Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

“Here’s the thing...when a candidate tells you about all the things that aren’t possible, about how political calculations come first...they’re telling you something very important—they are telling you that they will not fight for you.”

Said by none other than Elizabeth Warren herself.

So was she lying when she said that, or is she just a massive hypocrite?

Neither. You just can't seem to grasp the difference between saying something isn't possible and saying there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Which of her proposed alternatives to Medicare for All brings costs down more than Medicare for All and/or covers more people than Medicare for All?

None of them because it’s impossible to be cheaper for the consumer than free at the point of service + no premium + no deductible while achieving universal coverage. This is before getting into the chasm that exists between “having healthcare” and “being able to actually use it”, which is why all her alternative claims and proposals - just like the claims of every other slave to market supremacy - obsess with access instead of utility.

Given that I'm neither an actuary or the Department of Health, whatever I claimed probably wouldn't be accurate. But therein is the thing.

I'm not actually voting for any candidate based on their promise to implement X policy.

Why? Well, because the President doesn't unilaterally decide policy despite what Trump and Bernie supporters seem to think. What I and everyone else should be looking for in a leader is mindset - someone who is competent, sagacious, and determined. And someone who can actually get shit done.

So in a contest between someone who managed to get the CFPB implemented in her first term of office and someone who's basically warmed a chair for decades while being a progressive advocate...jk, it's not really a contest.

I'm not here to argue over whether or not Bernie was "robbed" in 2016. All I'm doing is pointing out the very obvious fact that Warren is NOT just Bernie with plans and they represent very different goals.

This is a very common defense that Bernie Bros retreat behind, but no. You are not "just" pointing out that they are different candidates, because you are already well aware that people know this - and the thing is, it's not even that true. Bernie and Warren are both pretty stock standard left wing candidates you might find in a more Europeanised country and the degree of ideological divergence between them is actually quite small, especially given for all of Bernie's talk he is still just as attached to the consumer market economy as any other candidate.

He's no Tony Benn. Y'all have no inkling what an actual left wing populist looks like.

Bernie is the most popular politician in the U.S. - he is clearly not in the same lane as a Biden / Schumer / Pelosi, who most of the electorate despise (for various reasons). Warren is very much in that lane - her "I have a plan for that" only appeals to the people who think that technocrats hold all the answers. She will fold like a card-table when Trump even mentions "Pocohontas" once.

Bernie has the power of populism behind him, Warren does not, it's really quite simple.

Which is why Bernie is currently behind in the polls with close to 100% name recognition.

Ah, wait. Forgot that little detail, did you?

[infinitemeridian]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...-very-worrying

One of the most important things Bernie Sanders has ever said is this: “I’m going to run the Presidency differently than anyone else. I’m not only going to be Commander in Chief. I am going to be Organizer in Chief.” What does that mean? It means that Sanders is not going to stop speaking on picket lines when he becomes president. (Trump did not stop holding rallies. This was smart.) This was a critical mistake that Barack Obama made: He stopped organizing when he got into office. If you do not organize, if you are not constantly out in the country helping get candidates get elected at every level, you will hold the White House and nothing else. I have previously discussed the way Warren focuses on “plans” while Sanders focuses on “power.” Everyone knows that Elizabeth Warren has a “plan for that.” But if those plans are going to go anywhere, you need what Sanders is talking about: a “political revolution.” You need to overthrow the existing Democratic party leadership in the DNC and in Congress. You need to threaten to run primary candidates against anyone who doesn’t support your agenda. You need a giant on-the-ground operation of people who will lobby for your agenda and convince Americans that anyone who opposes it needs to be ejected from office.

What I see in Elizabeth Warren is a law professor: someone who focuses on devising good plans, and then tries to get elected to carry out those plans. What I see in Bernie Sanders is a movement-builder: someone who understands that unless the president has millions of people behind them, ready to take to the streets, they won’t be able to cajole Congress into passing anything. And I think one of the fundamental problems with Barack Obama was that he was a law professor: He came up with a plan, and if he didn’t have the votes in Congress to pass it, that was that: The plan was dead. The law professor accepts political reality as “fixed,” while the movement-builder tries to get millions of people to act politically in order to alter that reality.

[nonameelf]

Ah, yep, there it is. Someone claiming Warren is Clinton 2.0.

[NED funded]

I also find it hard to believe Warren can beat Trump - she's too much of a nerd and not really good on her toes. Keep her in the background making decisions, but she isn't a good contender to win the general. Sanders also has more appeal to the broader electorate than Warren anyways, who really only takes the WeWork and Prius-driving base.

Warren is very much the "let's go back the way things are" candidate where her base will use her as a valve to rid themselves of having to think about the problems of the current age. Sanders is very much the opposite, and this isn't an insignificant point.

Most of the X is not electable is nonsense. If Sanders cant use his "broad electoral appeal" to win the primary then he never had a chance.

A bit off topic here, but any idiot with half a brain can claim X is the REAL problem or whatever. The point is what now? Trump claims to be against the liberal elite but there is not a better time to be one than right now. The issue is understanding how the machine works and in this Warren has a better understanding.

[Thepersona]

Most of the X is not electable is nonsense. If Sanders cant use his "broad electoral appeal" to win the primary then he never had a chance.

A bit off topic here, but any idiot with half a brain can claim X is the REAL problem or whatever. The point is what now? Trump claims to be against the liberal elite but there is not a better time to be one than right now. The issue is understanding how the machine works and in this Warren has a better understanding.

Yeah. And warren actually wants to make them pay something, in stark contrast to Dotard Tang

[Grapemask]

Cool.

Waiting for how any of this is a justification for how bitterly aggressive Bernie Bros are to people supporting other candidates. Because it sounds distinctly like "the people complaining about Bernie Bros just live in a privilege bubble", in which case - miss me with that bullshit.

Or do I need to start pointing out Bernie's inability to engage with voters that have a high melanin level or lack a penis, unless we're going with the line that only white millennials have a monopoly on hardship.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, imagine a celebrity publicly coming forward about their struggles affording HIV medication and stating that is one of their main reasons for supporting a candidate. Do you think it's remotely appropriate to...say...attack that person en masse demanding to know why they aren't voting for *your* candidate, and imply that if they *really* had a problem then they would be voting for Bernie.

Sound farfetched? Because that happened with Jonathan Van Ness.

Again, there is a reason why Sanders' supporters have such an awful reputation outside of their social media bubble and it is not due to the mainstream media pushing particular narratives. The Bernie Bros do that just fine by their own behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, there's a toxic crowd of supporters there. But I think they're symptomatic of the societal problems we have, and I can sort of relate to why they're so shitty.

For example, it's really god damn frustrating to hear candidates handwringing about health care and how this or that will be too extreme, or it'll be too hard to do this thing or that thing. Or they won't commit to the extreme approach that's needed. That's fine when you have the money or the healthcare access where those things don't apply. But for the massive number of Americans that that doesn't apply to, the prospect of having to wait even longer to get the needed response will drive you to frenzied rage.

For example, a few months back, my fiance went to the doctor for the first time in a couple years because she had a lot of random pain. She got diagnosed with one thing that needed a permanent medication, but the doctor also wanted to do a mammogram because she suspected cancer. My fiance is insured with the best program available from her employer. The regular non-cancer part of the visit still cost $600. The cancer test itself cost $800. It cost $200 for the doctor to assess the test. It ultimately cost her $1000 to find out she didn't have cancer, for a grand total of $1600 for choosing to go to the doctor. That's more than half of her monthly take-home pay. She's now adamantly refusing to go to the doctor ever again, which means she's also not going to get any more of that medication she was prescribed for the other thing, because the doctor won't give her a refill until another appointment to assess her reaction to the drug. And again, this is a person who is insured. Imagine the people who don't have insurance even as good as hers, or worse, the people who aren't insured at all.

The people who support Bernie Sanders to a toxic degree are tired of having these issues and being told to wait or being told the answer is just too tough. They're tired of knowing they'll probably be dead before they're done waiting. Bernie Sanders is willing to yell like a crazy lunatic about it, and that reflects the yelling they're doing that no one else is listening to.

[Fahrenheit]

NJ is a closed primary, and I’m not registered to either party, so I can’t vote, but if I could, I think I might vote for Warren. Regardless, come November 2020, I’ll be voting for whoever the Democrat nominee is. I just want Trump gone and a return to normalcy.

I suppose if I were to have my druthers about anything and everything, I’d want the GOP to be so throughly routed that they’d be forced to reform into more centrist pragmatic realists. A true foil to the more pie in the sky Democrats.

[Blade Wolf]

Cool.

Waiting for how any of this is a justification for how bitterly aggressive Bernie Bros are to people supporting other candidates. Because it sounds distinctly like "the people complaining about Bernie Bros just live in a privilege bubble", in which case - miss me with that bullshit.

Or do I need to start pointing out Bernie's inability to engage with voters that have a high melanin level or lack a penis, unless we're going with the line that only white millennials have a monopoly on hardship.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, imagine a celebrity publicly coming forward about their struggles affording HIV medication and stating that is one of their main reasons for supporting a candidate. Do you think it's remotely appropriate to...say...attack that person en masse demanding to know why they aren't voting for *your* candidate, and imply that if they *really* had a problem then they would be voting for Bernie.

Sound farfetched? Because that happened with Jonathan Van Ness.

Again, there is a reason why Sanders' supporters have such an awful reputation outside of their social media bubble and it is not due to the mainstream media pushing particular narratives. The Bernie Bros do that just fine by their own behaviour.

You think "bernie bros" are the only toxic supporters of a candidate? You have "Warren Wamen" saying if you don't support her it's because you're against a female president. You condemn a presidential candidate simply because of a toxic minority.

[Thepersona]

You think "bernie bros" are the only toxic supporters of a candidate? You have "Warren Wamen" saying if you don't support her it's because you're against a female president. You condemn a presidential candidate simply because of a toxic minority.

Dudes (Bernie and Warren supporters) you know that both candidates are practically the same, policy wise? and that they are ALLIES?

[kaelleria]

You think "bernie bros" are the only toxic supporters of a candidate? You have "Warren Wamen" saying if you don't support her it's because you're against a female president. You condemn a presidential candidate simply because of a toxic minority.

I have literally never seen that typed anywhere on the internet before...

[Blade Wolf]

Dudes (Bernie and Warren supporters) you know that both candidates are practically the same, policy wise? and that they are ALLIES?

One is for Medicare for All and the other isn't.

I have literally never seen that typed anywhere on the internet before...

Jump to 0:30

[nonameelf]

One is for Medicare for All and the other isn't.

Warren is:
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/health-care

[Blade Wolf]

Warren is:
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/health-care

Says nothing about single payer which is what Sanders Medicare for All version is.

[nonameelf]

Says nothing about single payer which is what Sanders Medicare for All version is.

One is for Medicare for All and the other isn't.

We need Medicare for All.

??????????????

[Benggaul]

I have literally never seen that typed anywhere on the internet before...

Me either. While I do not doubt they exist, they can't be as prevalent or as vocal as the Bernie or Bust crowd since this is literally the first I've EVER read about it.

[Gestopft]

Me either. While I do not doubt they exist, they can't be as prevalent or as vocal as the Bernie or Bust crowd since this is literally the first I've EVER read about it.

There was some trust fund baby saying just that on MSNBC a few days back. Linked just above. No it's probably not as prevalent, but despite their similarity in policy, the overlap between their supporters is not nearly as much as people would expect. Most people aren't wonks and don't vote on policy details.

[infinitemeridian]

So we ignore that:

1) Warren supports a "green military", as if that's a thing.
2) Takes money from the military industrial complex and signed bills warranting more defense spending
3) Is vague on single-payer, yes, she says she supports M4A, but what does that mean? Why should I go with her, a lifelong republican / conservative who is a strong proponent of capitalism, over someone who's been championing universal health care for 50+ years?
4) Won't commit to cancelling ALL student loan debt (rather, only a portion)
5) Wants sanctions on Venezuela and named Madeleine Albright, the most hawkish person in the Democratic party as an inspiration for her foreign policy
6) Repeats the same "means-testing" crap that has driven away voters for years and makes what should and could be simple policies murky and hard to understand unless you're a wonk working in Dupont.
7) Thinks "market forces" can be used to save the planet (LMAO)
8) Promotes competitive markets over unionizing

These are just policy positions - you cannot tell me looking at these that Warren is the "same" as Bernie, or even that left to begin with. Sure, in America in 2019, she's left. But she's not Sanders.

Then there's the whole topic of elect ability. Yes, Sanders will have his work cut out for him. But he doesn't have the same baggage or nerd persona that Warren has.

1) She's a former Harvard law professor. This may be tame, but people are more wary of elite institutions, particularly ivy league schools these days. She comes off as snobbish and condescending in interviews, curt and robotic on the debate stage.
2) She cannot handle softballs (Trump dna fiasco) - she blinks, she blinkers, she commits one of the dumbest political errors in recent years and it's not going to go away in the general (quite the opposite). Further, there's no evidence she can handle hardballs either - the candidates at debates haven't really gone after her on anything, the media is cozying up to her and has never really been critical of her in the way it has with Sanders.
3) Hey speaking of that DNA fiasco...are we going to just forget how bad that makes her look? How incredibly naive and offensive that was?

I would be happy to vote for Warren over Trump and over any of the democratic ghouls up there now bar Bernie. But let's not kid ourselves that we're getting "Bernie with plans" by going with Warren. The two are not only different in terms of policies (Yes, I know nuance is lost upon many people here), they have different faults (Yes, Warren DOES have faults that Bernie does not and vice versa), and they represent completely different ideologies (capitalism vs. socialism). It's fine if you like Warren and not Sanders, but telling people they are "exactly the same" is disingenuous.

- - - Updated - - -

??????????????

On Medicare For All, Warren has been evasive about what it would actually mean, and details are noticeably lacking on her plan-packed website. As Abdul El-Sayed has written for this magazine, we should be wary of any Democrat who won’t be specific about Medicare For All, because the insurance industry is going to want to water it down and not implement a full single-payer system. Dylan Matthews of Vox, who has examined Warren’s healthcare plans, has suggested that Warren is “not serious about single-payer.” This is a giant difference. (Also: I realize this might not persuade many people, but to me it’s an important piece of evidence. Warren’s daughter, with whom she collaborated on The Two-Income Trap and an unfinished novel about Harvard Law School, is a former health industry executive and McKinsey management consultant. There is a hesitation to hold people accountable for the deeds of their family members—any child can turn out to be an Alex P. Keaton—but I think Warren moves in a world where it is not considered shameful to be an insurance executive or McKinsey consultant, and I worry that nobody from such a world will ever have the guts necessary to fight the insurance industry to the death. I would bet a considerable amount of money that Warren will never make a real effort to abolish the industry that her daughter and co-author is so closely tied to.)

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...-very-worrying

[Elegiac]

The people who support Bernie Sanders to a toxic degree are tired of having these issues and being told to wait or being told the answer is just too tough. They're tired of knowing they'll probably be dead before they're done waiting. Bernie Sanders is willing to yell like a crazy lunatic about it, and that reflects the yelling they're doing that no one else is listening to.

I don't care.

Someone's circumstances being difficult in no way entitles them to lash out at others. They're toxic nuisances and do more to hinder the progressive cause than help it and are ultimately no better than Trump's supporters in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

So we ignore that:

1) Warren supports a "green military", as if that's a thing.
2) Takes money from the military industrial complex and signed bills warranting more defense spending
3) Is vague on single-payer, yes, she says she supports M4A, but what does that mean? Why should I go with her, a lifelong republican / conservative who is a strong proponent of capitalism, over someone who's been championing universal health care for 50+ years?
4) Won't commit to cancelling ALL student loan debt (rather, only a portion)
5) Wants sanctions on Venezuela and named Madeleine Albright, the most hawkish person in the Democratic party as an inspiration for her foreign policy
6) Repeats the same "means-testing" crap that has driven away voters for years and makes what should and could be simple policies murky and hard to understand unless you're a wonk working in Dupont.
7) Thinks "market forces" can be used to save the planet (LMAO)
8) Promotes competitive markets over unionizing

These are just policy positions - you cannot tell me looking at these that Warren is the "same" as Bernie, or even that left to begin with. Sure, in America in 2019, she's left. But she's not Sanders.

Then there's the whole topic of elect ability. Yes, Sanders will have his work cut out for him. But he doesn't have the same baggage or nerd persona that Warren has.

1) She's a former Harvard law professor. This may be tame, but people are more wary of elite institutions, particularly ivy league schools these days. She comes off as snobbish and condescending in interviews, curt and robotic on the debate stage.
2) She cannot handle softballs (Trump dna fiasco) - she blinks, she blinkers, she commits one of the dumbest political errors in recent years and it's not going to go away in the general (quite the opposite). Further, there's no evidence she can handle hardballs either - the candidates at debates haven't really gone after her on anything, the media is cozying up to her and has never really been critical of her in the way it has with Sanders.
3) Hey speaking of that DNA fiasco...are we going to just forget how bad that makes her look? How incredibly naive and offensive that was?

I would be happy to vote for Warren over Trump and over any of the democratic ghouls up there now bar Bernie. But let's not kid ourselves that we're getting "Bernie with plans" by going with Warren. The two are not only different in terms of policies (Yes, I know nuance is lost upon many people here), they have different faults (Yes, Warren DOES have faults that Bernie does not and vice versa), and they represent completely different ideologies (capitalism vs. socialism). It's fine if you like Warren and not Sanders, but telling people they are "exactly the same" is disingenuous.

These have already been addressed previously in the thread and I don't care to repeat them - namely because it's the same set of talking points that people circulate when replying to any Warren related post. We get it, Bernie Bros hate the system and their ideological beliefs revolve entirely about making a shibboleth of being anti-establishment. That's why people keep pointing to the similarity between that movement and Trumpists or Ron Paul stans - they are cults of personality with the veneer of anti-establishment demagoguery.

And, amusingly enough, no matter how much you scream and cry that Bernie is more electable it still has yet to answer the question of why neither the primary in 2016 nor the polling currently are reflective of that.

[tyrlaan]

I don't care.

Someone's circumstances being difficult in no way entitles them to lash out at others. They're toxic nuisances and do more to hinder the progressive cause than help it and are ultimately no better than Trump's supporters in that regard.

While accurate, you seem hellbent on acting like this applies to all Bernie supporters. Kind of like people who think all Muslims are terrorists.

These have already been addressed previously in the thread and I don't care to repeat them - namely because it's the same set of talking points that people circulate when replying to any Warren related post. We get it, Bernie Bros hate the system and their ideological beliefs revolve entirely about making a shibboleth of being anti-establishment. That's why people keep pointing to the similarity between that movement and Trumpists or Ron Paul stans - they are cults of personality with the veneer of anti-establishment demagoguery.

And, amusingly enough, no matter how much you scream and cry that Bernie is more electable it still has yet to answer the question of why neither the primary in 2016 nor the polling currently are reflective of that.

Let's unpack this a bit.

"Previously addressed" - sure technically you've responded to some of these, but you didn't really refute them. While I'd argue that some of the first 8 points from @infinitemeridian may be exaggerated, lets not kid ourselves that she's "the same as Bernie" or a perfect candidate. Meanwhile she absolutely is softballed by the press and, until recently, has demonstrated that when she is hardballed she struggles.

"Bernie Bros" - it would be a more worthwhile conversation if you could tear down Bernie as a candidate based on what policy positions he stands for that you dislike rather than your ceaseless tactic of dredging up the Bernie Bro bogeyman to knock down.

"Electability" - can we all agree that this is a bullshit argument no matter which candidate its used for and against?


And I'll say this again for clarity (and to diffuse fallacious counter arguments), I like Warren. Even without the recent health scare for Bernie, she's probably my number one pick. But I'm not interested in being blind to the real challenges she needs to face and overcome any more than I would be with Bernie.

[Elegiac]

While accurate, you seem hellbent on acting like this applies to all Bernie supporters. Kind of like people who think all Muslims are terrorists.

Which is why I've been pretty consistent in saying "Bernie Bros" rather than "Sanders supporters" because I am explicitly calling out a certain group of people within that camp.

#notallBernieBros? Is that the argument we're going with, now?

Let's unpack this a bit.

"Previously addressed" - sure technically you've responded to some of these, but you didn't really refute them. While I'd argue that some of the first 8 points from @infinitemeridian may be exaggerated, lets not kid ourselves that she's "the same as Bernie" or a perfect candidate. Meanwhile she absolutely is softballed by the press and, until recently, has demonstrated that when she is hardballed she struggles.

"Bernie Bros" - it would be a more worthwhile conversation if you could tear down Bernie as a candidate based on what policy positions he stands for that you dislike rather than your ceaseless tactic of dredging up the Bernie Bro bogeyman to knock down.

"Electability" - can we all agree that this is a bullshit argument no matter which candidate its used for and against?

And I'll say this again for clarity (and to diffuse fallacious counter arguments), I like Warren. Even without the recent health scare for Bernie, she's probably my number one pick. But I'm not interested in being blind to the real challenges she needs to face and overcome any more than I would be with Bernie.

:thumbsup:

That really isn't the point. The point here is that there is a significant faction of people that seem to think that because someone has not chosen to support their particular brand of progressivism it must surely mean that they are either victims of a wall street con artist or are downright ignorant. And then further taking that as a pretext to insert themselves aggressively into any political conversation to try and score points for their candidate by tearing people down. Why we know it's mostly just aggressively hot air is because they're mostly indistinguishable from the attacks said Bros were lobbing at Clinton in 2016, just with the names switched around.

And that's what it really comes down to. People repeatedly keep belabouring the points that that "Warren and Bernie aren't the same!" and that "Warren will face challenges!" - as if Warren supporters aren't already well aware of this, or that Bernie won't face challenges of his own.

The real sin, to the Bernie Bros, is that people measured their candidate and found him wanting and the only possible explanation is that said people are deluded, stupid, or acting in bad faith. Which of course means that any 'discussion' with them is a nonstarter because they are interested in gaining converts, not actually having a discussion.