2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tsukasa Buddha said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
@Aridas A brief perusal hither and yon suggests I'm way out of date on the state of play for the senate.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.
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...
OMG, all Democrats are not on the same page. What a tragedy. :rolleyes:
 
varwoche said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
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".
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
varwoche said:
@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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
kellyb said:
I'm not seeing that at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Aridas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, fixed. :)
 
ArchSas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

shemp said:
You don't have any opportunity to get what you want if you don't win.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best summary of the entirety of Joe's posting history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kellyb said:
Like...gun control?
Click to expand...

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

angrysoba said:
the Maher-Morgue analysis
Click to expand...

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."
 
Aridas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
My health insurance plan covers free membership at a community fitness center. I take full advantage of it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. There are also people who have medical conditions that cannot be prevented, do not receive medical care because the can't afford it, that would under single payer.
 
SezMe said:
That's meaningless. First, nobody can say what "most electable" even means. Second, most people think *their* candidate is, of course, the "most electable". It's like arguing that the 7th inning stretch is good. No ****
Click to expand...
You dismiss polling as a method of gathering data as to how likely a given candidate is to defeat Trump in the general election?
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive, universal, "free at the point of use" care can be done for about half the cost we do it here.

Remember this chart, noticing the dark blue bars, "public expenditures"? What we pay in taxes for Medicare, Medicaid, and military healthcare alone covers 100% of the population in the "single payer" countries.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2019-10-26 at 7.16.55 PM.jpg
    Screenshot 2019-10-26 at 7.16.55 PM.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 5
kellyb said:
Comprehensive, universal, "free at the point of use" care can be done for about half the cost we do it here.

Remember this chart, noticing the dark blue bars, "public expenditures"? What we pay in taxes for Medicare, Medicaid, and military healthcare alone covers 100% of the population in the "single payer" countries.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this.

One of the confusing things about the debate is the sloppy way that "for all" versus "for all who want it" has been conflated with "for free" versus "too expensive".

This is a big, important topic. I hope someone starts a thread focused on healthcare / 2020 election. I don't have it in me.
 
kellyb said:
Comprehensive, universal, "free at the point of use" care can be done for about half the cost we do it here.

Remember this chart, noticing the dark blue bars, "public expenditures"? What we pay in taxes for Medicare, Medicaid, and military healthcare alone covers 100% of the population in the "single payer" countries.
Click to expand...

A) I'm not disputing any of that. I ultimately have no opinion on the subject.

B) that chart does not include the expenses I'm talking about. Here is an example: there are 40k who die in car accidents. Some portion of them are not receiving medical services for non preventable illness before the wreck. That would be medical costs incurred under UHC not represented on the graph.

C) I have no opinion on the quantity or impact of this. I think it is simply interesting itself.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A) I'm not disputing any of that. I ultimately have no opinion on the subject.

B) that chart does not include the expenses I'm talking about. Here is an example: there are 40k who die in car accidents. Some portion of them are not receiving medical services for non preventable illness before the wreck. That would be medical costs incurred under UHC not represented on the graph.

C) I have no opinion on the quantity or impact of this. I think it is simply interesting itself.
Click to expand...

Under-utilization does have some effects which keep costs down. It also has others which make costs higher.

My own sense is that it's actually an economic wash, but well-meaning people kind of suffer from confirmation bias when interpreting the literature, to only notice the times where under-utilization makes it more expensive in the end.

I'm reminded of this, too:
https://www.psandman.com/articles/berreth.htm
But I kept noticing that the good guys weren’t exactly honest either. In 1981 I started doing communication work with the American Cancer Society. One of the big ACS activities, then as now, was corporate smoking cessation programs. In order to help sell these programs to companies, we commissioned an economist to do a study of the economic impact of employee smoking on companies. We expected to show a big cost due to medical expenses. Instead, the study came out showing that employees who smoked actually saved their company money (pension money and healthcare money) by dying more rapidly after retirement. It simply wasn’t in a company’s economic interests to support smoking cessation.

What do you think we did with the study results? We suppressed them, and continued to tell companies they would benefit economically from sponsoring ACS smoking cessation clinics for their employees. I argued for candor, or at least for dropping the false argument. I lost. I was told pretty explicitly that public health was a higher value than transparency. (Metropolitan Edison had needed to find a way to mislead without actually lying. The American Cancer Society was okay with just lying.)
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
Under-utilization does have some effects which keep costs down. It also has others which make costs higher.

My own sense is that it's actually an economic wash, but well-meaning people kind of suffer from confirmation bias when interpreting the literature, to only notice the times where under-utilization makes it more expensive in the end.

I'm reminded of this, too:
https://www.psandman.com/articles/berreth.htm
Click to expand...

And my point really wasn't about costs, but the meta discussion around the debate.

The more Warren argues how bad the current situation is, the less credible her claim that it will cost less.
Click to expand...

I think once the debate is outside the primary,the campaign is going to emphasize the stories of the examples of underutilization that keeps costs down. But that undercuts the message.
 
kellyb said:
Why is the world would they do that?
Click to expand...

To humanize the argument. Campaigns tell stories about middle class Americans just like us suffering because policy X is not in place.

But the most sympathetic stories I bet are going to be stories technically of underutilization.
 
BobTheCoward said:
To humanize the argument. Campaigns tell stories about middle class Americans just like us suffering because policy X is not in place.

But the most sympathetic stories I bet are going to be stories technically of underutilization.
Click to expand...

I'm not expecting her to even campaign on M4A a whole lot.

After getting elected (Maude willing), she has a pretty long anti-corruption to-do list she's wanting to tackle before trying for M4A.
 
Belz... said:
The point is that crazy talk hurts Democtatic chances. How is that throwing progressives under the bus?
Click to expand...

By using conservative framing to make their ideas sound crazy, at the expense of shutting down discussion and prop up the "sane" candidates. The same way any other form of respectability politics works. And that's consistently been part of the arguments for the "moderate" candidates like Biden and Klobuchar (both of which Maher has been vocal about supporting recently): the idea that you can't talk about progressive ideas, and only a moderate can actually be successful because anything too left will turn off all those moderate voters out there.

Even when not framed through a conservative lens, it's stall part of the weird gamification of politics that's been been increasing since Nate Silver and others like him have gotten bigger in the public discourse. I'd rather people just support the ideas they like and have honest discussions without resorting to rhetorical strategy games.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Perhaps Joe can quote that in his signature and stop the lecture rants! Not that those aren't fun to read, Joe: I'm developing an app that analyzes texts to detect rising blood pressure in the author. My compliments upon the amazing strength of your aortic walls!
Click to expand...

Oh come on.

We're got nothing but Whataboutism and Contrarian trolling from the Trumpers (at least those who are still capable of full sentences.)

We've got doom and gloom Democrats salivating at the idea of the revolution starting as if that's going to go well for anyone.

And we've got a lot of "You're doing a great job Dems, don't even CONSIDER the idea of doing anything different or having an concept of self reflection or constructive criticism."

Given all that I'm not some crazy outsider over hyping some crazy outside the fringe opinion.

And again, if you don't like it, ignore it. Or play the "Oh well we're just an internet discussion board and nothing we're talking about matters or will make a difference anyway" which over works better.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh come on.

We're got nothing but Whataboutism and Contrarian trolling from the Trumpers (at least those who are still capable of full sentences.)

We've got doom and gloom Democrats salivating at the idea of the revolution starting as if that's going to go well for anyone.

And we've got a lot of "You're doing a great job Dems, don't even CONSIDER the idea of doing anything different or having an concept of self reflection or constructive criticism."

Given all that I'm not some crazy outsider over hyping some crazy outside the fringe opinion.

And again, if you don't like it, ignore it. Or play the "Oh well we're just an internet discussion board and nothing we're talking about matters or will make a difference anyway" which over works better.
Click to expand...

150/108. I advise reducing sodium intake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom