2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just when you thought the Iowa caucus dumpster fire was finally burning down, here's comes a fresh load of fuel:

DNC chair Perez announces a re-canvas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-chair-calls-for-recanvas-in-iowa/2020/02/06/0ec4dc4c-4906-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html

Who knows how long this will take. NH primary is Tuesday.

No. He called for it. He didn't announce it.

He has no authority to make it happen, for that matter, if I understand the situation correctly... and is facing notable resistance to the idea.


Gosh, all this Bernie talk sure is making people crabby. I have a compromise! All those who think Bernie can't win, and all those who think Bernie can win, should support Warren. That way we're completely safe from both the success and failure of Bernie! I literally see no downside to this elegant compromise!

I see. You've convinced me! I hereby announce my support for Warren!
 
What's Bloomberg goal in this election cycle.

I get the impression that he just wants to be the hero of the Trump saga. He hasn't been making any big moves on stage. But he's in the front lines of the propaganda war. I'm spending all my money to defeat Donald Trump.
 
To treat this with what's probably undue seriousness.... No? That's true of the "socialist" claim, with the different candidates having varying vulnerability to that. Bernie's the most vulnerable by far, of course. Warren's more than Biden/Buttigieg.


Bernie is the least vulnerable because for him it's actually true and a good thing. Imagine that:

PRE$$TITUTE: Mrs. Warren, they say you are a socialist, is that true?
WARREN: Of course not, it's just a smear by the mean Republicans.
PRE$$TITUTE: But you agree with Bernie on policies X, Y and Z, that looks pretty socialist to me.
WARREN: You don't have to be a socialist to support these policies ... [defensive bla bla goes back and forth]

And that:

PRE$$TITUTE: Mr. Sanders, they say you are a socialist, is that true?
BERNIE: They must have listened to what I say. But maybe you didn't as you say that as if it's a bad thing. Hold my beer and let me explain why it's not ... [rant about inequality and social justice that they really don't want you to hear in your hypnobox ensues]
 
I'm honestly uncertain how much the DNC has to do with that, but don't think that it's all that much. I'm pretty sure that state law is what actually matters there. The end of caucuses would be good, though.

Iowa: We're planning our caucases for 2024.
DNC: Have fun, we'll start our candidate selection in Hew Hampshire.
 
Sanders may be a democratic socialist, but at this point we are only going to "socialize" healthcare, if even that. Bernie would work with congress.
He hasn't done that before, why would he start now. Like her comment or not, HRC was citing fact when she said Bernie was not well like in the Senate. He's just to rigid.
 
It's not like he's made a secret of it.

It still amazes me how important some people believe it is to control what other people do in the bedroom.

Belz... it is my understanding (I'm not gay) that one of their frustrations is that opponents think being gay is limited to what they do in the bedroom. You might want to rethink your post.
 
It seems to me that caucuses aren't the problem here. The people who screwed up in Iowa would probably have screwed up a primary just as badly, if they'd been in charge of one.

I get your point, theprestige, but caucuses are, in fact, a very large problem. They need to reside in the dustbin of history.
 
This all comes back to this idea that Bernie is unvetted and untested. That he will collapse under attack.

Nobody has said he will collapse. Don't exaggerate. People, including me, have expressed concerns about his particular vulnerability to attacks based on socialism. That's a realistic concern.
 
//Note. Yes this is for the Republican primary but not worth it's own thread//

Former US Representative Joe Walsh has officially dropped out of the Republican Primary after receiving less then 1% of the vote in the Republican Caucus, leaving Donald Trump without even token, symbolic opposition for the Republican nomination. Well technically Bill Weld is still running but with one delegate and 1.3% of the primary vote to his name I'd wager he's done as well.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/joe-walsh-ends-campaign/index.html
 
Last edited:
Small population spread out over a wide area?

In my state the largest precincts have about a thousand voters. A well attended caucus in a heavily democratic precinct would still be less than 200 people. A lot easier to manage than 800 people milling about in a gymnasium.
 
Bernie and Biden argued again about the costs of healthcare. Bernie seems to be unable to talk about taxes, but that is how Medicare for all would play out.

The failure seems to be in explaining the cost. Let us say 200 million Americans are in the current system, with a good half paying for insurance through an employer with a subsidy by the employer. A small number in Obamacare etc. Suppose you put all those people in Medicare for all. It will not cost more to pay for their healthcare, because the middle man, insurance companies, are not taking a cut. It's that simple. The citizens still pay for it in some manner. It could be a premium, or just a higher income tax. It does not matter. Your cost is going to be less. And you can't be thrown out.

In this example you looked at the same 200 million people. It might be 300 million if Medicare for all then covers all. So there is a cost increase due to more patients.

Most people do not know the situation of illness in an employee plan. You use the insurance for half a year, perhaps you are disabled that time. The employer can usually just fire you then. There you are. No income and you have to enroll through the Cobra plan. Who is going to pay for it?
 
Last edited:
Suppose you put all those people in Medicare for all. It will not cost more to pay for their healthcare, because the middle man, insurance companies, are not taking a cut.

Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.

If we had to bet on two scenarios which is more efficient, and one had a financial motive to be efficient and the other didn't, I'm going to bet on the profit motive.

This is a separate issue of cost controls from size of negotiating power.
 
Maybe. Profit incentive also motivates efficiencies that are not necessarily there for a government administered system.

If we had to bet on two scenarios which is more efficient, and one had a financial motive to be efficient and the other didn't, I'm going to bet on the profit motive.

This is a separate issue of cost controls from size of negotiating power.
What sort of "efficiencies" are encouraged by the profit motive of an insurance company?

The profit comes from the difference between collected monies and services paid for, the more they collect- and the less they pay out the more profitable they are.

Is this an efficiency that is beneficial to humans in need of medical care? Being the most efficient parasite is still being a parasite.
 
Gosh, all this Bernie talk sure is making people crabby. I have a compromise! All those who think Bernie can't win, and all those who think Bernie can win, should support Warren. That way we're completely safe from both the success and failure of Bernie! I literally see no downside to this elegant compromise!
Like Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, and Trump, she's too damn old. My wife it leaning toward Klobuchar, who of course has no chance at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom