Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[cubby]

Yeah he didn't handle this spectacularly. However, he did release some medical records, just not all. And a well known critic of Sanders has stated (on air, I believe, and I think it was CNN) that what he released is sufficient to show he is in good health. If I also recall Sanders (admittedly weak) response to the backtrack is that these things can go too far and he decided to release enough to prove he's in good health and no more.

I haven't seen what he released past the letters from doctors. I thought his response was weak, although a good point nonetheless - it can go too far. In this case, of course, we're asking for what he promised (and Warren already delivered). We'll see how that plays out.

You're right, he might be worse.

Though I don't see a reasonable course of action other than to vote for him if he actually wins the nomination. I just really, really hope it doesn't come to that. Bloomberg can't crash and burn soon enough for my tastes, though his first debate performance was a good start.

I'm arguing that Trump is much worse, just to be clear. Indeed, regardless, we will have no choice but to vote for him. I actually think he'd do a fine job, with his experience, etc - but I do understand the criticism.

(for when you get back) I've watched you repeatedly shift your prognostications, but each one was delivered with certainty and unwavering inevitability. You would do well to not oversell yourself.

But please, upon your return, tell me how you came to the conclusion in that last sentence there?

I know you directed this at Skroe, but in his absence, I'd like to take a shot.

His prognostications haven't actually shifted. The position regarding Bernie and his inability to woo the key voters we'll need in the key Electoral College states has been unwavering (those would be PA, WI, MI). Along with the democrats inability to succeed when we should in FL (and Bernie's Castro answer didn't help that effort).

The last sentence, regarding listening to others than yourselves, is evidenced by Sanders' followers and supporters having a difficult time hearing other points of view, and absorbing/adjusting to criticism of their candidate. We see this magnified when Sanders' peeps have to consider the possibility of voting for another candidate, and them insisting their's is the only "right" choice. It's not any one specific thing, it's an overall problem of not being able to reconsider positions, for the greater good. And that point of view can be very toxic, because it ignores intellectual honesty, which is necessary for governance. We see that now every day with Trump.

No - I am NOT saying Sanders is in any way like Trump. However, we're seeing some behavior from Sanders' followers (and I use that term specifically) that is disconcerting.

For example, I don't like Sanders as a candidate. He's my second-to-last choice in the current field. However, seeing him rise and take the lead, I find myself ready to support him, vote for him, and defend him. I'm ready to defeat Trump, whatever the "sacrifice". I see others here (and like it or not, this discussion is a decent sample of the "real" world) not willing to do that for other candidates, if they win the nomination - in fact, not even willing to consider it in some cases.

That is bad. That is the road to perdition. Trump in a second term will kill this country. We will see the 1960's brought back and worse. I've even figured out the legal argument that Trump and his idiot followers will use to justify him running for a third term. Yes - a third term.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe that only prohibits them from making treaties and the like with each other without the assent of Congress, correct?

Which means it seems there are two relatively easy outs. First, get the assent of Congress. Given that you'd need overwhelming state support to make the National Popular Vote a thing, it seems unlikely those state's representatives would attempt to block it.

Secondly, you could nullify the agreement and just have each state independently pass a law stating its electors go to the NPV winner. The clause specifically blocks treaties between states without assent, but each state is already legally allowed to independently determine how it assigns its state electors.

Yes, that is how I see it as well, regarding treaties and states without Congress' assent. And legally speaking, I personally think you are not only correct, but that an unbiased court would agree with us. However, we have Trump's SCOTUS now, and it might see a third and fourth seat added, making it vastly more conservative than it is even today. And those Justices wouldn't need a lot to go the other way, and rule the Accord illegal, a violation of the Accords Clause.

And if they do, that would then require Congress to approve. Which takes the Senate and the President as well.

[Zan15]

There was no plan for how to pay for M4A it would eventually trickle down to where everyone pays more who gets healthcare through their company in the form of higher taxes.

I dont want to pay higher taxes not that i dont want to pay taxes. The only thing i would be willing to pay a bit higher tax right now for is infrastructure and paying teachers more. Democrats want college for all yet we cant even get our public education right.

Under the plans you would pay taxes, but overall taxes would be lower than the overall premiums on average that are being paid today. Most plans have those in much higher income brackets paying more.

What needs to still be worked out is the split between employer and employee so that the employer continues to pay the larger share as most do today.

To say there is no plan, is BS. To expect the plans to be in full detail down to the penny at this point is ridiculous

[cubby]

It's going to be interesting to see how that goes! Sanders, for example, endorsed and pushed hard for Clinton last time around (only for her to duly try and knife him in the back this cycle, naturally). I expect he would do the same this time around for any of the other candidates.

I think most of the other Dems would do the same, but Bloomberg is the interesting one to me. After he literally called Sanders a commie in the last debate, the notion of Bloomberg endorsing Sanders seems almost farcically unlikely, along the lines of Ted Cruz endorsing Trump after Trump insulted his wife and father.

I agree. And it will get even more interesting if Sanders wins the nomination, when Obama comes out strong for the nominee and party unity (there is good info that Obama will do this, and is waiting until after the Convention to go public), because it's now out that Sanders disliked Obama so much he tried to primary him in 2011/2012 - had to be sternly talked out of it by DNC leadership.

So yeah, fun times.

[Zan15]

For you individually the cost of M4A would be cheaper per year, per month, then the current system.

So are you saying you oppose the system because it will cost JUST YOU more money?
Are you saying you refuse to look at the whole impact vs your individual impact?

You don't see that if anything were to happen to you, the additional savings on deductibles, out of pockets and premiums would most likely net you a gain in the long run?


unless you are in the upper upper income limits or have golden benefits almost exclusively paid for by your employer I can't see most people losing out under this system.

[starlord]

were you asleep during Trump years? you can pass a lot using reconciliation and other loopholes in senate rules. Trump passed the biggest change to the tax code in years with a slim majority so I am not sure what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



Two ways Bernie can do it through budget reconciliation which is how Trump got a lot of bills passed or get rid of the filibuster which in my opinion is long overdue.

tax cuts are always popular with the electorate and thus the senate, its a mark of how ineffective trump has been that thats his biggest accomplishment. anything else any other dem could do, M4A is bernie's big albatross. one of the big criticisms of the ACA is that due to not having bipartisan support and obama having to twister it into getting passed, its easy to hamstring.
i want to see lasting legislation, not a game of overriding EO's every 4-8 years.

[Draco-Onis]

tax cuts are always popular with the electorate and thus the senate, its a mark of how ineffective trump has been that thats his biggest accomplishment. anything else any other dem could do, M4A is bernie's big albatross. one of the big criticisms of the ACA is that due to not having bipartisan support and obama having to twister it into getting passed, its easy to hamstring.
i want to see lasting legislation, not a game of overriding EO's every 4-8 years.

But that's not where we live that's wishful thinking, the country is too polarized for that to be the case. The problem with the ACA is that the democratic party compromised with republicans and itself and got nothing for it then ran away from it instead of defending all the while Obama stayed out of it. I think people wishing for bipartisanship are doing so in principle you cannot look at the past 12 years and say that. The ACA was worked on for over year by republicans they wrote a great deal of the provisions in it yet they didn't vote for it that's the political reality.

Democrats need to stop pissing on their base hoping that by some miracle the right will come to the table, they ain't coming back.

[starlord]

But that's not where we live that's wishful thinking, the country is too polarized for that to be the case. The problem with the ACA is that the democratic party compromised with republicans and itself and got nothing for it then ran away from it instead of defending all the while Obama stayed out of it. I think people wishing for bipartisanship are doing so in principle you cannot look at the past 12 years and say that. The ACA was worked on for over year by republicans they wrote a great deal of the provisions in it yet they didn't vote for it that's the political reality.

Democrats need to stop pissing on their base hoping that by some miracle the right will come to the table, they ain't coming back.

its wishful thinking to say that the dems will be able to pass everything they want without dealing with opposition. there's no way for them to get a filibuster proof majority without a long string of major luck.
the repubs have nothing to lose by opposing dems and doing nothing, its what their base wants. the dems are the ones who actually want to change things.
so if the dems don't try to pass legislation, the repubs will go "ok sweet", and meanwhile people such as yourself will get angry at the dems.

[Bodakane]

Why do people think healthcare will cost the same as it does now if we have universal/single payer/M4A?

[Edge-]

Why do people think healthcare will cost the same as it does now if we have universal/single payer/M4A?

Because people don't even understand how health care/insurance works now. Which is by design.

[Omega10]

Jim Clyburn of SC’s 6th District just announced his endorsement.

He endorsed Biden with these words.
I know Joe Biden.
I know his character and his heart, and his record.
Joe Biden has stood for the hard working people of South Carolina.
We know Joe. But More importantly, he knows us.
In South Carolina, we choose presidents.
I’m calling on you to stand with Joe Biden.

It seems that this endorsement had an impact. Quite a few recent polls came out yesterday and today, with the following results:

Biden now has a large lead in South Carolina. Sanders is solidifying his lead for Super Tuesday, with Biden a strong second now. Bloomberg is flatlining, and the others are not doing well.

Sunday and Monday will be crucial for the Biden campaign. Converting a win in SC into delegate gold on Super Tuesday will not be a trivial task.

[DarkTZeratul]

Two ways Bernie can do it through budget reconciliation which is how Trump got a lot of bills passed or get rid of the filibuster which in my opinion is long overdue.

Both of which are congressional tools that the president has no control over.

[tyrlaan]

You're doubling down on personal attacks in the face of criticism of a candidate. Also cherry-picking quotes and misstating all meaning. You're just projecting your own badd faith and need to tone police.

Singling out a user for personal attacks and baiting feels like a borderline infractable offence and reflects poorly on MMO-C leadership.

Maybe you should be the one relieving their self of any claim to authority, moral or otherwise.

Please. Self righteousness in this context conjures up the expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

Until you stop shitposting, all you're doing by being on a high horse is hoping to dodge the stink of your own handiwork.

I know you directed this at Skroe, but in his absence, I'd like to take a shot.

His prognostications haven't actually shifted. The position regarding Bernie and his inability to woo the key voters we'll need in the key Electoral College states has been unwavering (those would be PA, WI, MI). Along with the democrats inability to succeed when we should in FL (and Bernie's Castro answer didn't help that effort).

The last sentence, regarding listening to others than yourselves, is evidenced by Sanders' followers and supporters having a difficult time hearing other points of view, and absorbing/adjusting to criticism of their candidate. We see this magnified when Sanders' peeps have to consider the possibility of voting for another candidate, and them insisting their's is the only "right" choice. It's not any one specific thing, it's an overall problem of not being able to reconsider positions, for the greater good. And that point of view can be very toxic, because it ignores intellectual honesty, which is necessary for governance. We see that now every day with Trump.

No - I am NOT saying Sanders is in any way like Trump. However, we're seeing some behavior from Sanders' followers (and I use that term specifically) that is disconcerting.

For example, I don't like Sanders as a candidate. He's my second-to-last choice in the current field. However, seeing him rise and take the lead, I find myself ready to support him, vote for him, and defend him. I'm ready to defeat Trump, whatever the "sacrifice". I see others here (and like it or not, this discussion is a decent sample of the "real" world) not willing to do that for other candidates, if they win the nomination - in fact, not even willing to consider it in some cases.

That is bad. That is the road to perdition. Trump in a second term will kill this country. We will see the 1960's brought back and worse. I've even figured out the legal argument that Trump and his idiot followers will use to justify him running for a third term. Yes - a third term.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in the comments to Skroe that you commented on. I've mostly ignored his Bernie whinging after the first few salvos to be honest, and was primarily talking about his "We're taking your president away from you" stuff (though there are other examples).

I'm not going to comment on Bernie Bro nonsense because it's been addressed thoroughly at this point and shouldn't be a relevant part of a conversation among intelligent people.

And to be honest, we've been over the whole "vote blue no matter who" stuff before as well. As the primary marches on and it becomes increasingly likely that Bernie will get the nomination (hell a week from now it should be clear if this is true or not), I damn well hope all the people that have been screaming about "vote blue no matter who" and "party unity" actually fucking mean it and aren't massive hypocrites. (The side point here is that I remain unconvinced that this concern about people not voting for whoever the Dem candidate solely exists within the Bernie camp)

[Theodarzna]

So are you saying you oppose the system because it will cost JUST YOU more money?
Are you saying you refuse to look at the whole impact vs your individual impact?

You don't see that if anything were to happen to you, the additional savings on deductibles, out of pockets and premiums would most likely net you a gain in the long run?


unless you are in the upper upper income limits or have golden benefits almost exclusively paid for by your employer I can't see most people losing out under this system.

I think you misread me. I'm pro-Universal health care.

For me individually its a cheaper plan, an easier plan, and save's me a lot of hassle, aggregation and anxiety. On top of that its health care I don't have to struggle for.

[Draco-Onis]

its wishful thinking to say that the dems will be able to pass everything they want without dealing with opposition. there's no way for them to get a filibuster proof majority without a long string of major luck.
the repubs have nothing to lose by opposing dems and doing nothing, its what their base wants. the dems are the ones who actually want to change things.
so if the dems don't try to pass legislation, the repubs will go "ok sweet", and meanwhile people such as yourself will get angry at the dems.

I hate to repeat myself republicans don't matter just like democrats haven't mattered in the senate under Trump. The senate has tons of loopholes to pass major legislation with a simple majority and if it gets down to it you can get rid of the filibuster. That's not even going into the use of "emergency powers" that Trump has abused on top of executive orders to get his agenda through. You clearly have not been paying attention these last few years of praying for bipartisanship to magically come back.

Democrats need to grow some balls and get in the game republicans are playing chess while democrats like you are playing tic tac to.

[cubby]

It seems that this endorsement had an impact. Quite a few recent polls came out yesterday and today, with the following results:

Biden now has a large lead in South Carolina. Sanders is solidifying his lead for Super Tuesday, with Biden a strong second now. Bloomberg is flatlining, and the others are not doing well.

Sunday and Monday will be crucial for the Biden campaign. Converting a win in SC into delegate gold on Super Tuesday will not be a trivial task.

Interesting. And I agree re your SC and Super Tuesday analysis. Biden, even with a big SC win, is struggling. Sanders seems to be the candidate to beat right now. Can Sanders do well enough to clinch the nomination and not have the DNC be contested?

I wonder who they are looking at for VP.

[Draco-Onis]

Both of which are congressional tools that the president has no control over.

You mean like Trump had no control over yet got many of his agenda passed through the senate

[Levelfive]

its wishful thinking to say that the dems will be able to pass everything they want without dealing with opposition. there's no way for them to get a filibuster proof majority without a long string of major luck.
the repubs have nothing to lose by opposing dems and doing nothing, its what their base wants. the dems are the ones who actually want to change things.
so if the dems don't try to pass legislation, the repubs will go "ok sweet", and meanwhile people such as yourself will get angry at the dems.

Strawman aside, unless you can actually point to where somewhere actually said "Dems will get everything they want with no opposition," McConnell has zero respect for norms and will happily change the rules for whatever reason whenever it suits him. If Democrats ever re-take the Senate, they should similarly make the rules work for them for once. The filibuster is irrelevant.

[Edge-]

You mean like Trump had no control over yet got many of his agenda passed through the senate

He doesn't. Those are both powers exclusive to the Legislature. The president can put pressure on his party in Congress to do those things, but he can't force anyone to do shit if they don't want to.

[Draco-Onis]

He doesn't. Those are both powers exclusive to the Legislature. The president can put pressure on his party in Congress to do those things, but he can't force anyone to do shit if they don't want to.

And as the leader of the party the president gets it done.

[starlord]

Strawman aside, unless you can actually point to where somewhere actually said "Dems will get everything they want with no opposition," McConnell has zero respect for norms and will happily change the rules for whatever reason whenever it suits him. If Democrats ever re-take the Senate, they should similarly make the rules work for them for once. The filibuster is irrelevant.

so all you have to do is win at everything and change the rules and then you'll never have to deal with the opposing party.
so easy!
then when they inevitably win back power they will do the same to you.