2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Brainster]

I don't think that is, generally, what people are saying with that phrase. I think in general it means "let's not unilaterally disarm ourselves and allow the Republicans to set the framing on these policy issues".

If you look back through the thread you will find numerous complaints about the debate moderators using Republican talking points. As Joe pointed out, some people seem to think that the Democrats are perfect in every way. Given that they disagree among themselves it is obvious that somebody must be wrong.

I remember one of the first debates somebody asked Bernie about the socialism label he applied to himself. Quite a few of the posters in this very thread griped about it. But the notion that Bernie should go untested on that socialism question until he's up against Trump seems idiotic. And indeed, Bernie was prepared for the question and basically did the old JFK thing--point out a bunch of fairly non-controversial viewpoints that socialists have and close with "If that's a socialist, then I'm proud to be a socialist," (although of course JFK was talking about being a liberal).

And I don't mind admitting it, it was a very good answer, the kind of mind that set my mind a bit at ease. Not that I would support a socialist, but at least he was prepared for what to me was an exceedingly obvious question.

I remember back in 1980 I was a big-time liberal, and I was completely behind the idea that we had to jettison Carter and run Ted Kennedy instead. And then Roger Mudd did an interview with Kennedy, where he pressed him on details of Chappaquiddick, and Ted basically melted down on camera, stammering and sweating and before it was over, he was never going to be president.

I changed my mind before the interview was over. If Ted hadn't figured out a plausible lie that covered all the facts in 10+ years, he was an idiot. And Roger Mudd became something a personal hero of mine (even though Carter went on to lose), because he exposed a weakness in Kennedy that the GOP would have easily exploited.

That's sort of the whole point of primary season--to put the candidates under a lot of stress, to see who has what it takes. The idea that they should all be coddled is, in my mind, a recipe for disaster.

 

[kellyb]

As Joe pointed out, some people seem to think that the Democrats are perfect in every way.

I'm not seeing that at all.

 

[varwoche]

@Aridas A brief perusal hither and yon suggests I'm way out of date on the state of play for the senate. New and improved v0.2:

1. Blue wave, Dems win POTUS and Senate: 25%
2. Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
3. Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%

Based on these rough guesstimates: .8%

Despite that I'm pulling the numbers out of, er, the air, this is the sequence of dependent events that indisputably must occur. Slim odds.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you look back through the thread you will find numerous complaints about the debate moderators using Republican talking points. As Joe pointed out, some people seem to think that the Democrats are perfect in every way. Given that they disagree among themselves it is obvious that somebody must be wrong.

I remember one of the first debates somebody asked Bernie about the socialism label he applied to himself. Quite a few of the posters in this very thread griped about it. But the notion that Bernie should go untested on that socialism question until he's up against Trump seems idiotic. And indeed, Bernie was prepared for the question and basically did the old JFK thing--point out a bunch of fairly non-controversial viewpoints that socialists have and close with "If that's a socialist, then I'm proud to be a socialist," (although of course JFK was talking about being a liberal).

And I don't mind admitting it, it was a very good answer, the kind of mind that set my mind a bit at ease. Not that I would support a socialist, but at least he was prepared for what to me was an exceedingly obvious question.

I remember back in 1980 I was a big-time liberal, and I was completely behind the idea that we had to jettison Carter and run Ted Kennedy instead. And then Roger Mudd did an interview with Kennedy, where he pressed him on details of Chappaquiddick, and Ted basically melted down on camera, stammering and sweating and before it was over, he was never going to be president.

I changed my mind before the interview was over. If Ted hadn't figured out a plausible lie that covered all the facts in 10+ years, he was an idiot. And Roger Mudd became something a personal hero of mine (even though Carter went on to lose), because he exposed a weakness in Kennedy that the GOP would have easily exploited.

That's sort of the whole point of primary season--to put the candidates under a lot of stress, to see who has what it takes. The idea that they should all be coddled is, in my mind, a recipe for disaster.

OMG, all Democrats are not on the same page. What a tragedy.

 

[Delvo]

@Aridas A brief perusal hither and yon suggests I'm way out of date on the state of play for the senate. New and improved v0.2:

1. Blue wave, Dems win POTUS and Senate: 25%
2. Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
3. Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%

Based on these rough guesstimates: .8%

Despite that I'm pulling the numbers out of, er, the air, this is the sequence of dependent events that indisputably must occur. Slim odds.

That was only the shortest & quickest route that involves even waiting for the 2020 elections. If the shortest & quickest route doesn't work, you try another one later. (And item 3 isn't even necessary in the shortest & quickest route.)

 

[Delvo]

I don't think that is, generally, what people are saying with that phrase. I think in general it means "let's not unilaterally disarm ourselves and allow the Republicans to set the framing on these policy issues".

As the latest person to say such a thing, and the one to whom JoeMorgue was responding, I really wasn't going for any particular big picture like that. I was simply describing what he had said. He said something that sounded exactly like Republican propaganda, and I said so.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove personalisation

 

[kellyb]

@Aridas A brief perusal hither and yon suggests I'm way out of date on the state of play for the senate. New and improved v0.2:

1. Blue wave, Dems win POTUS and Senate: 25%
2. Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
3. Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%

Based on these rough guesstimates: .8%

Despite that I'm pulling the numbers out of, er, the air, this is the sequence of dependent events that indisputably must occur. Slim odds.

Couldn't reconciliation be used instead of getting rid of the filibuster?

Also, getting conservadems to vote for it is a completely different scenario of probability under a hypothetical POTUS Warren vs hypothetical POTUS Sanders.
I'd say Warren would probably have a closer to 40% chance of getting some version of a M4A bill through, whereas for Sanders it would be closer to 2%.

It's still a longshot, either way.

 

[Venom]

I think it's interesting that Biden and Sanders share second choice votes. Warren as a second choice for Biden supporters is still there, but overtaken recently by Sanders.

It's perhaps not so much Sanders and Warren splitting the progressive vote, but Biden and Sanders splitting the old white man vote.

 

[Brainster]

I'm not seeing that at all.

It's the underlying assumption when people start griping about debate moderators supposedly using Republican talking points. If somebody asks Joe Biden a question about his son's business interests, that's a RTP. If somebody asks Joe a question about his attitude towards busing in the 1970s, that is apparently okay.

 

[kellyb]

It's the underlying assumption when people start griping about debate moderators supposedly using Republican talking points. If somebody asks Joe Biden a question about his son's business interests, that's a RTP. If somebody asks Joe a question about his attitude towards busing in the 1970s, that is apparently okay.

No, they're talking about stuff like this being republican framing and talking points:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20748...ions-republican-talking-points-bernie-sanders

“You support Medicare-for-all, which would eventually take private health insurance away from more than 150 million Americans in exchange for government-sponsored health care for everyone,” Tapper said. “Congressman [John] Delaney just referred to it as bad policy, and previously he’s called the idea political suicide that will just get President Trump reelected. What do you say to Congressman Delaney?”

A short time later, Tapper asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren if she’s “with Bernie on Medicare-for-all,” even though the middle class would pay more in taxes. Warren responded not by discussing the policy in terms of taxes (a frame the GOP has frequently deployed), but by talking about the total cost American families pay now for their health coverage, through both taxes and the cost of health insurance. Sanders was even more direct — he accused Tapper of invoking a “Republican talking point.”

 

[Aridas]

No, they're talking about stuff like this being republican framing and talking points:

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/30/20748...ions-republican-talking-points-bernie-sanders

Minor poke - "even though the middle class would pay more in taxes." would be the Republican framing/talking point there, not what you highlighted. Warren making the point that total costs would go down is both Democratic framing and a far more accurately representative slice of the truth.

 

[kellyb]

Minor poke - "even though the middle class would pay more in taxes." would be the Republican framing/talking point there, not what you highlighted. Warren making the point that total costs would go down is both Democratic framing and a far more accurately representative slice of the truth.

Thanks, fixed.

 

[Belz...]

Beto is now officially delusionally insane:

Beto O'Rourke says he expects Americans to surrender their guns

Is Beto an enemy plant sent to derail Democratic campaigns?

 

[Belz...]

Ugh, thanks for reminding me of why I hate Bill Mahar. I get what point he's (and I guess JoeMorue and others that have agreed with him) trying to make, but that's ultimately nothing more than leaning hard into gross respectability politics by using conservative talking points to throw progressives under the bus and silence discussion about progressive talking points.

The point is that crazy talk hurts Democtatic chances. How is that throwing progressives under the bus?

That Bill Maher video I tried to just allude to (and completely failed to stop the discussion from becoming about) had one fact that I wish every person currently running for President had carved into their forehead backwards so they had to read it every time they look in the mirror; that only 46% of Democrats identify as liberal.

I'm not sure of how that concept gets across the Democrat's Twitterverse and rabid fanbase.

Let's just say that the internet doesn't necessarily give us a very reliable picture of meatspace.

You don't have any opportunity to get what you want if you don't win.

I think that's the best summary of the entirety of Joe's posting history.

 

[Belz...]

Like...gun control?

Not all gun control measures are equal, as I'm sure you realise.

the Maher-Morgue analysis

Wow, that makes it sound so respectable and scientific! I'm definitely using this.

"If we apply Maher-Morgue Analytics to this, we see that the curve is normalised to the 3rd power of X, which allows us to resolve the mass of the Zeta-Plus super-particle."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove personalisation

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to personalisation

 

[BobTheCoward]

Minor poke - "even though the middle class would pay more in taxes." would be the Republican framing/talking point there, not what you highlighted. Warren making the point that total costs would go down is both Democratic framing and a far more accurately representative slice of the truth.

Part of the argument for single payer is people are not currently getting care. The more Warren argues how bad the current situation is, the less credible her claim that it will cost less. Savings will be eaten at by increased utilization.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Part of the argument for single payer is people are not currently getting care. The more Warren argues how bad the current situation is, the less credible her claim that it will cost less. Savings will be eaten at by increased utilization.

You're forgetting that in medical care prevention and earlier treatment head off more expensive charges down the road. If everyone saw a doctor regularly for checkups then things like cancer, diabetes, and obesity would be reduced before they became more serious and more expensive to treat.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You're forgetting that in medical care prevention and earlier treatment head off more expensive charges down the road. If everyone saw a doctor regularly for checkups then things like cancer, diabetes, and obesity would be reduced before they became more serious and more expensive to treat.

I did not forget that.the lack of care argument democrats make include people are not receiving either the preventive or the high cost component. That is additional utilization from them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I did not forget that.the lack of care argument democrats make include people are not receiving either the preventive or the high cost component. That is additional utilization from them.

Additional utilization that reduces overall costs. I work with exactly this data all day. Preventative care for many is cheaper than last-minute care for some. Any ACO will tell you that. That's why they provide so many free services just to get people tested and treated early. They're even paying for NP home visits now for health maintenance to head off future ED visits when a crisis occurs. House calls, like oldtimey doctors. The data don't lie, and universal preventive care makes both medical AND financial sense.