Buttigieg keeps making the most sense. I hope he breaks through
Pete Buttigieg is the smartest, sharpest and the best candidate overall but I fear the stupid american voters just won't get over him being gay, I wonder if a Warren/Buttigieg ticket might be enough to take down Trump/Italktojesuseveryday.
In the post-mortem interviews, Van Jones just nailed Warren on forcing Americans to adopt medicare for all, vs. medicare for all who want it.
"Do you care about freedom, in the sense of do you care about the freedom to opt out? The idea is that the public option is available, but not required. That means you can take the subway, but if you want you can take an Uber, or your own car, or ride a bike, or simply walk. What you're saying is 'you must take the subway'"
Damn.
Turned it around and ask Van Jones why Blacks should get welfare. They can get a job! They can sell stuff!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Buttigieg is smart and very likable, but is essentially an empty shirt, stuffed with big donor money. He's in the race on the strength of a few millionaires deciding he should be in it, and he really has zilch in the way of policy. What does Pete stand for? Seriously, see if you can think of what he's actually for, what his signature policies are, without looking them up.
I've been paying pretty close attention and the closest I can come up with is "If you like Joe Biden but think he's too old, vote for me".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Buttigieg is smart and very likable, but is essentially an empty shirt, stuffed with big donor money. He's in the race on the strength of a few millionaires deciding he should be in it, and he really has zilch in the way of policy. What does Pete stand for? Seriously, see if you can think of what he's actually for, what his signature policies are, without looking them up.
I've been paying pretty close attention and the closest I can come up with is "If you like Joe Biden but think he's too old, vote for me".
I think all 4 of them will endorse Bernie. That really hurts Warren right?
I doubt it. It might swing a few voters who are undecided between Sanders and Warren. But it does nothing to swing the vast majority of the available voters, who are moderate undecideds, plus supporters of second-tier candidates (almost all of them moderates) who are making their choice about who to support once their first choice drops out. If anything, it's good for Warren's brand to be progressive, but not full 'Sanders/AOC progressive', as there's a lot of Democrats who view themselves as exactly that.
I expect Sanders to get a little uptick back into the high teens, and Warren to continue to pull in high 20s.
Elmendorf is the most important, because although his personal net worth isn't clear, he's responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in donations from companies like Amazon and Disney. As far as I know, Pete is the only candidate who's accepting money from lobbyists. More than half of Pete's donations come from large individual donors.
Pete isn't really some outsider relying on grassroots support. He's much more like a candidate built in a lab as some ivory tower ideal. His donor profile is much more like Harris's and Biden's. The guy kind of sums up what white coastal elites think should go into picking a Presidential Candidate - someone who'll say "I'm a really smart guy, look how smart I am personally, I should be running things" - making the campaign about him personally, rather than talking about how he would solve problems or what he's actually for. He'll speak in vague platitudes and tell anecdotes and stories from the campaign trail and sound very compelling and likable doing so, and he'll avoid, at all costs, taking policy stances, because committing to do anything might scare off some potential voter somewhere.
I don't know if he'd beat Trump or not, but that strikes me as a bad strategy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 10-16-2019 at 12:21 AM.
In the post-mortem interviews, Van Jones just nailed Warren on forcing Americans to adopt medicare for all, vs. medicare for all who want it.
"Do you care about freedom, in the sense of do you care about the freedom to opt out? The idea is that the public option is available, but not required. That means you can take the subway, but if you want you can take an Uber, or your own car, or ride a bike, or simply walk. What you're saying is 'you must take the subway'"
Damn.
There ability to "opt out" should not exist, because those who wish to opt-out end up increasing the costs for everyone else.
It is pretty simple really: Medicare for all, and for those that don't want it and want to exercise their "freedom to opt out", then don't use it. Feel free to exclude yourself from the greater health care system and strike up your own deals with the doctors and drug companies. Let me know how that goes for you....
Where is it in the American constitution that health care is a human right?
The constitution does not speak to human rights. The Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the constitution - speak to the rights afforded to citizens of the United States of America. These are not general human rights, but rights afforded and protected by the government. The US constitution has been shown to be a flawed document when it comes to human rights. Might have something to do with it being drafted to appease a bunch of white elitist slave owners.
People also conflate the expression "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness" as a defense for the medicare-for-all concept. While I agree that it is impossible to have life, liberty, or happiness without having access to basic services like healthcare, this is not mentioned in the constitution. The passage in question comes from the Declaration of Independence, which does not frame our institutions nor afford protections like the constitution.
Because you have to structure it that way.. ugh. America is so dumb. It’s not supposed to be as freedom of choice. It’s supposed to be a human right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan
Where is it in the American constitution that health care is a human right?
1. I think kermitology's point is that SHOULD be a human right, not that it is in the constitution.
2. The US constitution isn't a universal declaration of human right, it's the governing document of the United States. That said medical care is in article 25 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which isn't a legal governing document, but does outline that healthcare is *supposed* to be a human right).
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
It's a human right where if you are bleeding on the street, they won't let you die? That's probably the thought process in 1776. Not how to pay for it.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
It's not a policy problem, it's a political problem. People fear change. Most people don't want to abolish private insurance. It should be a case where if you have everyone on the same provider, then there's no stigma for paying for it, but it's just not going to be a law in the United States with its existing political climate... The "Public Option" version of the plan is by far more popular than forcing people onto medicare.
^That last one has only 22% of democrats in favour of abolishing private insurance.
The public provider should, in theory, be more efficient than its competitors, and should therefore win over more market share over time, provided that lobbyists don't create issues to preserve the private participants. Gradually, you might be able to shift the whole country onto the government plan, and once people are comfortable with it and the "fear of change" bit goes away, you can then implement what Warren and Sanders want to do. But with under 20% of the country in favour, it's just not realistic.
EDIT: Basically, most of the USA wants the Santos Health Plan from the West Wing.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 10-16-2019 at 10:17 AM.
It's not a policy problem, it's a political problem. People fear change. Most people don't want to abolish private insurance. It should be a case where if you have everyone on the same provider, then there's no stigma for paying for it, but it's just not going to be a law in the United States with its existing political climate... The "Public Option" version of the plan is by far more popular than forcing people onto medicare.
^That last one has only 22% of democrats in favour of abolishing private insurance.
The public provider should, in theory, be more efficient than its competitors, and should therefore win over more market share over time, provided that lobbyists don't create issues to preserve the private participants. Gradually, you might be able to shift the whole country onto the government plan, and once people are comfortable with it and the "fear of change" bit goes away, you can then implement what Warren and Sanders want to do. But with under 20% of the country in favour, it's just not realistic.
Those polls are about the preferred option not support for each option. Saying under 20% of the country is in favour is way off the mark.
The problem, as identified above, is that most people who say they support "medicare for all" don't know what they're claiming to support. They don't understand what it means. Once you tell them "the only primary provider of health care available to you is the government and private health insurance is no longer allowed", polling drops through the floor. Because there's never been a presidential candidate pushing for single payer, no one seems to have looked terribly closely at it to come to grips with how big a change it is.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The problem, as identified above, is that most people who say they support "medicare for all" don't know what they're claiming to support. They don't understand what it means. Once you tell them "the only primary provider of health care available to you is the government and private health insurance is no longer allowed", polling drops through the floor. Because there's never been a presidential candidate pushing for single payer, no one seems to have looked terribly closely at it to come to grips with how big a change it is.
Yes, but that isn't even what Medicare is.
Even Medicare has a role for private insurance companies, through supplemental insurance policies (i.e., Medigap plans).
ETA: Furthermore, in some instances and cases, Medicare itself isn't even the primary insurance payer or provider if the insured has other insurance coverage.
Buttigieg is smart and very likable, but is essentially an empty shirt, stuffed with big donor money. He's in the race on the strength of a few millionaires deciding he should be in it, and he really has zilch in the way of policy. What does Pete stand for? Seriously, see if you can think of what he's actually for, what his signature policies are, without looking them up.
I've been paying pretty close attention and the closest I can come up with is "If you like Joe Biden but think he's too old, vote for me".
Medicare for all who want it
15 seat supreme court with 5 chosen unanimously by the other justices
Douglass Plan
National Service Program
Abolishing the Electoral College
Carbon Tax
Pulling out of Afghanistan
Universal Background Checks and Assault Rifle Ban
Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Pathway to citizenship
That was basically just recalling last night's debate points.
Elmendorf is the most important, because although his personal net worth isn't clear, he's responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in donations from companies like Amazon and Disney. As far as I know, Pete is the only candidate who's accepting money from lobbyists. More than half of Pete's donations come from large individual donors.
Pete isn't really some outsider relying on grassroots support. He's much more like a candidate built in a lab as some ivory tower ideal. His donor profile is much more like Harris's and Biden's. The guy kind of sums up what white coastal elites think should go into picking a Presidential Candidate - someone who'll say "I'm a really smart guy, look how smart I am personally, I should be running things" - making the campaign about him personally, rather than talking about how he would solve problems or what he's actually for. He'll speak in vague platitudes and tell anecdotes and stories from the campaign trail and sound very compelling and likable doing so, and he'll avoid, at all costs, taking policy stances, because committing to do anything might scare off some potential voter somewhere.
I don't know if he'd beat Trump or not, but that strikes me as a bad strategy.
I mean, he has some typical non-political experience credentials - Ivy League, McKinsey, etc, but I'd hardly call a gay 2 term mayor of a city of 100k in Indiana a built in a lab candidate. His political experience is very unconventional for a Presidential Candidate. Unprecedented, really. His donor base and supporter base, especially in early states is not unlike Obama's.
The only thing that will keep us from a second Trump term is Trump. I am hopeful that the implosion will continue and be severe enough to force a resignation. The Democrats do not have a strong enough candidate today. The best are relative unknowns and the most known are not good candidates, not confidently healthy or too old.
Just a stupid American's two cents.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Wait, I thought it didn't matter who Trump was going to face, he's a lock for re-election?
Wait yourself
I have said multiple times Biden would beat him
Irrelevant if Canadians on CP think he is too old or bad at debates. Biden will win a the usual dem states and likely enough swing states. If it was popular vote I might go with someone else but it's not.
