2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[NobodyHere]

Speaking of Amazon:

Jeff Bezos unveils ambitious set of Amazon projects to take on climate change - CNET

Climate change is solved!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But Obamacare with a "Medicare for all who want it" type plan would be even more popular than it is now, which it is pretty popular, btw. Just because politicians blasts it, doesn't make it unpopular. There should have been a public option from the beginning, and Medicare expansion should have been mandatory. Obama did give on things that he shouldn't have.

I think you forgot what was going on during that time. Obama didn't simply 'give up', Joe Manchin and other conservative Dem Senators told Obama they would not vote for a public option. And mandatory Medicaid expansion WAS a part of the original ACA. The Supreme Court struck it down.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Right, at least on the left because Dems can't handle incremental progress. Obamacare got close to a public option, and now that idea is very popular. Incremental progress. A public option will make single-payer more likely, it isn't an either or.

The ACA is being ripped apart right now by the Trump Administration bit by bit. People like some of the parts of the ACA, but are more than fine with having parts that make it work ripped out (such as the individual mandate). Which makes it easier for someone to come around, say it isn't working, and try to dismantle it. So why not go big? If the other party is going to try to dismantle it by any means they can, just adding small aspects to it like the public option won't stick or be viability.

Hell, look at the ACA's legislative history, even with 60 Democratic Senators. Any Medicare for All will be compromised to Medicare for All Who Want It. If you start with Medicare for All Who Want It, it'll end up as something much less.

So why not propose something that excites the base, like universal healthcare that takes power out of the hands of insurance companies? Let's get turnout and excitement up rather than try to appeal to those who won't go as far as needs to be done anyways (see: public option for the ACA).

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Speaking of Amazon:

Jeff Bezos unveils ambitious set of Amazon projects to take on climate change - CNET

Climate change is solved!

Incremental steps are better than denial and doing nothing.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Incremental steps are better than denial and doing nothing.

My previous response aside, I have more faith in Bezos getting something accomplished than any politician.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think you forgot what was going on during that time. Obama didn't simply 'give up', Joe Manchin and other conservative Dem Senators told Obama they would not vote for a public option. And mandatory Medicaid expansion WAS a part of the original ACA. The Supreme Court struck it down.



The ACA is being ripped apart right now by the Trump Administration bit by bit. People like some of the parts of the ACA, but are more than fine with having parts that make it work ripped out (such as the individual mandate). Which makes it easier for someone to come around, say it isn't working, and try to dismantle it. So why not go big? If the other party is going to try to dismantle it by any means they can, just adding small aspects to it like the public option won't stick or be viability.

Hell, look at the ACA's legislative history, even with 60 Democratic Senators. Any Medicare for All will be compromised to Medicare for All Who Want It. If you start with Medicare for All Who Want It, it'll end up as something much less.

So why not propose something that excites the base, like universal healthcare that takes power out of the hands of insurance companies? Let's get turnout and excitement up rather than try to appeal to those who won't go as far as needs to be done anyways (see: public option for the ACA).

Anything can be torn apart by another administration. Republicans are yet again running on gutting Social Security. We'll never get to a point when the GOP isn't the party of, "I got mine, fuck you."

The reason not to go all-in on single-payer is that it isn't popular. Even among Dems it generally polls under 70%, and independents generally are well under 50%. It won't pass and it will be an anchor around the neck of a general election candidate. I think single-payer is where we need to end up, but right now the country doesn't see it that way.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...People like some of the parts of the ACA, but are more than fine with having parts that make it work ripped out (such as the individual mandate). ..

JPhiilips response is right on, but this statement that you made shows why not to go for Medicare-For-All. People are for it UNTIL you say it is mandatory. Even you admit that is the part people didn't like in the ACA. Run on the more popular program that will hopefully move over time to single payer.

[GrantDawg]

All that being said, it is really beginning to look like the campaign is going toward a Medicare-for-all candidate. Elizabeth Warren has opened up a lead over Biden in Iowa. She is only up by 2 points as a first choice, but her lead on the first or second choice question is staggering. Sanders is fading fast, and it already looking like a two person race. I can tell you by the anecdotal daughter report (my daughter is 23. She gave me the heads up four years ago that Sanders was surging among her age group four years ago) that all the Sanders supporters her age she knows have seemingly switch that excitement to Warren this time.

The one to watch might still be Pete. He seems to still have the possible room to grow. Meanwhile, Harris has basically moved to Iowa and hasn't moved the needle at all. Booker is making noise that he may be out by the end of the month.
It looks like to me, Biden's largest strength left is his support among African-Americans, which is not going to help him in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he takes defeats in those two states, he is most likely going to lose that support. AA, among almost all Dem groups, lists elect-ability as the top issue of concern. If he opens with two losses, expect a mass exodus as his best argument is destroyed. Can Warren make inroads into the AA demo?

[ISiddiqui]

It also looks like the latest New Hampshire polls are looking good for Warren:

Warren surges ahead of Biden in New Hampshire poll - POLITICO

A Monmouth University poll conducted in New Hampshire and released Tuesday gives Warren a 2-point lead over Biden, 27 percent to 25 percent, well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Sanders, who trounced Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in 2016 with 61 percent of the vote, is a distant third, at just 12 percent. He’s followed closely by Pete Buttigieg with 10 percent. Kamala Harris of California is fifth, with only 3 percent.

I think even if Biden finishes 2nd in Iowa/NH, African-Americans will stick with him in SC.

Also latest Morning Consult shows Warren to be the highest 2nd choice among Biden supporters for the first time ever (it's been Sanders since Biden has declared).

[GrantDawg]

As Warren does surge, the pot-shots come: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall...nominated.html
This doesn't surprise me. She does not endear herself to Wall Street. There is probably some real fear from some of the big players there of the reforms she is threatening. How bad does this hurt her?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

As Warren does surge, the pot-shots come: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall...nominated.html
This doesn't surprise me. She does not endear herself to Wall Street. There is probably some real fear from some of the big players there of the reforms she is threatening. How bad does this hurt her?

I think she's taking the right strategy, in aggressively positioning herself against Wall Street and being VERY public about it. She was never going to get that Wall Street money so she might as well put them on blast whenever possible and paint that money as dirty.

[cuervo72]

You would think that having Wall Street against you would be a plus for any populist types.

[ISiddiqui]

Hurt her? People on Twitter were half joking wondering if she needs to declare these as campaign contributions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

And I get that, from her base. But there are many moderates, independents, and cross over Republicans she is going to need to actually win. Many of them are going to be concerned about warnings from Wall Street. If that concern turns into an elect-ability issue...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And I get that, from her base. But there are many moderates, independents, and cross over Republicans she is going to need to actually win. Many of them are going to be concerned about warnings from Wall Street. If that concern turns into an elect-ability issue...

Many people still blame wall street for the great recession and rightfully so. Warren just needs to remind people of that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Many people still blame wall street for the great recession and rightfully so. Warren just needs to remind people of that.

Many people have their whole retirement invested in wall street. I think they will remember that as well.

[JPhillips]

If you raise our taxes we'll destroy the country, doesn't exactly not prove her point that Wall Street has too much power.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you raise our taxes we'll destroy the country, doesn't exactly not prove her point that Wall Street has too much power.

It doesn't. I believe she probably has the best take and exactly what we need in dealing with wall street. Not going to make a difference if she doesn't get elected, though. There is reason this kind of article is coming out now, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Biden wasn't behind it. In my opinion, the affects of this is it doesn't really hurt much in the primaries. What about the general, though? We have people on this message board say they are more concerned about their 401k than anything else. People seem to be fine with the idea of sacrifice for the greater good as long as it is other peoples sacrifice. If wall street promises gloom and doom, how much does that hurt her?

[ISiddiqui]

This is fantastic! ( A mix of this thread on the soccer thread )

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2019...ical-breakdown


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[stevew]

Bernie has to be out now?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by stevew

Bernie has to be out now?

You would think?

For context:

Bernie Sanders undergoes surgery for artery blockage, cancels events until further notice

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You would think?

For context:

Bernie Sanders undergoes surgery for artery blockage, cancels events until further notice

I don't know. We'll see. I think it does kill his already slimming chance of winning. He should drop and maybe endorse, but I don't see him endorsing anyone till the end.

[PilotMan]

Best thing he can do is roll it up and call it. He ain't winning after this.

[GrantDawg]

Biden said today that he "didn't know" if he would vote to remove Trump if he were in the Senate right now. That made me immediately give to the Warren campaign. He needs to lose if he really is that spineless.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

The November debate stage has added Booker and Steyer. Which causes me to ask, who is voting for Steyer? Why is he a thing?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The November debate stage has added Booker and Steyer. Which causes me to ask, who is voting for Steyer? Why is he a thing?

I don't know either. I have no idea what his signature issues are other than self funding rather soft-hitting ads against Trump.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't know either. I have no idea what his signature issues are other than self funding rather soft-hitting ads against Trump.

He's come out for a really stupid national referendum plan.

[JPhillips]

dola

Things look really bleak for Sanders at this point. Where does he pick up a win before Super Tuesday if he loses NH to Warren?

[ISiddiqui]

Nevada probably

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nevada probably

That's his best chance, yes, but Warren has an insane ground game here. It's going to be close IMO. I haven't seen any Biden presence anywhere.

[NobodyHere]

Who decided that 12 candidates on a stage was a good idea?

[NobodyHere]

This seems to be the Senator Warren vs the World show so far.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This seems to be the Senator Warren vs the World show so far.

She was definitely the central target. I thought she handled herself well, considering. The announcement of the Squad endorsing Bernie Sanders after the debate is probably the story. Bernie is still plugging along after the heart-attack and is not going to go away.

[ISiddiqui]

Sanders did very well in the debate as well. Actually looked better and healthier than the previous debate (perhaps due to the rest after his heart attack).

Harris, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg tried to go aggressive, but it never really seemed to go anywhere or do anything for them - especially Harris's strange pushing to get Warren to agree to ban Trump on Twitter. Really, that's the big issue you are going to go bat for, Kamala?

Oh, and it was my wife's first debate. She really like Harris among all the candidates - so what do I know?

[spleen1015]

Is Sanders still a serious candidate after the heart attack?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Is Sanders still a serious candidate after the heart attack?

As serious as a heart attack.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Is Sanders still a serious candidate after the heart attack?

Yes. He's a bit like Trump in that he has a better floor than just about anyone else, with the same questions as to ceiling (FWIW, he's my 2nd option after Warren)

[QuikSand]

So, a thought on E Warren and her health care plan. I find it fascinating.

Basically, here are the underlying mechanics behind what she wants to do. Let's take a middle class person Nancy with a legit job from a large employer Comcast- earning $60,000 with health insurance benefits subsidized to the tune of, say, $10,000. (We'll ignore other benefits since they aren't changing) That is more or less the "working family" band that most pols want to appeal to, to some degree, especially Dems.

Under the basis M4A framework, we'd wipe out the concept of employer-funded health insurance. Everyone is on Medicare. Maybe some people would retain the ability to buy above-and-beyond stuff, but that's not this family (and that's a separate, also interesting, policy debate, too).

So - Comcast today basically decides that this employee position is being compensated $70,000 for the work - some salary, some benefits. Once the USA were to shift to M4A, that employee no longer needs an employer heath care subsidy - she's covered by Medicare. In theory, that "frees up" $10K that that Comcast could, conceivably, just shift to that employee's salary - the employer is still whole, and the employee now, on paper, comes out better.

However, the federal government had to pay for this plan. So, we raise tax rates. Income tax is the easiest to picture, so we'll say that the scheme to pay for the M4A plan (costly) would require her effective tax rate to go up, from 20% to 27%. That's a proxy number, for illustration, but probably isn't terribly off the mark. She's likely only paying income tax today on, say, $30K in income... so that means she will pay an additional $4800 in federal income tax. (The math: 20% on $30K for $6K taxes... then 27% on $40K for $10.8K in taxes) For now, let's say that's her full tax effect, to keep this simple.

Assuming this comes together like described above... Nancy goes from $54K after-tax income to $59.2K after-tax income. Assuming her health care is a wash, this means she comes out well ahead as a result of this change.

So... when Warren talks about "costs will go down" she is clearly avoiding getting into the details of this three-part notion. She has decided to avoid saying "her taxes will go up." But they will. However, if it plays out like above, she will be WAY better off, financially... more salary in pocket.

Now... the big wrinkle here is that in the example above, I am assuming that Comcast simply takes every penny of the savings they get on no longer providing a health benefit, and converts it to new salary. There's your weak link. People still have a taste in their mouth about what happened to the fat Trump tax cuts on corporations - they didn't go out and pay employees more, some of them did a showboating bonus check, but most of the money went to executives and shareholders, naturally. In general, we shouldn't expect that employers would just "do the right thing" here - markets are full of imperfections, there's no reason to think employees would be so strong and savvy to understand and fully exploit every penny of this sudden employment market imbalance.

And there's the rub. If E Warren were to walk through this logic step by step, she would say that taxes go up for sure, and that your salary would go up even more, we hope. And there you go, it's a talking point against her and the plan. Bernie Sanders, who's for basically the same plan, has already decided it's wiser to just go there and say it. Warren is being cagey.

The thing is, Warren had to make a calculation here - which is better, to look like a middle-class-tax-hiker like Bernie, or to look evasive? She chose the latter, but couldn't have possibly imagined how much Democratic oxygen would be spent, in every debate stage and in seemingly every forum, on this exact issue. Fellow Dems are assailing her, and that is (IMO) deeply piercing one of her strongest assets as a candidate. If she, because of this mostly, looks like she's being sneaky... it will set a bit more kindling under the inevitable fire about her whole Native American heritage issue (you know in a general election we would hear that a ton) and the campaign to discredit her as a phony/liar/opportunist would be strong, well-funded, and effective with the stripe of voters the Dems need (again, IMO) to win back purplish states.

So, as the Dems (the centrists, especially) clearly now set their sights on E Warren as the front-runner to attack, they are creating wonderful B-roll footage for a Summer-of-20 campaign ad that could easily be her effective undoing. That's kind of built in to the way party-first, then general-last elections work... but this particular element is fascinating to watch unravel in slow motion. It's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts... Mayor Pete sees his only avenue for a longshot move is to bring down someone ahead of him, but when that (likely) fails and he's (probably) out on the campaign trail working for the nominee, he's going to run into all the arguments he helped fashion and perfect.


I am simultaneously in awe of how good the Warren campaign has been, and how it has appropriately paid off with her rise to frontrunner status... and at the same time tortured by how weak I think she could prove to be in a general election. I think she would likely make a good President, would have good judgment on most matters affecting the country, and I'm comforted that most of her ideas that are too ambitious for my tastes would likely be bogged down by the DC mire... but my real fear is her capacity as a nominee.

[JediKooter]

I fully expect to pay more in taxes for M4A, however, since I won't be paying for typically pretty crappy and expensive employer provided health insurance, I should, theoretically, have a bigger pay check each pay day.

Truth be told though, I'm on my wife's insurance and we would literally save less than $50 dollars month if it's no longer taken out of her check. So we actually may end up paying more if M4A becomes a reality. However, I'm totally fine with that as long as it means everyone (regardless of their status) gets competent and quality health care that's not dictated by profit.

The beauty though in having a M4A system is, that employees will no longer be chained to a job that they don't like because they don't want to lose their health insurance.

Regardless of who wins (I'm going out on a limb that it will be a democrat), if the democrats don't also own the senate and house, no M4A policy will pass in my opinion.

[JPhillips]

I don't understand why so many Dems insist on running on ideas that are unpopular. Polling on M4A is terrible, but public option polling is pretty good. Take the incremental change and make the GOP position the negative one.

[Kodos]

Yep. I'm pretty liberal, but I'd rather see them try to build on the base of Obamacare and maybe try M4A down the road.

I pay $0 for healthcare, so I'd likely end up losing money if we went with Warren's plan. Which would be fine if they could get it through Congress, but that seems pretty impossible right now.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Truth be told though, I'm on my wife's insurance and we would literally save less than $50 dollars month if it's no longer taken out of her check. So we actually may end up paying more if M4A becomes a reality. However, I'm totally fine with that as long as it means everyone (regardless of their status) gets competent and quality health care that's not dictated by profit.

But here you are missing the most important money in the equation. It's not what you'd save in co-pays and your share of the plan costs... for most people the far bigger amount is what the employer currently pays on your behalf, that they wouldn't have to any longer. If some or most or all of that ends up in your pocket and keeps your "compensation costs" the same, that means you have more cash - to pay your tax hike and then some.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But here you are missing the most important money in the equation. It's not what you'd save in co-pays and your share of the plan costs... for most people the far bigger amount is what the employer currently pays on your behalf, that they wouldn't have to any longer. If some or most or all of that ends up in your pocket and keeps your "compensation costs" the same, that means you have more cash - to pay your tax hike and then some.

I definitely see what you're saying and that would be great if it happens, I just highly highly doubt that employers would pass that money on to their employees. We saw what they did with the trump tax gift to the rich, they just pocketed the money, bought back stock & pretty much Scrooge McDucked their workers. I would love to be wrong in my assumption, but, historically, companies have rarely done what benefits the employee unless forced to by the government (i.e. various labor laws).

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But here you are missing the most important money in the equation. It's not what you'd save in co-pays and your share of the plan costs... for most people the far bigger amount is what the employer currently pays on your behalf, that they wouldn't have to any longer. If some or most or all of that ends up in your pocket and keeps your "compensation costs" the same, that means you have more cash - to pay your tax hike and then some.

Doesn't the net drop the overall amount though? I would be taxed so heavily on the extra income coming to me that I would never get the 'value' of the benefit that is the employer paid portion of my health insurance, that I get from it now.

[QuikSand]

How would the money settle out? It's hard to put aside the "frustrated would-be economics teacher" in me, completely.

Let's look at Nancy who makes $60K plus $10 in health insurance now. Her employer pegs her value at $70K, and pays it across two forms.

Another way to look at the current situation is Nancy is paying for her own employer health insurance subsidy in the form of a lower salary.

So, we change the laws. Now employers no longer need to provide that benefit. All compensation is just salary now.

Let's say that this market functions at least semi-normally, at least over time. If Nancy is worth $70K to her employer... if today's employer decides to be rotten and tell her "tough luck, the salary is still $60K, no health insurance needed anymore, tough luck" then surely somebody out there should be willing to pay her $65K, right? Or $68K? The the extend markets work properly, this should resolve itself, more or less. If she's worth $70K, she'll get it somewhere.

Naive to think employers would do this out of charity. No, they'd do it because that's what markets do. If they don't bump up salaries, they'll be stuck with shit employees.


The effect on costs in total would be a function of whether health care purchased through taxes is cheaper or more expensive than that purchased through private insurance and the rest of stuff we do now. But the effect on workers, especially those on the lower end of a progressively-built tax system (especially whatever add-on we might adopt to pay for a M4A plan) would pretty much have to be a net positive.

[ISiddiqui]

Do most folks here have their employer pay all of their premiums? Because my wife and I are government employees and pay roughly $300 a month out of our paycheck for premiums. So, if we have no copays or deductable payments (unlikely) that's a good $3600 saved before anything done with paychecks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do most folks here have their employer pay all of their premiums? Because my wife and I are government employees and pay roughly $300 a month out of our paycheck for premiums. So, if we have no copays or deductable payments (unlikely) that's a good $3600 saved before anything done with paychecks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not here. 75%. Forget how much I pay per month out of paycheck for premium, but I'd stand to get more money back myself.

[Warhammer]

I negotiated with my company to pay my entire family's premium.

[thesloppy]

I pay ~$150 for premiums, and put $225 into my FSA every month for my lonesome. Even though I agree with the observation above that most employers aren't going to put the funds from their share of the deleted premiums into their employees hands, I think most people would still see significant savings simply not paying their share of those premiums either ($4500 per year in my case).

I also think people that think a public option can/will compete with a private option are dreaming and/or not paying attention. As long as you give providers the option not to comply with the government oversight & price controls why in the hell would they choose to? Any other private option will make the public option useless, by design.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do most folks here have their employer pay all of their premiums? Because my wife and I are government employees and pay roughly $300 a month out of our paycheck for premiums. So, if we have no copays or deductable payments (unlikely) that's a good $3600 saved before anything done with paychecks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think my wife pays about $38 a month for the both of us for her being a state of California employee. So cheap that when she told me, I didn't believe her. Even the co-pays are ridiculously cheaper and the care provided is better than the way more expensive insurance that I had through my company at the time.

[ISiddiqui]

Damn, California's got better benefits than the Federal Government (not that our benefits are as amazing as people like to think they are).