2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
I caught about 60% of the debate. Castro did very well. He'd probably be a good candidate for VP. No one really had a good answer for how they would deal with Mitch. Biggest news for me was Warren calling for abolishing private health insurance. Realistically, like how Obama campaigned on a public option we didn't get, if she won we would probably end up with a public option, if anything was passed at all.
I know. Sanders and Warren are great, their proposals are what we need. But they don't present a campaign viable way to get there.

It sucks because Warren could be a great candidate.
 
I caught about 60% of the debate. Castro did very well. He'd probably be a good candidate for VP. No one really had a good answer for how they would deal with Mitch. Biggest news for me was Warren calling for abolishing private health insurance. Realistically, like how Obama campaigned on a public option we didn't get,
Yup, if the Democrats want to lose the 2020 election, they really should pick up the 'ban private health insurance' policy.

First of all, its a really exceptionally stupid policy. Canada, the only major western country that has followed that plan, generally ranks near the bottom of health care rankings, and has well-known problems with wait lists. Of course, I've brought that issue up before, but the typical response is either "nobody is talking about banning private insurance" (even though they are) or "Look at how the poor people suffer" (which is a problem that has to be addressed, just not through banning private options).

Secondly, its a very unpopular policy.

From: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...want-the-government-to-provide-healthcare-for
In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn't allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as "single-payer." The most popular option, at 32 percent, consisted of a universal, government-operated system that also would allow people to buy private, supplemental insurance. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they wanted a government insurance plan offered to all citizens, but one that doesn't compel people with private plans to use it, a system sometimes called a "public option."

In fact, just as many people either wanted the system to stay the same (14%), or wanted an end to all government health care (15%) as wanted a "single payer" system.

Say that you want "universal health care" and pretty much everyone (including many republicans) will cheer and say "yes". Say that you want to give public options to everyone and most people will still say "yes". Tell people "We will take away any private options and force you into a public system" and not only will you lose any chance of making inroads with republican voters, you will lose the independents and even a good chunk of the Democratic base.

So Harris (and Sanders) want a health care policy that 1) is politically unpopular, and 2) if implemented, would replicate a system that, while better than the U.S. in certain ways, still ranks near the bottom of health care systems.

If the democrats adopt that policy, you will immediately see an influx of Fox News reporters into Canada, interviewing any and every person who has been stuck on a waiting list in order to get their "free" health care, as a reminder to voters that "single payer" isn't the utopia that certain people make it out to be.

if she won we would probably end up with a public option, if anything was passed at all.
That's the problem now, isn't it... She would actually have to WIN, with a policy that is wildly unpopular.
 
Last edited:
That was a bad question in two different ways.

1. The word "abolish" is a straw man. "Replace" fits better with what's actually being talked about. Using the wrong word here was nothing but a way to try to either stick a harsher word on some people than their actual policy proposals imply, or get other people to look as if they're not in favor of universal single-payer health care even if they actually are.

2. He actually asked who would abolish "their" private insurance, not any & all private insurance... which inherently contradicts the word "abolish", which is what you do to policies that affect whole populations, not your own individual account, for which the nearest word would be "cancel". Going with the word "their" and not "abolish", the question is not even about a policy at all; it's just a question about how good a deal a few rich people, mostly in government, already get for themselves. And the quick & unemphasized delivery of that word, along with its contradiction with "abolish" in the same sentence, made it easy to miss, creating two different ways for candidates and audience members to interpret the question.
 
This ban the private insurance thing can only go so far. I think some private healthcare of the expensive kind will survive.

The public option is fine for taking care of the most people. But there are always people that want more. Their option is then to pay cash at the clinic.

The Finland example shows:
Due to the comprehensive public sector, private healthcare sector is relatively small. Between 3-4% of in-patient care is provided by the private healthcare system. Physiotherapy, dentistry and occupational health services are the most often used health services on the private sector. Approximately 10% of medical doctors work solely on private sector.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland#Private_sector
that some people still need some more care. And from what I hear from most Finns is that they prefer the private clinics, where you can buy insurance, for diagnosis. The doctor then sends you to the public system for actual care.
 
After the first debate, we have an important update. Forum member carlitos, a full-blooded gringo and highly-privileged white guy, speaks Spanish much much much better than Beto O'Rourke. Oh my God that was awful.
 
Not necessarily. Project managers do that all the time: Map the end goal to a plan of progress by increments.

Yes, but through all the milestones the project end is still hyped as the best thing since sliced bread, that will make everyone rich and cure all diseases and put a cat in every pot, or whatever.

So still over-promising.
 
A campaign program should be ambitious.
Unless of course what you're promising is something that is politically unpopular, to the point that it may cause you to lose the election.

And if you lose the election, you have no opportunity to deliver even a partial compromise on your ambitious program.

"I promise to triple your taxes, but I will settle for only doubling your taxes for now" is something that will probably lead you to electoral defeat. Same with "I promise to ban private health care, but I will settle for only offering public health care to everyone as an option".
 
Wait, what? There was a debate last night? With the election 16 months away? Give me a break. I'll check in in January or so.

Apparently Dukakis returned from the grave to teach us once more that speaking Spanish isn't a golden road to popularity.
 
Yes, but through all the milestones the project end is still hyped as the best thing since sliced bread, that will make everyone rich and cure all diseases and put a cat in every pot, or whatever.

So still over-promising.

Not on most projects I've worked on. All the good projects have been reasonably well scoped, and hyped as what they actually are planned to deliver. Another typical part of good project management.

I can't think of anything less like hyperbolic campaign promises than an actual project plan.

Just once I would love to see a politician say, "this is the specific, concrete, limited goal I'm working towards, these are the incremental improvements I plan to make towards this goal, this is how I'll be measuring my progress, and this is my roll-back plan if the measurements show I'm going the wrong direction. Please remember this and vote me out if you don't think I'm delivering on this commitment."
 
Wait, what? There was a debate last night? With the election 16 months away? Give me a break. I'll check in in January or so.

Well, we gotta start eliminating all the unnecessary candidates. It's a lot of people running for president, ya know.
 
The progressive wing that supports Bernie and Tulsi....for some reason put rose emojis in their names on Twitter. I tend to block them on sight since all they do is bellow out accusations that everyone is a "neoliberal" "centrist" "warmonger" except their anointed candidates.

It's the use of word Centrist as an insult that tells me they really don't get the political realties. The Dems need the centrist vote to win.
This is proof of what I have been saying: The Dems now have their own version of the Tea Party to deal with:A group of hard line idelogues for whom the word compromise is a dirty word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom