2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[Segnosaur]

We would need to define "supplemental". If I am diagnosed with cancer, are certain drugs and procedures, no matter how effective they may be compared to others, considered "supplemental"?

There are a few ways in which private insurance/private health care might offer things that are not medically necessary but might be attractive to some people:

- Better hospital stays, perhaps with a better nurse-to-patient ratios, and/or private rooms.

- More access to cutting-edge treatments. Somewhere along the line, a decision has to be made (by both governments and insurance companies) about just what treatments are offered. This will hopefully mean sham treatments like homeopathy won't get covered, but it also means that new, valid treatments might get overlooked too. Governments are often slower to respond.

- Priority treatment for non-life threatening situations at private clinics

In most cases, things like these wouldn't be seen as medically necessary. And many/most people probably wouldn't see the need to buy private insurance to provide this type of advanced care, if the public system fulfilled the basic needs, but some people like having choice. (Even if you think that choice is foolish). The failure of BernieCare is that it doesn't recognize that 'patients' are not some monolithic group of people with the same personal priorities.

 

[Bob001]

Robert Reich contends that Sanders is the candidate most likely to resonate with many voters:

Like much of the party establishment, he is viewing American politics through outmoded lenses of left versus right, with Sanders (I-Vt.) on the far left and President Trump on the far right. So-called moderates such as former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg supposedly occupy the political center, appealing to a broader swath of the electorate.

This may have been the correct frame for politics decades ago, when America still had a growing middle class, but it’s obsolete today. As wealth and power have moved to the top and the middle class has shrunk, more Americans feel politically disempowered and economically insecure. Today's main divide isn’t left versus right. It’s establishment versus anti-establishment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ocrats-bernie-sanders-might-be-safest-choice/

 

[Belz...]

Robert Reich contends that Sanders is the candidate most likely to resonate with many voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ocrats-bernie-sanders-might-be-safest-choice/

Is that Robert Reich the Third?

 

[Stacyhs]

Just saw Warren on Colbert and I was very impressed. She's really smart.

She is. I was impressed by her when I saw her on The Daily Show when Jon Stewart was still the host. I prefer her over Sanders whom I am not impressed by at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He already has the votes of centrists. It's only the support of right-wing Democrats pretending to be centrists that he doesn't have yet, and they are probably going to vote for Trump anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw something somewhere yesterday, dunno Twitter or someplace, not exactly this wording and it's a no brainer:

Bernie's been waiting for years for his wave of new voters and they still aren't here.

 

[Aridas]

I have a very simple take on much of this.

I have 2 votes. One vote in the primary. One vote in the general election. I will vote in the way I think is best in each and acknowledge that there's not much more than that that I can do directly. So I will choose not to worry about it too much beyond that.

 

[wasapi]

So far, I am most interested in Amy Klopotek, yet I have read little about her on this forum.

I understand that she doesn't have a chance, but much can change in 4 years. Anyone else planning to vote for her? Why or why not?

Thanks.

 

[Segnosaur]

Robert Reich contends that Sanders is the candidate most likely to resonate with many voters:
Like much of the party establishment, he is viewing American politics through outmoded lenses of left versus right, with Sanders (I-Vt.) on the far left and President Trump on the far right.... Today's main divide isn’t left versus right. It’s establishment versus anti-establishment.

Wait a second... Assuming that argument is true (I am not totally convinced it is, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt)...

Trump is already the anti-establishment candidate. If its really pro vs. anti-establishment, wouldn't the proper choice to be a pro-establishment candidate? Otherwise you end up with 2 anti-establishment candidates fighting for the same pool of voters.

 

[Cabbage]

Wait a second... Assuming that argument is true (I am not totally convinced it is, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt)...

Trump is already the anti-establishment candidate. If its really pro vs. anti-establishment, wouldn't the proper choice to be a pro-establishment candidate?

Wasn't that 2016?

Otherwise you end up with 2 anti-establishment candidates fighting for the same pool of voters.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's not.....if your guy gets more votes.

 

[Segnosaur]

Wait a second... Assuming that argument is true (I am not totally convinced it is, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt)...

Trump is already the anti-establishment candidate. If its really pro vs. anti-establishment, wouldn't the proper choice to be a pro-establishment candidate?

Wasn't that 2016?

Trump is still railing on about the "deep state", and doing his best to dismantle various government institutions.

He may be 'president', but I still think he counts as anti-establisment.

Otherwise you end up with 2 anti-establishment candidates fighting for the same pool of voters.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's not.....if your guy gets more votes.

Its bad if, in the process of going after those anti-establishment voters, you end up ignoring a large pool of voters who were mostly happy with the way government functioned and didn't want to see it dismantled.

 

[Matthew Best]

So far, I am most interested in Amy Klopotek, yet I have read little about her on this forum.

I understand that she doesn't have a chance, but much can change in 4 years. Anyone else planning to vote for her? Why or why not?

Thanks.

I never even heard of her, and a Google search shows up nothing.

 

[Bob001]

Wait a second... Assuming that argument is true (I am not totally convinced it is, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt)...

Trump is already the anti-establishment candidate.
....

But Trump is the establishment now. Trump has been President for more than three years, and he controlled the entire Congress for the first two. If anti-establishment voters look around and see that he hasn't brought back the factories, he hasn't re-opened the coal mines, he's screwed the farmers, he's trying to take health insurance away from millions, they might look around and say "This hasn't worked out. Let's give the old guy a chance."

And that's before people start dying of coronovirus while Trump claims it's all a liberal/media plot.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sure but I didn't want to insult you.

That’s sweet of you, Belz.

 

[Bob001]

I never even heard of her, and a Google search shows up nothing.

I think he might -- maybe -- mean Amy Klobuchar.

 

[Segnosaur]

So far, I am most interested in Amy Klopotek, yet I have read little about her on this forum.

I understand that she doesn't have a chance, but much can change in 4 years. Anyone else planning to vote for her? Why or why not?

By chance do you mean Amy Klobuchar?

I won't be voting for her, mostly because I'm not American. But, she does seem like a pretty decent politician. She's quite active in congress (helping to sponsor/pass more legislation than any other senator), and did a good job of going after Drunky McRapeface during his confirmation hearings.

The one negative about her seems to be her lack of support among minorities (which could either be due to her past career as a prosecutor, or due to her lack of name recognition).

Overall I'd say she would make a good president.

 

[Segnosaur]

But Trump is the establishment now. Trump has been President for more than three years, and he controlled the entire Congress for the first two. If anti-establishment voters look around and see that he hasn't brought back the factories, he hasn't re-opened the coal mines, he's screwed the farmers, he's trying to take health insurance away from millions, they might look around and say "This hasn't worked out. Let's give the old guy a chance."

In my opinion, even though he's been president, his followers can still claim he's an "outsider", because everything he's doing is being thwarted by the deep state. Besides, he still hasn't managed to follow through on his efforts to destroy the public service.

 

[Cabbage]

Trump is still railing on about the "deep state", and doing his best to dismantle various government institutions.

He may be 'president', but I still think he counts as anti-establisment.

....and Clinton was the establishment, and the establishment lost. That was my point. And Trump's still anti-establishment, and I still think running an establishment candidate against him is still a mistake, just like it was in 2016. Like I'm saying: We tried it then. It didn't work.

Its bad if, in the process of going after those anti-establishment voters, you end up ignoring a large pool of voters who were mostly happy with the way government functioned and didn't want to see it dismantled.

Fair enough, but I think priority number one is to win, regardless of where those winning votes come from.

 

[dudalb]

....and Clinton was the establishment, and the establishment lost. That was my point. And Trump's still anti-establishment, and I still think running an establishment candidate against him is still a mistake, just like it was in 2016. Like I'm saying: We tried it then. It didn't work.





Fair enough, but I think priority number one is to win, regardless of where those winning votes come from.

Or I could argue that people might have seen what voting for somebody just because he is anti establishment brought, and don't like it....

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump is still railing on about the "deep state", and doing his best to dismantle various government institutions.

He may be 'president', but I still think he counts as anti-establisment

.....and Clinton was the establishment, and the establishment lost.

Yes, Clinton was largely seen as "the establishment" and she lost.

But, she lost an extremely tight election (even winning the popular vote), against a candidate that had received assistance from foreign governments. Overall, I don't think that loss says as much about anti- vs. pro-establishment as it does about the success of Republican smear tactics against her.

Its bad if, in the process of going after those anti-establishment voters, you end up ignoring a large pool of voters who were mostly happy with the way government functioned and didn't want to see it dismantled.

Fair enough, but I think priority number one is to win, regardless of where those winning votes come from.

Do you really think there are so many anti-establishment candidates out there that going after some of that vote would make up for ignoring pro-establishment people?

Remember, Clinton didn't become president in 2016, but then neither did Sanders. He couldn't even convince the majority of Democrats that his anti-establishment was the way to go.