Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[mvaliz]

Did the NV caucus results match what we saw in the polls just prior? I'm wondering how Super Tuesday is going to play out. South Carolina is the first southern test for the Sanders campaign. If he wins that one....

...will you accept that, or move the goalpost yet again? ;P

FYI: I am being serious about your view on that - because I see your logic of "Caucus vs Traditional" voting... I just don't believe the format produces that much of a difference is all.

Again, we shall see - and yes, I'll gladly publicly eat humble pie if it reverses yet again! Don't you believe for a second that I've ignored/didn't notice the fact that Biden ended up #2 in Nevada ;P #votebluenomatterwho!

[Endus]

Except there are large parts of the country whose constituents don't want Bernie's policies.

There is a very real political reality you aren't admitting which is getting 60 senators to support Bernie's agenda as it is will not happen.

Which is why I'm concerned about how puritanical idealists like you will handle a Bernie presidency where very little gets done without significant compromise....assuming Bernie would even be willing to compromise that is.

EDIT - I do understand some progressives are on board with incrementalism but many of Bernie's supporters vocally reject that. How will they handle it if Bernie does it? Or if nothing gets done in four years?

Incrementalism doesn't work either. You got the ACA, and the GOP have spent their time since doing everything they can to shaft it. And it hasn't moved any further.

I'll note here that Canada, by comparison, went from Tommy Douglas instituting Medicare in Saskatchewan, to national rollout of universal health care, in the span of 6 years. 1962 for Saskatchewan, 1968 for the nation. And Douglas was a bit of a wild card; the first Democratic Socialist elected to any position in North America, the first leader of the NDP as a new party, etc. He wasn't coming in with a huge political framework backing him.

It may be that the USA's divide is too deep for anything to ever get done again. I'll freely admit that's a possibility. The only "solution", there, involves either a civil war, or a peaceful balkanization into two separate nations. You can't bridge a divide that deep. And trying is a waste of time and effort. But if that's the case, then incrementalism is just as doomed as anything. It's refusing to approach the actual issue, and deliberately faffing about ineffectually to avoid admitting the truth.

And frankly, you'd be better off either pushing proper policy straight-up, or deciding that the divide's too deep and it's time to break up. Incrementalism is a slow, horrible death. Either fix the problem, or cut your losses; don't foster further suffering in the name of ideological cowardice.

[Paranoid Android]

I believe the word "socialism" is also code for "they are taking power" or "you are losing power". No doubt this is white identity politics and more backlash to them knowing one day they will be the minorty or at least not the overwhelming majority.

While trying not to discuss race it is about the power and privileged position that the white majority have and of course they are the people who fear that the "others" are going to take that away.

[PickleballAce]

Reminder that when discussing American politics... nobody worth a shit gives a single solitary fuck about how the political spectrum compares to Europe. Not sure why this needs to be said so often.

[nonameelf]

Reminder that when discussing American politics... nobody worth a shit gives a single solitary fuck about how the political spectrum compares to Europe. Not sure why this needs to be said so often.

Except that's not true. That's why Sanders is winning, because young people can now see outside the US thanks to the internet. That's why screeching "far left," "socialism," and "communism," just aren't working anymore. We're smarter than that now, those scare tactics only work on old fucks.

[Stormdash]

I believe the word "socialism" is also code for "they are taking power" or "you are losing power". No doubt this is white identity politics and more backlash to them knowing one day they will be the minorty or at least not the overwhelming majority.

While trying not to discuss race it is about the power and privileged position that the white majority have and of course they are the people who fear that the "others" are going to take that away.

Nah, it's a very eyes-open rejection of the premise of collectivism at the expense of individual personal and economic liberty.

[nonameelf]

Nah, it's a very eyes-open rejection of the premise of collectivism at the expense of individual personal and economic liberty.

By economic liberty you mean dying from cancer because treatment is too expensive and your insurance dropped you?

[Grapemask]

Reminder that when discussing American politics... nobody worth a shit gives a single solitary fuck about how the political spectrum compares to Europe. Not sure why this needs to be said so often.

Maybe, but part of why it matters, and why people are getting antsy about the state of American affairs in general, is because of how we relate to the rest of the world. America became a sea of hyper-conservatism prior to the mass communication era because we're completely split off from the rest of the world. Our political spectrum could do its own thing, and culturally that was to lean right.

But now we live in a world where we're talking to people from all over the globe as if they're right in our living room. Now, the excuse that so-and-so doesn't work becomes questionable when the guy I work with 3 hours a day tells me it's working just great for him. Now, Americans are seeing that there's an entire world of shit that isn't this conservative pit of despair, and we sure would like to enjoy some of that in the country we love.

[Stormdash]

By economic liberty you mean dying from cancer because treatment is too expensive and your insurance dropped you?

I mean your income being yours to spend or not spend as you see fit. Individuals bear the risk of loss in all aspects of their lives.

Cash-pay medicine would do more to improve healthcare costs in the US than yet another tier of bloated, high-percentage waste unaccountable bureaucracy. Which is why soon you're going to see the left try to ban it the way they come after the gig economy.

[nonameelf]

I mean your income being yours to spend or not spend as you see fit. Individuals bear the risk of loss in all aspects of their lives.

Cash-pay medicine would do more to improve healthcare costs in the US than yet another tier of bloated, high-percentage waste unaccountable bureaucracy. Which is why soon you're going to see the left try to ban it the way they come after the gig economy.

You know why other countries have significantly cheaper health care costs than in the US? Because their governments regulate prices, not because of some mystical free market bullshit.

[Thepersona]

You know why other countries have significantly cheaper health care costs than in the US? Because their governments regulate prices, not because of some mystical free market bullshit.

I will say this once. The free market bullcrap that conservatives and ancaps try to push as the be all end all answer to any plight of humanity is easily dismissed in the healthcare/labor/education markets. Just because bargaining power is a thing, alongside limited information, and.. Well you know, the impossibility of teleportation.

[Crispin]

Reminder that when discussing American politics... nobody worth a shit gives a single solitary fuck about how the political spectrum compares to Europe. Not sure why this needs to be said so often.

Who died and made you the speaker for everyone

[Endus]

Nah, it's a very eyes-open rejection of the premise of collectivism at the expense of individual personal and economic liberty.

That collectivism is typically the source of individual personal and economic liberty. It provides the regulation that protects those liberties, and provides the support to ensure they can be enjoyed.

Unlike the American style of "sure, you have the liberty of access to medical care, but if you can't front $150k, we're gonna let you die slowly." This isn't "liberty" at all; it's a freedom from protection and support, allowing the wealthy and powerful to predate upon your weakness.

I mean your income being yours to spend or not spend as you see fit. Individuals bear the risk of loss in all aspects of their lives.

Cash-pay medicine would do more to improve healthcare costs in the US than yet another tier of bloated, high-percentage waste unaccountable bureaucracy. Which is why soon you're going to see the left try to ban it the way they come after the gig economy.

I'm not sure why you've decided that increasing human suffering is your desired end-goal, but if you think that's an argument for "liberty and freedom", you have no clue what those words mean.

It's particularly tone-deaf because universal healthcare cuts out a huge chunk of that bureaucracy. Rather than multiple tiered systems with conflicting (but all profit-oriented) goals engaging in negotiation and deal-making, you've got one system whose single focus is effective health care for the population.

[mvaliz]

Except there are large parts of the country whose constituents don't want Bernie's policies.

There is a very real political reality you aren't admitting which is getting 60 senators to support Bernie's agenda as it is will not happen.

You quoted the very solution to that. Again, it's over time to get those policies - even if that means post-bernie. Stop acting like people are expecting these policies to happen in year 1. :P

I'm fully admitting it's a monumental uphill battle to get 60 to agree with ALL of bernie's agenda! That doesn't mean we just stop fighing for those things and nobly sit on our asses dreaming of some fairy princess to come by and grant us everything (((Gasp! Yes, we don't think that Bernie is the fairy princess with unlimited power!? What a Shocker revalation for you - right??? >_<)))

Which is why I'm concerned about how puritanical idealists like you will handle a Bernie presidency where very little gets done without significant compromise....assuming Bernie would even be willing to compromise that is.

EDIT - I do understand some progressives are on board with incrementalism but many of Bernie's supporters vocally reject that. How will they handle it if Bernie does it? Or if nothing gets done in four years?

Ummmmm... wha?

I'm literally one of the "incremantalists" you're speaking of. Shit, my whole argument you quoted above was ABOUT incrementalism! >_<

Seriously, stop stereotyping anybody who supports Bernie as some idealogue. :P

As to your question - how they will handle it? They will grow the fuck up and learn a lesson for next time - one way or the other - and try again next year, exactly like they're doing for 2020 after 2016. That's the one beautiful thing about death, it allows culture to grow and thrive... and there will be a new "Bernie" around to finish what Bernie will have started. I've already stated that I'm more than expecting BS youtube pundits like Secular Talk to turn on Bernie the moment he has to capitulate on even ONE of his policies in some way/shape/form.

I've kept my expectations to Medicare for All, and maybe national legalization of weed - and that's about it. Everything else is gravy after that... which will continue fighting for post-Bernie.

EDIT: I explained to a friend of mine who's a dissenfranchised Yang supporter how I voted for Bernie in the Primary in 2016, but happily voted for Hillary in the main in 2016. I explained to him "Look at how Bernie was in 2016, especially his desire for Universal Healthcare... people said he had no chance in hell. Now? He's not only the front runner - but Medicare for All is literally the most universally accepted topic on ALL the candidates!"

I went on to say: "Yang's time is clearly not today, but if you want it to happen tomorrow - vote today for the best path that lets your future vision happen."

[Endus]

You know why other countries have significantly cheaper health care costs than in the US? Because their governments regulate prices, not because of some mystical free market bullshit.

In many cases, particularly Canada's, it's because they negotiate prices. We levy the value of our market to get a better price from the supplier; we can guarantee large bulk purchasing, at a scale that American hospitals can't possibly compete with.

That is the free market. Just one where the agent (the Canadian Government) works for the benefit of its clients (the citizens of Canada), not for personal profit. We get cheaper prices because A> we have a stronger position to negotiate from, and B> we have zero profit consideration and can't be talked into passing on high prices to the clients to boost the supplier's margins.

The irony is what Stormdash is arguing for is not free-market activity. He wants a market with customers under duress, making poor decisions because they don't have any alternatives. It's an implicit desire to use human suffering to increase profits for the wealthy, off that suffering. It should be seen as maniacally evil, not normal business practice.

[Huehuecoyotl]

In many cases, particularly Canada's, it's because they negotiate prices. We levy the value of our market to get a better price from the supplier; we can guarantee large bulk purchasing, at a scale that American hospitals can't possibly compete with.

That is the free market. Just one where the agent (the Canadian Government) works for the benefit of its clients (the citizens of Canada), not for personal profit. We get cheaper prices because A> we have a stronger position to negotiate from, and B> we have zero profit consideration and can't be talked into passing on high prices to the clients to boost the supplier's margins.

The irony is what Stormdash is arguing for is not free-market activity. He wants a market with customers under duress, making poor decisions because they don't have any alternatives. It's an implicit desire to use human suffering to increase profits for the wealthy, off that suffering. It should be seen as maniacally evil, not normal business practice.

And those countries with universal healthcare are providing those benefits at a significantly lower cost to the nation than what the US is currently paying for their sub-par setup. Which is where the interia comes from, of course. If Sanders can get this through, you are going to see literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year being freed up from healthcare costs and available to spend elsewhere. The healthcare providers are going to fight against that with everything they have, legal and illegal. These parasitic entities won't give up those kind of sums without a fight.

[Themius]

Incrementalism doesn't work either. You got the ACA, and the GOP have spent their time since doing everything they can to shaft it. And it hasn't moved any further.

I'll note here that Canada, by comparison, went from Tommy Douglas instituting Medicare in Saskatchewan, to national rollout of universal health care, in the span of 6 years. 1962 for Saskatchewan, 1968 for the nation. And Douglas was a bit of a wild card; the first Democratic Socialist elected to any position in North America, the first leader of the NDP as a new party, etc. He wasn't coming in with a huge political framework backing him.

It may be that the USA's divide is too deep for anything to ever get done again. I'll freely admit that's a possibility. The only "solution", there, involves either a civil war, or a peaceful balkanization into two separate nations. You can't bridge a divide that deep. And trying is a waste of time and effort. But if that's the case, then incrementalism is just as doomed as anything. It's refusing to approach the actual issue, and deliberately faffing about ineffectually to avoid admitting the truth.

And frankly, you'd be better off either pushing proper policy straight-up, or deciding that the divide's too deep and it's time to break up. Incrementalism is a slow, horrible death. Either fix the problem, or cut your losses; don't foster further suffering in the name of ideological cowardice.

I wonder how this would work if America did break up into two nations. A north covering the coasts and moderate states. And the south... all that sweet sweet rich blue money would mean a starving new nation.

[Vorkreist]

I mean your income being yours to spend or not spend as you see fit. Individuals bear the risk of loss in all aspects of their lives.

Cash-pay medicine would do more to improve healthcare costs in the US than yet another tier of bloated, high-percentage waste unaccountable bureaucracy. Which is why soon you're going to see the left try to ban it the way they come after the gig economy.

As an european I laugh all the time at the absurdity of US medicine prices. If you spent a bit of time to look them up your mind would be blown. Americans are charged absurd prices for most things that are 10 times or more cheaper anywhere else in the world. You can try and deflect the question of why but it seems most people are way beyond sick of that deranged bullshit. The absurdity of it is beyond comprehension. Imagine your us company invents and produces a medicine needed by a lot of people world wide. It owns the patent. The rest of the world buys that medicine for 10$ while an american has to pay 10 times that or more.

[mvaliz]

Incrementalism doesn't work either. You got the ACA, and the GOP have spent their time since doing everything they can to shaft it. And it hasn't moved any further.

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was trying to pass legislation to free the Slaves? What did you think really happened? One day Abraham Lincoln woke up and said "Wahey, I got an idea! Howsabout we free the darkies!" o_O

Time is relative. Incrementalism INVOLVES the removal of said GOP who are doing exactly what you said. While it should happen ASAP - it's also not going to happen overnight. >_<

I've said it before, when you're stuck in a swamp - you don't toss a lasso the top of Mount Everest to pull yourself out. But what you do is lasso onto the nearest sturdiest thing you can find.

Or, in short: Today, the presidency and most (if not all) the senate! Tomorrow the rest! ;P

[akris15]

I wonder how this would work if America did break up into two nations. A north covering the coasts and moderate states. And the south... all that sweet sweet rich blue money would mean a starving new nation.

Off-Topic: If America did break up it would more look like this:



Even in a Red Vs. Blue there are different factions in each of the parties. A California Democrats looks a whole lot different than a NY Democrat