1. #3001
    Quote Originally Posted by Slybak View Post
    Warren's campaign decided to make her "The Plans Candidate" back in Spring because "I have a plan for that" got some applause at a few candidate fora, and even though it got her noticed its ultimately what's caused her to tank over the past month.

    First, as you said, because plans aren't politics. Politics is dispositional, not technical. I'd only add that Republicans understand this to the extent that conservative dispositions are broadly unpopular, so by necessity are forced to aestheticize those dispositions to make them at least palatable to the public. This is also why the right-wing has become, at home and abroad, more and more fascistic.

    Second because once you become "The Plans Candidate" its expected that you'll have your own unique pitch on every issue, even the one's that aren't in your wheelhouse, when there are perfectly serviceable proposals available for you to take. This is initially what she did: backed Sanders-Jayapal. It wasn't her plan and that was fine. Politicians normally take proposals from various sources; from other candidates to support instutitions of their party.

    But once she became "The Plans Candidate" she had to have her own unique policy, and obviously prioritized immunizing herself from the right-wing "tax increase" canard so much so that it developed into something more convoluted and opened herself up to skepticism from her left flank. It also didn't stop that fuckin snake Pete Buttigieg from continuing to attack her from the right, so it failed in its basic purpose.

    This isn't a matter of the average voter being stupid, but a matter of the average voter operating in a system where being a highly informed political agent is both actively and structurally discouraged. No one has the time to become an expert on every conceivable subject, to the extent that they can thoroughly evaluate policy papers on every issue. Because, again, politics isn't technical.
    The polling says different the MSM is very against medicare for all and pretty much every progressive plan but I do agree with you that once she labeled herself as the plan candidate she was backed into a corner. Medicare for all is far cheaper than the status quo and current insurance is horrible but that is getting lost in the MSM bias against it. She should have anticipated this and found a way to be more evasive and focused more on how broken the current system is, it's one of those topics where details are bad kind of reminds me of the death panel BS that they put on Obamacare. The only these progressive agendas are going to pass is to keep the public in the dark because both the MSM and the democratic party are going to twist every detail to scare the average person. My opinion is if we get a Biden type of candidate we lose, mayor Pete will 100% lose unless the economy tanks this country is not ready for a gay president.

  2. #3002
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    AOC blasted an new ad of his because it doesn't blanket make college free for all. It has a cutoff at 150k with some extra things to drive down costs.
    Seems like a winning point for Buttigieg. This is more than generous enough to cover tuition, room, and board at any normal university. The only people that actually need more than $150K for undergraduate education are rich kids with mediocre academics - everyone else can go to the most expensive schools with either need-based aid or partial scholarships and come in with a 4-year bill way under $150K.

    For example, UCLA's 4-year cost with zero aid and paying the school the full costs of room, board, and everything else is ~$140K. U of Michigan is similar. These are the outer bounds of possible public costs - no aid, no scholarships, the best public universities in the country, no effort to cut costs with online book buying or a cheaper rental than campus dorms, no living at home. Literally just spending the most you possibly can and it's still free with the Pete plan.

  3. #3003
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    The polling says different the MSM is very against medicare for all and pretty much every progressive plan but I do agree with you that once she labeled herself as the plan candidate she was backed into a corner.
    The polling on single payer is all over the place, and its entirely because you get different responses depending on how the policy is characterized by the polling question.

  4. #3004
    Quote Originally Posted by Slybak View Post
    The polling on single payer is all over the place, and its entirely because you get different responses depending on how the policy is characterized by the polling question.
    Which makes sense, right? There isn't one thing that's currently referred to as "single payer" that everyone being asked the question has a shared understanding of. If you ask questions that are more around the starting point for these policies ("should the United States government guarantee basic healthcare for every American?"), you're going to get very strong results. If you ask questions that are more on the far fringe end ("should private insurance be abolished entirely?"), you're going to get weak results. I don't want to say that there's a consensus position, because there's not, but there are some basics that a strong plurality of people agree on.

  5. #3005
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Seems like a winning point for Buttigieg. This is more than generous enough to cover tuition, room, and board at any normal university. The only people that actually need more than $150K for undergraduate education are rich kids with mediocre academics - everyone else can go to the most expensive schools with either need-based aid or partial scholarships and come in with a 4-year bill way under $150K.
    The cutoff is $100,000, and its not the cutoff on the sticker price of tuition but the annual income of the household paying it. For reference, median tuition for in-state public colleges and universities is $10,000 a year, and $20,000 if you include fees and room & board.

    What this policy would likely do is exacerbate the phenomenon of families who make a little bit too much money to qualify for existing means-tested tuition assistance emancipating their college-bound kid so that they qualify. This would, in turn, sour the public against the program because it has led to "cheating," thereby creating the political will for the right-wing to demand even more means-testing; i.e. more qualification hoops that people who could already qualify would have to jump through.

    Its bad politics.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Which makes sense, right? There isn't one thing that's currently referred to as "single payer" that everyone being asked the question has a shared understanding of. If you ask questions that are more around the starting point for these policies ("should the United States government guarantee basic healthcare for every American?"), you're going to get very strong results. If you ask questions that are more on the far fringe end ("should private insurance be abolished entirely?"), you're going to get weak results. I don't want to say that there's a consensus position, because there's not, but there are some basics that a strong plurality of people agree on.
    This happens largely because politicians focus on the macro questions while voters focus on the micro questions. Voters aren't interested in GDP impact analyses or effects on existing insurance markets, which is the kind of shit Democratic politicians needlessly obsess over, they're interested in how the policy affects their own lives. The way you sell a policy like single payer is by literally walking people through how it changes the way, for the better, they go to the doctor or hospital. It's not rocket science. You don't need a Vox Explainer to understand it.

    We saw this in stark relief during the GOP effort to repeal the ACA; people weren't angrily shouting at their Republican Senators and Representatives over reductions in Cost-Sharing Payments to Insurers that offer Qualified Silver-Rated Plans, they were angrily shouting at their Republican Senators and Representatives because they didn't want to lose various insurance protections like guaranteed issue (i.e. the ban on pre-existing conditions) and bans on yearly/lifetime benefit caps, or they didn't want to get kicked off Medicaid. It's basically the same reason more comprehensive systems you find in other countries, like Canadian Medicare and the British NHS, have such political strength; they have an existing and broad-based microeconomic benefit that people don't want to lose.

  6. #3006
    Quote Originally Posted by Slybak View Post
    The cutoff is $100,000, and its not the cutoff on the sticker price of tuition but the annual income of the household paying it. For reference, median tuition for in-state public colleges and universities is $10,000 a year, and $20,000 if you include fees and room & board.
    My bad, misread the post and wasn't previously familiar with the Pete-specific version of things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slybak View Post
    What this policy would likely do is exacerbate the phenomenon of families who make a little bit too much money to qualify for existing means-tested tuition assistance emancipating their college-bound kid so that they qualify. This would, in turn, sour the public against the program because it has led to "cheating," thereby creating the political will for the right-wing to demand even more means-testing; i.e. more qualification hoops that people who could already qualify would have to jump through.

    Its bad politics.
    Agree - a family income of $100K/year is a pretty odd cutoff if a goal is to help the broadly construed "middle class" afford college for their children. In most states, the median household income for families with children is ~$80K; drawing a cutoff at six-figures seems like the politics of resentment, drawing a line that will resonate with people that despise the professional class, but ring hollow for many very typical families.

    Capping the actual amount that can be spent makes sense to me, but means-testing mostly just seems like you're going to bump into divisiveness where people above the line dislike the program and people below it like it. I'm surprised that more politicians haven't learned the lesson that universality of a program is one of the things that can make it difficult to defeat.

  7. #3007
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    My bad, misread the post and wasn't previously familiar with the Pete-specific version of things.

    Agree - a family income of $100K/year is a pretty odd cutoff if a goal is to help the broadly construed "middle class" afford college for their children. In most states, the median household income for families with children is ~$80K; drawing a cutoff at six-figures seems like the politics of resentment, drawing a line that will resonate with people that despise the professional class, but ring hollow for many very typical families.

    Capping the actual amount that can be spent makes sense to me, but means-testing mostly just seems like you're going to bump into divisiveness where people above the line dislike the program and people below it like it. I'm surprised that more politicians haven't learned the lesson that universality of a program is one of the things that can make it difficult to defeat.
    100k -150k Adjusted Gross Income... there's a sliding subsidy over 100k AGI.

    But that doesn't take into account the rest of the plan which is aimed at keeping costs lower.

    The only issue with the plan right now is maybe throwing in a COLA for different regions.

    At the end of the day it comes down to priorities. You can subsidize everyone to go college 100% for free or you can have 80% go for free and 10% go at greatly reduced cost and save the extra money for things like investment in HBCUs, childcare subsidies, pre-k education, meal plans for low income students etc...

    The absolute rub with the entire college affordability discussion... Sanders introduced a similar plan in 2017 with a strict cutoff at 125k.
    https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsr...act-introduced
    Last edited by kaelleria; 2019-12-01 at 03:18 PM.

  8. #3008
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    100k -150k... there's a sliding subsidy over 100k.

    But that doesn't take into account the rest of the plan which is aimed at keeping costs lower.
    I'm going to be immensely skeptical of a plan that increases subsidies simultaneously lowering actual total cost. This is simply not consistent with what we've seen of American government programs broadly or with regard to college subsidies more narrowly. I can't predict the exact mechanism ahead of time, but I'm entirely comfortable knowing that giving universities more money increases the cost.

    That might be worth it, but I'm not going to be sold on subsidies decreasing total cost. I'm sure there's a website somewhere that explains how that'll work, but in practice what we see over and over again is that the subsidy part gets through legislation and the cost control measures don't.

  9. #3009
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm going to be immensely skeptical of a plan that increases subsidies simultaneously lowering actual total cost. This is simply not consistent with what we've seen of American government programs broadly or with regard to college subsidies more narrowly. I can't predict the exact mechanism ahead of time, but I'm entirely comfortable knowing that giving universities more money increases the cost.

    That might be worth it, but I'm not going to be sold on subsidies decreasing total cost. I'm sure there's a website somewhere that explains how that'll work, but in practice what we see over and over again is that the subsidy part gets through legislation and the cost control measures don't.
    States are forced to keep costs low by only receiving subsidy money if they invest in their universities and keep tuition increases reasonable.

    You bring up an interesting point that would affect all the college affordability plans tbh.
    Last edited by kaelleria; 2019-12-01 at 03:40 PM.

  10. #3010
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    States are forced to keep costs low by only receiving subsidy money if they invest in their universities and keep tuition increases reasonable.

    You bring up an interesting point that would affect all the college affordability plans tbh.
    Note that this is cost shifting rather than cost reduction. Requiring a state to control tuition doesn't necessarily imply that the university system will do anything to control costs to taxpayers. Were I a chancellor, I'd be pretty enthusiastic about a plan that gets me consumers that don't have to pay for the end product and a statutory requirement for my state to keep raising spending to keep up with arbitrarily large increases in cost. I don't actually think tend to think they're quite that cynical, but it lines up a set of incentives that almost surely will continue to spike actual costs. A lot of this money isn't going towards things that actually improve education - spending on amenities, administrative expenses, and so on have grown sharply as universities compete with each other to have the shiniest campus. Surely that's going to keep ballooning in a universe where "free" schools increase demand.

    At a glance, it also seems like it disadvantages poor states - places like California and Minnesota can afford to allocate more state capital to universities to get federal subsidies, but I'm not clear how that's supposed to work for Mississippi or Louisiana. I guess someone could say that they can fuck off because they're not doing a very good job educating people, but a policy that provides something like a federal match is going to exacerbate that. Perhaps there's an exception carved out for that, but then we're back to just straight up increasing total costs across the board.

    To be clear, I'm not against public universities being free or near-free for qualified students. The investment is worth it and the principles are sound. I'm just very skeptical when people tell me that it's also going to be a cost savings.

  11. #3011
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    My bad, misread the post and wasn't previously familiar with the Pete-specific version of things.

    Agree - a family income of $100K/year is a pretty odd cutoff if a goal is to help the broadly construed "middle class" afford college for their children. In most states, the median household income for families with children is ~$80K; drawing a cutoff at six-figures seems like the politics of resentment, drawing a line that will resonate with people that despise the professional class, but ring hollow for many very typical families.

    Capping the actual amount that can be spent makes sense to me, but means-testing mostly just seems like you're going to bump into divisiveness where people above the line dislike the program and people below it like it. I'm surprised that more politicians haven't learned the lesson that universality of a program is one of the things that can make it difficult to defeat.
    I mean even if you want to create any kind of public benefit that scales in its remuneration proportional to the needs of actual beneficiaries, it's both more politically, economically, and logistically expedient to do it on the back end via funding (i.e. the taxes that pay for it) than on the front end via means-testing the benefit distribution. Rich people get the same benefit - regardless as to whether they actually use it - but pay more for it.

    To think otherwise is really to assume that, to use this specific proposal as an example, very wealthy New Yorkers just cant wait to "save" $25k a year by sending their kids to SUNY Binghamton even if they're paying hundreds of thousands more to create that savings in the first place. When the reality is, either way, their kids are still probably gonna go to Princeton.
    Last edited by Slybak; 2019-12-01 at 05:08 PM.

  12. #3012
    The leftists now support bullying kids I guess
    Your problem is that you’re more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

  13. #3013
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    21,248


    The fact that Kamala had a conference call to figure out and discuss what her "core values" where is itself a disqualifying factor. She shouldn't have run.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    сила лунной призмы составляет - Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics. Ashley Frawley and Patrick Deneen are BEA

  14. #3014
    Harris is bleeding badly, while Yang just made 750k in 24 hours. Biden at least has a Super PAC behind him to keep him afloat. If nothing good happens to her then Harris could be out by Christmas (and some candidates will thank Santa for that gift).
    How is Warren holding up? I hear she dropped massively in some polls.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'm fine with a mafia. Of course, the mafia families often worked with independent third parties in order to maintain relations.

  15. #3015
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    117
    Bloomberg buying lots of ads the last few weeks seems to be paying off

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/47...is-in-new-poll

    Biden 31, Sanders 15, Warren 10, Buttigieg 9, Bloomberg 6

  16. #3016
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    21,248
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post
    Harris is bleeding badly, while Yang just made 750k in 24 hours. Biden at least has a Super PAC behind him to keep him afloat. If nothing good happens to her then Harris could be out by Christmas (and some candidates will thank Santa for that gift).
    How is Warren holding up? I hear she dropped massively in some polls.
    Warren collapsed because of M4A stance started to Waffle and she has started to lose confidence from voters. Sanders is able to capture and hold voters because people have faith based on his consistency. In a world of weather-vanes he has always been a sign post. Warren said she wouldn't even get to M4A for three years? What the hell is she doing for three years?
    Last edited by Theodarzna; 2019-12-02 at 08:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    сила лунной призмы составляет - Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics. Ashley Frawley and Patrick Deneen are BEA

  17. #3017
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Warren collapsed because of M4A stance started to Waffle and she has started to lose confidence from voters. Sanders is able to capture and hold voters because people have faith based on his consistency. In a world of weather-vanes he has always been a sign post. Warren said she wouldn't even get to M4A for three years? What the hell is she doing for three years?
    According to her speeches in Iowa, she is going to spend it getting rid of the electoral college. Even though that would take a constitutional amendment and would be impossible in the political climate currently. But hey, pitch that to people in Iowa--where if the electoral college was abolished no politicians would ever go again because Iowa would not matter.

    In other candidate news, Trump's officials have told bloomberg news that they would not be issuing them credentials since they will not investigate democratic candidates. Campaign manager Brad Parscale said:

    Since they have declared their bias openly, the Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events. We will determine whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquires from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis. This will remain the policy of the Trump campaign until Bloomberg News publicly rescinds its decision.
    Oh and let's not forget the latest Biden gaffe about kids on his lap.
    And you guys seriously think these people can beat Trump by just running on the fact they are not Trump?
    Last edited by TexasRules; 2019-12-02 at 10:02 PM.

  18. #3018
    Quote Originally Posted by NED funded View Post
    The leftists now support bullying kids I guess
    Who are the leftists bullying?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.

  19. #3019
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,668
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    According to her speeches in Iowa, she is going to spend it getting rid of the electoral college. Even though that would take a constitutional amendment and would be impossible in the political climate currently. But hey, pitch that to people in Iowa--where if the electoral college was abolished no politicians would ever go again because Iowa would not matter.

    In other candidate news, Trump's officials have told bloomberg news that they would not be issuing them credentials since they will not investigate democratic candidates. Campaign manager Brad Parscale said:



    Oh and let's not forget the latest Biden gaffe about kids on his lap.
    And you guys seriously think these people can beat Trump by just running on the fact they are not Trump?
    Another conservative that doesn't understand how voting works. Removing the electoral college would make every single voter in every single part of country equal vote. ALL states would be battleground states, and force all presidential candidates to create a platform to appeal to all people in all states.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  20. #3020
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Another conservative that doesn't understand how voting works. Removing the electoral college would make every single voter in every single part of country equal vote. ALL states would be battleground states, and force all presidential candidates to create a platform to appeal to all people in all states.
    Yep.

    But people in favor of the EC just want to argue that every single person in a state votes the exact same way, which is nonsense. Even in California where the Republicans have been shitting the bed for over a decade now they still managed to get 31% of the vote in 2016.

    It's basically an excuse for Republicans to not have to appeal to many people. They just need to appeal to enough people in the right places.

    You never hear Republicans talk about winning California. They just shit on the state all the time and don't want to put any effort into appealing to Californians beyond the rural farmers. There's not something inherently Californian that prevents Republicans from winning here, it's the Republican party not giving a shit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •