2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Radii]

Thanks for the link, Arles, I set it aside to read a bit later.

Catching up on the rest of the conversation, we are now somehow arguing about the upper middle class entirely.

People are leaving PPO/HMO for HSA "high deductible" coverage in droves right now.

People who can afford either a PPO or an HDHP/HSA plan and who are the least impacted by anything we're talking about here maybe leaving PPO's for High Deductible plans in droves. Someone who has been a teacher for 10 years and is now finally making $45,000 is probably not doing that.

The median individual annual income in the US is $33,517. Many of these are married and the median household income is higher near $70,000. But that means that half of the households in the country are under that and now we're talking about larger families.

So 50% of the employed adults in the US make less than $33,500 a year. Those people are not setting aside $1500 spare income into an HSA and paying out of pocket for their first $1500 in medical costs before they can even get that benefit. I have no idea how easily a family of 4 making $50,000 or even $60,000 has the disposable income needed for this, especially given that a family deductible is more likely to be double-triple the individual one.

More middle class and upper middle class people moving to HSA's will raise the costs of PPO plans, as the risk is spread amongst fewer and fewer people.

In 2017, 27.4 million Americans still did not have healthcare coverage. This is the crux of the healthcare problem and HSA's will never help them, and in fact will hurt them as it makes the entry into any sort of HMO plan more expensive as less people use them.

That lower income group that will never be able to afford an HSA dis-proportionally impacts minorities. The bottom 20% of earners in the nation contains far fewer white families than average, and far, far more hispanic/latino and black families than their average representation.


The status quo is full of policies that hurt minorities, and further expand the unfathomable wage gap in this nation.


Like some others who have straight up said "the trump tax plan helped me so i'm good" - you don't need help. You are incredibly lucky to be in a position where you will be fine no matter what happens. Obviously you're free to vote in your own interests and to rally support for policies that help you. But once you're over $75,000 in income or so, virtually every policy that helps you hurts is going to hurt tens of millions of individuals below you, disproportionally black and hispanic indviduals.


I was going to respond to some other stuff but this is long enough

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by panerd

Always nice to see you too. They are social media (and often mainstream media) manufactured "controversies" that embolden people like my parents that even though they don't like Trump (as I said in my original post... not sure my mom doesn't actually like him) the alternative are just hypocrites.

The Ross flag is a stupid "controversy" though. Nike consulted with one of their spokespeople, who didn't think it was a great idea, and they pulled the plug. And THEN it was an issue. For people like your parents. How many of those complaining about this were in the market for Betsy Ross Nikes, exactly? Or had any merchandise at all with the Betsy Ross flag on it? The only reason it's a "controversy" is because they chose to bitch about it.

I'm starting to think some white people just don't like the fact that a black man's opinion may hold more sway than theirs.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's a factor - more people mean more sick people and more diverse set of serious illnesses.

Shouldn't it also mean more health care professionals, more facilities, greater production capabilities/cheaper cost per production, more research, etc? Is economy of scale not a thing?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's a factor - more people mean more sick people and more diverse set of serious illnesses. We also have one of the worst lifestyles when it comes to health. So more people living a worse lifestyle = higher cost. We also foot the bill for a big chunk of research and innovation. Finally, we have a higher expectation of service than most Canadian and European counterparts. We wait maybe 2-3 weeks for most surgeries - those waits in Canada or the UK are closer to 12 weeks and 20 weeks in places like Norway and Finland.

You're arguing that we consume more healthcare, but that doesn't explain why individual procedures cost so much more than in other developed countries. Why does an MRI cost so much more? Why does a dose of insulin cost so much more?

From CNBC:

Experts have previously suggested high utilization rates could explain high spending in the U.S. But looking at hospital discharge rates for various procedures, such as knee and hip replacements and different types of heart surgeries, the researchers found that use of care services in the U.S. is not so different compared to other countries.

In fact, compared to the average of all the nations, Americans appear to go to the doctor less often and spend fewer days in the hospital after being admitted.

and

The real difference between the American health care system and systems abroad is pricing.

Specialists, nurses and primary care doctors all earn significantly more in the U.S. compared to other countries. General physicians in America made an average of $218,173 in 2016, the report notes, which was double the average of generalists in the other countries, where pay ranged from $86,607 in Sweden to $154,126 in Germany.

Administrative costs, meanwhile, accounted for 8 percent of total national health expenditures in the U.S. For the other countries, they ranged from 1 percent to 3 percent. Health care professionals in America also reported a higher level of “administrative burden.” A survey showed that a significant portion of doctors call the time they lose to issues surrounding insurance claims and reporting clinical data a major problem.

As for the drug market, the U.S. spent $1,443 per capita on pharmaceuticals. The average pharmaceutical spending of all 11 countries came to $749 per capita. Switzerland followed closest behind the U.S. at $939

[Arles]

So, part of the answer to our high health care costs are nurses and doctors need big pay cuts? I just don’t understand how a single payer system cuts costs enough to justify the bigger expense? Here are some of the reasons for our high heath care costs:
1. High Salaries for nurses and doctors.
2. Expectation of quick surgeries/low wait times.
3. We want the ability to pick our doctors and specialists.
4. We have a very large number of people to cover.
5. We have an unhealthy lifestyle with fast food and little exercise.
6. The US foots the bill for much of the drug R&D costs.

I don’t see a single payer system addressing any of these reasons.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, part of the answer to our high health care costs are nurses and doctors need big pay cuts? I just don’t understand how a single payer system cuts costs enough to justify the bigger expense? Here are some of the reasons for our high heath care costs:
1. High Salaries for nurses and doctors.
2. Expectation of quick surgeries/low wait times.
3. We want the ability to pick our doctors and specialists.
4. We have a very large number of people to cover.
5. We have an unhealthy lifestyle with fast food and little exercise.
6. The US foots the bill for much of the drug R&D costs.

I don’t see a single payer system addressing any of these reasons.

I don't think nurses or most regular doctors are overpaid. Some specialists are paid highly, but I assume they are good and/or pay super high insurance premiums.

You're also missing the #1 reason I hate our current health care system - wayyyy too many people in beauracratic positions who add costs, time and paperwork but no value. Can a "single payer" government run system actually streamline that beauracratic nightmare? Doubtful, but at least it'd be easier to pinpoint where the wasteful excess is.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The Ross flag is a stupid "controversy" though. Nike consulted with one of their spokespeople, who didn't think it was a great idea, and they pulled the plug. And THEN it was an issue. For people like your parents. How many of those complaining about this were in the market for Betsy Ross Nikes, exactly? Or had any merchandise at all with the Betsy Ross flag on it? The only reason it's a "controversy" is because they chose to bitch about it.

I'm starting to think some white people just don't like the fact that a black man's opinion may hold more sway than theirs.

I wouldn't buy the shoes & it wouldn't have crossed my radar if ESPN or Twitter didn't push it to me, but yes it bothers me on multiple accounts. Idk if Nike pulled it because they felt white power groups had co-opted it or because they worried minorities would associate a colonial American flag with slavery, but either way it's dumb. If it's the former I agree sometimes symbols get co-opted & lost (sorry Hindi people, you're not getting the swastika back), but the Betsy Ross isn't that and I think we should push back (just like white power groups don't get to claim white Polo's & khaki shorts or Macklemore haircuts... Though I'd give them the Macklemore haircuts). If it's the latter it's back to the Founding Fathers esque bullshit where people want to hold historical figures to the same standard we'd hold people today. I'm fine using something like this as a teaching moment to educate people on how far we've come, but only to the lunatic left fringe that got Trump elected is a Colonial flag a "pro-slavery" flag.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You're also missing the #1 reason I hate our current health care system - wayyyy too many people in beauracratic positions who add costs, time and paperwork but no value. Can a "single payer" government run system actually streamline that beauracratic nightmare? Doubtful, but at least it'd be easier to pinpoint where the wasteful excess is.

Medicare is very efficiently run compared to most healthcare payers. I actually have a lot of optimism about this - if were ever to get passed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

but the Betsy Ross isn't that and I think we should push back (just like white power groups don't get to claim white Polo's & khaki shorts or Macklemore haircuts... Though I'd give them the Macklemore haircuts).

Sorry to tell you this but for a lot of people of color, white Polos and khakis (esp with New Balances) and Macklemore haircuts are going to make people think you are a white supremacist. Like there is a reason white power groups latched onto the Betsy Ross flag - no one else was using it and it adhered to their ideas about a white purity state. It's hard to jump back in now and say, hey, I know we weren't using it (for like decades), but it isn't yours. The attachment has already taken some root.

If it's the latter it's back to the Founding Fathers esque bullshit where people want to hold historical figures to the same standard we'd hold people today. I'm fine using something like this as a teaching moment to educate people on how far we've come, but only to the lunatic left fringe that got Trump elected is a Colonial flag a "pro-slavery" flag.

Or rather it's the un-deification of the Founding Fathers. I have long thought that the US eschews monarchy, because we've put the Founding Fathers in God-like roles already. In some respects they are our own Greek Gods with their mythical stories. Popping that bubble is long overdue, IMO. It's more unveiling the Founders and realizing that their values may not be exactly our values 200 years+ later and that's ok. People get angry and say the Founders had good as well as the bad, but they also get upset when you try to point out the bad and indicate that maybe that is a reason not to put them on the uncritical podiums they've been on for so long.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Sorry to tell you this but for a lot of people of color, white Polos and khakis (esp with New Balances) and Macklemore haircuts are going to make people think you are a white supremacist.

It's definitely a thing in the vocal Twitter fringes, but I don't believe a lot of people in the real world think that.

Like there is a reason white power groups latched onto the Betsy Ross flag - no one else was using it and it adhered to their ideas about a white purity state. It's hard to jump back in now and say, hey, I know we weren't using it (for like decades), but it isn't yours. The attachment has already taken some root.

But people were always using it in my area (a mile from the North Bridge), and colonial American wasn't a white purity state anyways, so why should we cast it aside if idiots are misappropriating it?

Or rather it's the un-deification of the Founding Fathers. I have long thought that the US eschews monarchy, because we've put the Founding Fathers in God-like roles already. In some respects they are our own Greek Gods with their mythical stories. Popping that bubble is long overdue, IMO. It's more unveiling the Founders and realizing that their values may not be exactly our values 200 years+ later and that's ok. People get angry and say the Founders had good as well as the bad, but they also get upset when you try to point out the bad and indicate that maybe that is a reason not to put them on the uncritical podiums they've been on for so long.

I don't think they've been on an uncritical podium in the last 20 years, and I think all us smart people can look at them as a whole & acknowledge their faults while still appreciating what they did at the time. Maybe it's due to growing up in a town that actually cares about colonial history, but outside of George Washington I think everyone readily acknowledges their faults.

[stevew]

As a very white white guy can I get clarification on which New Balance models I'm allowed to wear.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, part of the answer to our high health care costs are nurses and doctors need big pay cuts? I just don’t understand how a single payer system cuts costs enough to justify the bigger expense? Here are some of the reasons for our high heath care costs:
1. High Salaries for nurses and doctors.
2. Expectation of quick surgeries/low wait times.
3. We want the ability to pick our doctors and specialists.
4. We have a very large number of people to cover.
5. We have an unhealthy lifestyle with fast food and little exercise.
6. The US foots the bill for much of the drug R&D costs.

I don’t see a single payer system addressing any of these reasons.

It addresses those issues indirectly by completely eliminating the costs for insurance salesmen, insurance benefit reviewers, insurance billers, insurance collectors, insurance IT departments, insurance business analysts, insurance software developers, insurance software testers, insurance personnel managers, insurance HR, insurance marketers, insurance licensing, insurance underwriters, insurance claims adjusters, insurance advisers, insurance telemarketers, insurance customer support, insurance advertisers, insurance risk managers, insurance graphic designers, insurance copywriters, insurance mail campaigns etc., before we even begin to consider any of the finer issues.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I wouldn't buy the shoes & it wouldn't have crossed my radar if ESPN or Twitter didn't push it to me, but yes it bothers me on multiple accounts. Idk if Nike pulled it because they felt white power groups had co-opted it or because they worried minorities would associate a colonial American flag with slavery, but either way it's dumb. If it's the former I agree sometimes symbols get co-opted & lost (sorry Hindi people, you're not getting the swastika back), but the Betsy Ross isn't that and I think we should push back (just like white power groups don't get to claim white Polo's & khaki shorts or Macklemore haircuts... Though I'd give them the Macklemore haircuts). If it's the latter it's back to the Founding Fathers esque bullshit where people want to hold historical figures to the same standard we'd hold people today. I'm fine using something like this as a teaching moment to educate people on how far we've come, but only to the lunatic left fringe that got Trump elected is a Colonial flag a "pro-slavery" flag.

Eh, it just strikes me as funny though that the ire isn't at the "white power groups." It's at the "lunatic left fringe." Folks aren't angry that a symbol may have been co-opted (and most of the time, they will deny that), they're angry at someone pointing out that it may have been co-opted. Tell me how much vitriol goes towards the Proud Boys vs Kaepernick.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

While a registered democrat, I consider myself more conservative when it comes to health care and economic policy. instead of a single payer, here's what I would try to do:

1. Fully or partially subsidize health care plans for people making under a certain amount (say $100K) who don't have employer provided health care. Maybe under 50K it is 100%, 75% under 75K and 50% under 100K. The government would just give them a tax credit that could be used for their premium costs per year (basically act like the employer).

2. Setup better exchanges for small business owners with some % subsidies for premiums there as well.

If you focus on getting coverage for people who don't have it, then you can look at finding ways to reduce the cost in certain areas. The prescription drug thing is a tough one. Currently the US pays 3-times more for the same drug in Europe, but that extra money helps fund research and innovation. There could be a massive hit to R&D if we capped prices like Europe - but I'm certainly open to ideas here.

I'm also not sure we can do a ton with overall cost given the number of unhealthy people/lifestyles we have and our expectation of service. If we were willing to wait 3-5 months more for most elective surgeries, that might help. If we lost a lot of choice for specialists/doctors (like in other countries), that may help too. I'm just not sure this country has the stomach for those type of changes.

If I waved a magic wand and we had the health care system in Canada here tomorrow - there would be riots in the streets when people saw their tax bill, how long they had to wait for surgeries/care and how restricted the list of doctors/specialists would be.

I agree and disagree. I think that the Sanders and company plan may be too extreme (government mandated single payer), but I think the best moderate plans allow anyone to join medicare. Even in countries that provide free healthcare, people still have private insurance. A public option will force private companies to compete with better coverage at more affordable rates. The other big necessity is allowing medicare to negotiate the cost of medicine. The bloat in our system is the runway cost drugs hand in hand with the huge profits being sucked out of the system by insurers. Cutting those cost substantially would make a big dent in the problems in the system.

[GrantDawg]

I found this quote on CNN and found it interesting:


"The Democratic victory in 2018 was the result of center-left Democrats winning against more left-wing opponents in primaries. According to the Third Way think tank, 33 of the 40 Democrats who won in swing districts defeated someone on their left on primary day"



Is it possible the far left is getting way to much attention/praise for the victory in 2018, and that the lesson we should actually take from the mid-terms is if democrats focus on issues that matter to the people without going to the grand extremes of the far left, they can win?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I found this quote on CNN and found it interesting:


"The Democratic victory in 2018 was the result of center-left Democrats winning against more left-wing opponents in primaries. According to the Third Way think tank, 33 of the 40 Democrats who won in swing districts defeated someone on their left on primary day"



Is it possible the far left is getting way to much attention/praise for the victory in 2018, and that the lesson we should actually take from the mid-terms is if democrats focus on issues that matter to the people without going to the grand extremes of the far left, they can win?

Somewhere in the middle. The more moderates candidates may have won more, but the far left candidates have shifted policy talk and brought their ideas into the mainstream. Bernie is the classic example.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree and disagree. I think that the Sanders and company plan may be too extreme (government mandated single payer), but I think the best moderate plans allow anyone to join medicare. Even in countries that provide free healthcare, people still have private insurance. A public option will force private companies to compete with better coverage at more affordable rates. The other big necessity is allowing medicare to negotiate the cost of medicine. The bloat in our system is the runway cost drugs hand in hand with the huge profits being sucked out of the system by insurers. Cutting those cost substantially would make a big dent in the problems in the system.

Isn't this basically what the ACA was? I don't have a problem with a government run "safety net" insurance group for lower income or people without coverage (basically expand medicare). I just want to make sure it doesn't cause employers to stop covering their employees. Prescription drug cost is a big issue, but you don't need a government plan to cap prices (if that's the solution). The government currently does this for industries like energy that have private companies involved. Congress could vote to cap drug prices (or have them match Europe prices) tomorrow without a single payer. They just wouldn't do that because of the drug companies put so much money into their candidacy.

[JPhillips]

I'd have to look at the methodology, but Third Way definitely has an ideological reason to paint a picture of centrists winning.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

Isn't this basically what the ACA was? I don't have a problem with a government run "safety net" insurance group for lower income or people without coverage (basically expand medicare). I just want to make sure it doesn't cause employers to stop covering their employees. Prescription drug cost is a big issue, but you don't need a government plan to cap prices (if that's the solution). The government currently does this for industries like energy that have private companies involved. Congress could vote to cap drug prices (or have them match Europe prices) tomorrow without a single payer. They just wouldn't do that because of the drug companies put so much money into their candidacy.

No, it wasn't. The ADA had the significant problem that the insurance companies had all the power. That is why there is run-away costs and very limited coverage options. If the private companies had to actually compete against a true public option, things would have to change. On the prescription side, allowing medicare to to negotiate prices would drive prices down without having to have artificial caps. I think both of those hand in hand will do more than again trying to negotiate with the insurance companies that only had sabotaging the ADA in mind from the very beginning.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd have to look at the methodology, but Third Way definitely has an ideological reason to paint a picture of centrists winning.

I am sure, but then doesn't everybody?

[ISiddiqui]

I think people forget that the ACA initially HAD a public option as part of it's plan. However, it was impossible to get 60 votes in the Senate for it (even though there were 60 Democrats in the Senate, some of them were not sold on the public option), so it had to be removed from the final bill.

And on prescription drugs, I think the Medicare Part D law passed during the Bush Administration forbade the government from using it's negotiation power to drive drug prices down for Medicare recipients.

[Thomkal]

We have a drop out from the Democratic primaries. Eric Swalwell drops out and now faces a challenger to his left for his Congressional seat in CA. I liked him, but could never get any momentum building up.

[ISiddiqui]

Warren appears to have outraised Sanders in 2Q:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eliza...ushpmg00000003

So far Buttigieg and Biden are the only ones who have raised more (but all have not revealed their amounts)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[molson]

That is really impressive for Buttigieg....he led the way and outraised even Biden by a good amount.

I'm not sure how this happened but he is a contender.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

That is really impressive for Buttigieg....he led the way and outraised even Biden by a good amount.

I'm not sure how this happened but he is a contender.

Gay people have a ton of expendable income.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Gay people have a ton of expendable income.

We do?

[NobodyHere]

The lineups for the next debate has been announced:

Warren and Sanders will join Delaney, Hickenlooper, Ryan, Bullock, Williamson, Klobuchar, O'Rourke and Buttigieg on July 30.

Harris and Biden will join Gillibrand, Gabbard, Bennet, Blasio, Inslee, Booker, Yang and Castro on July 31.

If I learned anything from the last debates it's that 10 candidates is way too many for a single night.

[tarcone]

They should stick all of them on a stage for 2 nights. Let them sweat. Who can handle the pressure.

[molson]

I'd like to see some kind of talent competition.

No swimsuits though.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd like to see some kind of talent competition.

No swimsuits though.

How bout patriotic underwear?

[Radii]

Since Warren and Sanders remain my two top candidates (with a fairly heavy lean to Warren at the moment), I'm really looking forward to hearing them speak on the same issues/questions side by side.

I know most of it will be more grandstanding and stuff, and I know that does matter here, but I'm hoping to also get a little policy related info out of them.

[QuikSand]

Actually, I think it could prove functionally useful to have Warren and Sanders getting all the oxygen on the first night. Those two are, you might argue, playing in from the same region, so in the interests of focus, this debate could offer some opportunity for consolidation. And, there's a chance that the lack of electricity from anyone else on that stage (seems likely) spells the end for all of them. If you want money on one player there to emerge in a Tulsi-like way, I'd put my bet on Inslee, but I wouldn't expect more than a bit of googling and a sliver of stupid money.

Night 2 ought to be a free-for-all, and the pairing of Biden and Harris reeks of a frozen envelope, even without the shocking odds against it happening randomly.

[JPhillips]

Booker would seem to be the big unknown for night two. This may be his last chance to move into the top tier. Does he go after Biden? Does he go after Harris? Does he accept that it's all but over and play for a VP spot?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Booker would seem to be the big unknown for night two. This may be his last chance to move into the top tier. Does he go after Biden? Does he go after Harris? Does he accept that it's all but over and play for a VP spot?

He goes after Biden, right? That's the play there. Actually, just pick up the "pass the torch" idea. Set aside he's a minority... what he is, is a non-socialist man. There's a lane for one of those, and Biden is the bigger half of his problem for that lane into the final three or four.

[thesloppy]

I'd think the best play for anybody outside of those 'big 4' would be to hold a press conference, call the debates an obvious circus that you're not going to attend, detail your platform and drop the microphone.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

He goes after Biden, right? That's the play there. Actually, just pick up the "pass the torch" idea. Set aside he's a minority... what he is, is a non-socialist man. There's a lane for one of those, and Biden is the bigger half of his problem for that lane into the final three or four.

That's what I would expect, and that could work out well for Harris. I don't think Booker has any chance, so in terms of his candidacy I don't think it matters, but he can shift things towards Harris or Biden.

That's where I think there's a small chance that he sees a possible VP slot with Biden and perhaps a solo run in 2024 and decides to lighten up on Biden so as to not blow that chance. Having a guy that likely won't run for a second term complicates things for potential VPs.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Night 2 ought to be a free-for-all, and the pairing of Biden and Harris reeks of a frozen envelope, even without the shocking odds against it happening randomly.

Did I miss something here (possibly obvious sarcasm!)... was Biden & Harris getting drawn together anything other than a 50/50 chance? Sorry I didn't watch the DNC draft lottery :/

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'd think the best play for anybody outside of those 'big 4' would be to hold a press conference, call the debates an obvious circus that you're not going to attend, detail your platform and drop the microphone.

How would that help raise their profile for future elections? At least 10/20 could do it and receive zero press coverage.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

He goes after Biden, right? That's the play there. Actually, just pick up the "pass the torch" idea. Set aside he's a minority... what he is, is a non-socialist man. There's a lane for one of those, and Biden is the bigger half of his problem for that lane into the final three or four.

I don't want to say he shouldn't attack Biden, because clearly there is still meat on that bone & it's the reason Harris was the one who gained traction in the first round (unless you count people who suddenly realized Tulsi Gabbard is pretty on the TV), but I think there's also a lane (for him) to point out that Harris might check boxes as a black woman, but she's really not a super liberal candidate on the issues. Having both Warren & Sanders on the other side could help in that sense.

He seems committed to positivity though, so good luck.

[GrantDawg]

I'll say again that I hate so much how big this crowd is. It was terrible that we only had 3 candidates last time, but having 2 dozen this time is an over correction. The thinning of the herd cannot come fast enough.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'll say again that I hate so much how big this crowd is. It was terrible that we only had 3 candidates last time, but having 2 dozen this time is an over correction. The thinning of the herd cannot come fast enough.

Yup. I don't have a favorite and not really going to do much research until it thins out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yup. I don't have a favorite and not really going to do much research until it thins out.

I am with you. I will say I have done some research, but I know if I get too attached to someone, that is when they will drop out.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'll say again that I hate so much how big this crowd is. It was terrible that we only had 3 candidates last time, but having 2 dozen this time is an over correction. The thinning of the herd cannot come fast enough.

In some ways I'm glad, because I want folks like Andrew Yang to stay in as long as possible to raise the UBI concept up in the minds of more people. But overall yeah, its just too much and hopefully it thins out after these next debates as most of the candidates realize that two shots on national TV got them nowhere and its time to stop spending.

[Brian Swartz]

When there's no presumptive nominee like Hillary I think we're going to see this kind of chaos regardless of which party it is in the future. Both ways of swinging the pendulum have their flaws; when there's an 'obvious choice' they'd better be a good one, and when there isn't one -- who knows what the heck happens.

[GrantDawg]

I am listening to the "Pod Saves America" interviews of the Democratic candidates. I am just listening the ones that have any kind of shot, and Andrew Yang (I was just interested in him). Of the ones I have heard, the main thing I have gotten is how in the heck hasn't Cory Booker fared better? He was the head and shoulders the most inspiring interview of the group. Harris and Warren were good. Beto couldn't even keep my interest.

[albionmoonlight]

I could be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that a LOT of Democratic voters care much more about beating Trump this time around than about which candidate gets the nomination.

So I think that you will have a lot of undecideds and soft support for candidates until things really start rolling. Then, after Iowa and NH and SC define the frontrunner, she/he will end up getting all of that support flow to her really quickly as the voters try to end the process to focus on the general.

The Bernie Bros. are, of course, the complication to my plan because I don't see them doing anything but continuing to scorch earth on Bernie's behalf up through the general election. But, other than them, I think that things end up quickly coalescing behind a front-runner after the voting starts.

(I'm so bad at predicting this stuff, though, that we'll probably end up with a legitimately contested convention this year.)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I could be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that a LOT of Democratic voters care much more about beating Trump this time around than about which candidate gets the nomination

Speaking only for myself, because I suspect I think about the minutiae of elections much more than your average voter (Republican OR Democratic), but I think the odds are staggeringly against anybody in the Democratic field being able to enact policy for at least two years.

Structurally, the playing field is tilted against them. We're unlikely to witness a Presidential year where Republican turnout is as depressed as it was in 2018. I expect a Republican House to be one outcome of the '20 elections no matter how favorably Democrats are viewed by the electorate.

(Even if they hold the House, they're going to be dancing on the knife's edge in that chamber until they can recapture enough state houses to have an effect on redistricting, but that's another matter.)

Republicans are on defense in the Senate this cycle, but they're fighting on favorable ground. It isn't like '18 where Democrats had to play defense all over the map with a bunch of those seats in Trump Country.

To control the Senate, they realistically probably need to flip at least four seats. Doug Jones is probably not getting re-elected as a Democrat in Alabama unless he runs against Roy Moore again, and maybe not even then. So that means running the table on their other seats and flipping four Republican seats to compensate for the loss of Alabama. I see Maine and Kansas as possibilities, with Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina as dark horses. If everything breaks right, they COULD take those five seats, but I think 2-3 of the 5 is a more realistic outcome.

That leaves them with a probable caucus of 48-49 and McTurtle dusting off "our biggest responsibility is to make sure ___ is a one-term president" from his Obstruction Greatest Hits playbook.

So, okay; a Democrat wins the White House, but barring an incredibly unlikely confluence of events in 2020, it doesn't matter what their policy goals are. Even though the Senate map looks rosier in 2022, the reality is that the Democratic coalition is reactive, not proactive. They're likelier than not to pat themselves on the back after beating Trump, say "yay us, democracy saved," and then go back to sleep until the next Presidential election. They're kinda like the "this is fine" dog that way. They don't show up regularly unless Crisis Mode is engaged. So even though 2022 looks like a better opportunity for Democrats to recapture the Senate, I'm not particularly optimistic.

So, no, I don't want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. I'm, honestly, done with their generation. I want a younger generation of leaders to put the old shits out to pasture. But I'm not going to die on any particular policy hill aside from "don't be Trump" from the group, either. Even if I'm really really sold on Buttigieg, or Booker, or Harris, or whomever, their policy goals are, speaking practically, going to remain aspirational.

It's not so much 'caring more about beating Trump than about which candidate gets the nomination' as recognizing that the political realities of the moment are such that any Democrat who wins is vanishingly unlikely to accomplish much in the way of governance beyond keeping the lights on, so why get hung up on 'who' that Democrat is?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I am listening to the "Pod Saves America" interviews of the Democratic candidates. I am just listening the ones that have any kind of shot, and Andrew Yang (I was just interested in him). Of the ones I have heard, the main thing I have gotten is how in the heck hasn't Cory Booker fared better? He was the head and shoulders the most inspiring interview of the group. Harris and Warren were good. Beto couldn't even keep my interest.

Booker is incredibly charismatic and inspiring. I am also surprised he hasn't gotten a bigger boost. Yes, he is more moderate and cozier with Wall Street than the leftier groups, but so is Harris and Biden.

[thesloppy]

I think I've said it before but Booker appeals to me on an emotional level simply because he seems like practically the candidate who is most likely to demonstrate the proper amount of anger or bewilderment with the modern political circus.

[BishopMVP]

His Wall Street ties hurt him with the extreme progressive wing, I think there is a segment of Democratic voters who were convinced HRC would be the first female President & will resist supporting any guy as long as Warren/Harris are viable candidates, but mainly I think it's because people say they care but most don't actually look into or listen to the candidates. Idk how exactly tonight goes and if Klobuchar/Buttigieg can make an impression, but I figure night 2 will just be Booker, Harris & maybe Castro eviscerating Biden & his soft lead.

It'll be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren at least try to outline some differences between them on night 1, and on night 2 if those 3 go after each other at all or just concentrate on destroying Biden.

[ISiddiqui]

Though Biden's drop in the polls due to the first debate has completely disappeared. He's back where he was. Maybe his lead isn't all that soft?

I think the field will have to drop to 5 or 6 for Biden to really be hit hard enough to drop from the 30%+ area.

[JPhillips]

What does Booker offer that you can't find in Biden, Harris or Warren? He hasn't done a good job of saying here's how I'm unique. He seems like someone that would really benefit from the exposure of a VP job.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What does Booker offer that you can't find in Biden, Harris or Warren? He hasn't done a good job of saying here's how I'm unique. He seems like someone that would really benefit from the exposure of a VP job.

Booker isn't competing against Warren. I would say he offers far more of a vision than Biden or Harris. His baby bonds idea was a fantastic and has been on the forefront of criminal justice reform in the Senate.

I more am curious to ask what does Harris offer that Booker doesn't?