elizabeth Warren, for example, loves her Raytheon dollars (Massachusetts largest employer). And Bernie Sanders... big fan of Medicare for all, and the F-35 program that Vermont plays an outsized role in. Welcome to politics.

So Democrats can pick whoever. It's basically immaterial because once they get elected, like Donald Trump, they'll be reduced to making speeches, using executive powers, and signing the same budget model we've had since 2015. Heck, even if Donald Trump, nightmarishly, got a 2nd term, that'd be the magnitude of his functional 2nd term as President (except his use of executive powers would be highly abusive and undermine American Democracy and lawfulness).

I like Biden because I think he can win the General safely and send Donald Trump into retirement, where he then can be charged for crimes against the people of the United States. That's it. As a President, I'll hammer Biden like I hammered Obama.

Don't think for a second Biden is "my guy". I'm conservative. I want smaller government. I want power and responsibilities shifted to the States. He's a center-left Democrat. He's the type that built the Federal Government into the supergiant it is. He's a means to an end: seeing the end of this dark era we're in.

[Zan15]

The other candidates aren't serious. Here's the problem in a nutshell: Progressive wish lists are very popular in the abstract, but simply cannot materialize in any meaningful way, not the least of which is fiscal constraints. So they promise these wonderful things like M4A that the government cannot possibly pay for, so assuming they win, it will never materialize as promised. And they use dodgy language like "It'll cost less than what we're paying now," when they're talking about total healthcare spending, not the massive burden the government would take on by moving costs from the private sector to the government that they can't possibly pay for without radical tax increases on everyone. They count on people not understanding this. Again, these are not serious candidates. If they luck out and somehow win, people who bought into things like this are going to be disappointed, but at that point, who cares, they won, and goodwill can hopefully carry them.

Biden is the only serious candidate out of the top contenders. There are a few serious candidates besides him, but they're not polling well at all. I don't like any of the Democratic candidates for obvious reasons, but at least Biden is shooting straight with the American public, I'll give him that.

Massive tax increase - Massive personal expense deduction - Govt spending already - Taxes already collected.

hmmm math. So I am sure you have some detail explanation and studies that show it will cost more than it does now right?



https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html



sure sounds like someone does not understand but its not the "people" you are talking about.



We estimate that total health expenditures under a Medicare for All plan that provides comprehensive coverage and long-term care benefits would be $3.89 trillion in 2019 (assuming such a plan was in place for all of the year), or a 1.8 percent increase relative to expenditures under current law. This estimate accounts for a variety of factors including increased demand for health services, changes in payment and prices, and lower administrative costs. We also include a supply constraint that results in unmet demand equal to 50 percent of the new demand. If there were no supply constraint, we estimate that total health expenditures would increase by 9.8 percent to $4.20 trillion.

While the 1.8 percent increase is a relatively small change in national spending, the federal government’s health care spending would increase substantially, rising from $1.09 trillion to $3.50 trillion, an increase of 221 percent.


Not to mention even at worst case projections "more people would be covered by insurance, and coverage would be more comprehensive than a typical employer plan or current Medicare coverage—requiring no copays, deductibles, or other cost sharing"

- - - Updated - - -

I mean Bernie Sanders is talking "$30 to $40 trillion dollars", that's a pretty big constraint there. But it polls well!

You know what else polls well? "Give a new car to everyone legislation". It's a very popular proposal!

Of which 30-40 trillion is already being spent.


talking about spending on healthcare, already being spent.
talking about spending on education, already being spent.

etc, etc, etc.....


what new spending is he proposing?


oh are you hung up over individuals spending it vs the big bad govt?

[Dacien]

Massive tax increase - Massive personal expense deduction - Govt spending already - Taxes already collected.

hmmm math. So I am sure you have some detail explanation and studies that show it will cost more than it does now right?



https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3106.html



sure sounds like someone does not understand but its not the "people" you are talking about.



We estimate that total health expenditures under a Medicare for All plan that provides comprehensive coverage and long-term care benefits would be $3.89 trillion in 2019 (assuming such a plan was in place for all of the year), or a 1.8 percent increase relative to expenditures under current law. This estimate accounts for a variety of factors including increased demand for health services, changes in payment and prices, and lower administrative costs. We also include a supply constraint that results in unmet demand equal to 50 percent of the new demand. If there were no supply constraint, we estimate that total health expenditures would increase by 9.8 percent to $4.20 trillion.

While the 1.8 percent increase is a relatively small change in national spending, the federal government’s health care spending would increase substantially, rising from $1.09 trillion to $3.50 trillion, an increase of 221 percent.


Not to mention even at worst case projections "more people would be covered by insurance, and coverage would be more comprehensive than a typical employer plan or current Medicare coverage—requiring no copays, deductibles, or other cost sharing"

- - - Updated - - -




Of which 30-40 trillion is already being spent.


talking about spending on healthcare, already being spent.
talking about spending on education, already being spent.

etc, etc, etc.....


what new spending is he proposing?


oh are you hung up over individuals spending it vs the big bad govt?

You have to look at where the burden of cost is shifting, which is actually in your source. Total healthcare spending can remain about the same, but if you shift the entirety of the cost to the government (away from private insurance, which pays the bulk of costs now), that money needs to come from somewhere.

Where, you might ask? Taxes. Taxes would necessarily have to go up to cover the massive cost. Politicians pushing M4A say these same things you're saying, that it "costs the same/slightly less", or "We're already paying it", and the sleight of hand is that they're talking about total healthcare spending, but ignoring how the burden of that spending is shifting under M4A.

[tyrlaan]

I mean, ideologues on one side never like being compared to ideologues on the other, but the approach is almost always the exact same. What progressives are saying about who the nominee should be is exactly what the Tea Party said for years. Progressives want a base election, and movement groups on both the right and the left had pushed for them hard since 2004. That is a matter of history, not opinion.

Sure, but different ideologies are... different.

I said I'd vote for an inanimate object with a (D) next to it. I want Trump gone. I don't care how it's achieved. I'd vote for Sanders. I'd vote for Warren. I'd vote for the corpse of JFK. It does not matter. This isn't a policy election. It's a referendum on Donald Trump.

I completely appreciate this, but that doesn't preclude being interested in liking that vote as much as possible.

More practically speaking, and deny it as progressives might, who gets elected almost does not matter. 2 Year Deal #3 is about to be signed - something I predicted would happen over 18 months ago. Well here we are. I was right. Shocking. Except it isn't. Because I've understood for much longer than that how well the 2 year budget deal model works for everybody in Congress except the hard right and the most progressive elements of the left (most progressives are fine with the deals). Congress has an extraordinary amount of consensus on how to spend money, and the issues of division are mostly at the edges, and on raising revenues (taxation). When Democrats and Republicans are arguing over what amounts to $30 billion out of a $1.4 trillion discretionary budget, there is agreement.

Which is all to say, because the grand transformative schemes of any candidate - Sanders, Biden, Harris, Warren - don't fit into the 2 year deal schema, they will not be funded and thus, will not happen. Period. Some Democrats want Medicare for all. They don't want it enough to starve their districts of the Federal funds they get via the the 2 year deals in order to force the issue. That's how America is getting a nice and hefty defense spending boost under a Nancy Pelosi built budget. It ain't "corporate Democrats" doing that. Elizabeth Warren, for example, loves her Raytheon dollars (Massachusetts largest employer). And Bernie Sanders... big fan of Medicare for all, and the F-35 program that Vermont plays an outsized role in. Welcome to politics.

This is of course accurate. But why should I vote for a candidate that has no vision, no interest in progress? It's not like someone who promises me more of the same crap is going to get any more things done than someone who promises actual progress. The argument that the president won't be able to get anything done doesn't change based on which democrat it is. And honestly, if it does, it probably means that candidate is more republican than democrat (unless Dems also take the Senate in 2020).

Don't think for a second Biden is "my guy". I'm conservative. I want smaller government. I want power and responsibilities shifted to the States. He's a center-left Democrat. He's the type that built the Federal Government into the supergiant it is. He's a means to an end: seeing the end of this dark era we're in.

Except Trump is a symptom. Yes, Trump needs to be out, of that there is no question. But him no longer being president is far from the end.

[Zan15]

You have to look at where the burden of cost is shifting, which is actually in your source. Total healthcare spending can remain about the same, but if you shift the entirety of the cost to the government (away from private insurance, which pays the bulk of costs now), that money needs to come from somewhere.

Where, you might ask? Taxes. Taxes would necessarily have to go up to cover the massive cost. Politicians pushing M4A say these same things you're saying, that it "costs the same/slightly less", or "We're already paying it", and the sleight of hand is that they're talking about total healthcare spending, but ignoring how the burden of that spending is shifting under M4A.

So they are going to tax me 10,000 a year, for which I no longer have to pay 12,000 premium.

what burden? What are you talking about?

if you are spending 4 trillion personally and no longer have to pay it directly but instead pay it in taxes its a freaking wash

in return 80 million more people are covered, you get better coverage and cheaper.


oh and on top of all that my full 10,000 goes towards healthcare cost, not 70-80% while 30-20% goes towards some CEO salary, some stock buyback, some dividend payment, etc etc.

[Dacien]

So they are going to tax me 10,000 a year, for which I no longer have to pay 12,000 premium.

what burden? What are you talking about?

if you are spending 4 trillion personally and no longer have to pay it directly but instead pay it in taxes its a freaking wash

in return 80 million more people are covered, you get better coverage and cheaper.


oh and on top of all that my full 10,000 goes towards healthcare cost, not 70-80% while 30-20% goes towards some CEO salary, some stock buyback, some dividend payment, etc etc.

These are just numbers you made up. Listen, I don't expect to come to an accord here. The information is out there, but people seem to read different conclusions than what's presented. I remember when I tried to explain this on Facebook, and somebody posted a video that had zero data in it except that M4A was "very popular", and at some point in the video there was a cartoon girl with a cartoon gun shooting balloons, popping them one by one, with the narrator saying, "If anyone says it can't be done, you make sure to shoot that down!" The whole message was just to dig in and refuse to entertain "attacks" on M4A, just shoot those attacks down. Not with data, mind you, because they provided none.

There's a large group of people for whom the implementation is secondary to enaction. They just want M4A or some kind of universal healthcare and we'll worry about trivialities like costs and whatnot later.

[Zan15]

These are just numbers you made up. Listen, I don't expect to come to an accord here. The information is out there, but people seem to read different conclusions than what's presented. I remember when I tried to explain this on Facebook, and somebody posted a video that had zero data in it except that M4A was "very popular", and at some point in the video there was a cartoon girl with a cartoon gun shooting balloons, popping them one by one, with the narrator saying, "If anyone says it can't be done, you make sure to shoot that down!" The whole message was just to dig in and refuse to entertain "attacks" on M4A, just shoot those attacks down. Not with data, mind you, because they provided none.

There's a large group of people for whom the implementation is secondary to enaction. They just want M4A or some kind of universal healthcare and we'll worry about trivialities like costs and whatnot later.

So basically you have nothing
Made up numbers, what the hell are you talking about...??

I posted link to study with data and explanation of where the money is currently spent and would be shifted...and you...???

Did you even read it?

[Vineri]

The DNC doesn't have a good candidate. Biden is riddled with flaws.

Why does it need to be someone blessed with money who runs?

Biden is rich and a horrible person... here we go again. Hilliary all over again.

[Fugus]

The DNC doesn't have a good candidate. Biden is riddled with flaws.

Why does it need to be someone blessed with money who runs?

Biden is rich and a horrible person... here we go again. Hilliary all over again.

Biden isn't the only one running. The DNC establishment might not have a good candidate but the DNC does have good ones running. Sanders and Warren just to name 2 who are both killing it in the polls and the only thing keeping either of them from being the top spot is they are poaching each others votes while Biden isn't being poached running on name recognition alone.

[Vineri]

Biden isn't the only one running. The DNC establishment might not have a good candidate but the DNC does have good ones running. Sanders and Warren just to name 2 who are both killing it in the polls and the only thing keeping either of them from being the top spot is they are poaching each others votes while Biden isn't being poached running on name recognition alone.

Oh my.

Bernie and Warren aren't very good candidates, IMO.

Bernie used to be good, before being radicalized. Warren is a terrible woman (cheating minorities).

Biden is a dirt-bag, harassment suits, not looking good.

LULZ

ps- DNC could go back to Hilliary again

[Fugus]

Oh my.

Bernie and Warren aren't very good candidates, IMO.

Bernie used to be good, before being radicalized. Warren is a terrible woman (cheating minorities).

After look at your post history a bit, I see you like to lie, never mind.