Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Bossman said:

Enough people liked Trumps policies that he won 4 years ago ... and the favorite to win again (I think). 

... so, Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Everything people liked and like about Trump without the negatives. 

(I should have known this wouldn't have gone over well in the Trump haters forum ... lol)

Trump never really had any policies. He spoke to rage & sentiment & personal identity, not governance. The rust belt got sold down the river by corporate globalism and unions over-pricing their labor and worsened by their many mistaken notions taken for granted. They looked up and tried to notice the difference between now and the era in which they mattered. They saw a world that was a lot less white, decent & simple and came to believe that the world should accept them cramming the toothpaste of liberty & progress back into the tube so they could be on top again. Tea Party, Palin, Trump developed & expanded the voice of that until the last of em was in the White House. It's not policy, it's pure reaction to selfishness & loss exploited by even greater enemies to their well-being than the "homos & darkies" they fear.

I honestly believe Mayor Pete wants those people back from the crooks and cares more about addressing their concerns than the pols currently attracting their votes and breaking their country. But yes, that could be done by an old-fashioned guy or gal outside the system who sees Main Street America as what we should be all about, but that Hispanic groceries and gay bakeshops and African-American run biotech companies have as much as place on Main Street as body shops, factories and Congregational Churches.

Thing is, almost every prominent conservative has sold out to either Wall St or Trumpism, so there isn't really one left with the status to be a Main Street paragon, but i think the ####'s Sporting Goods guy is trying to be something like that and i'm sure there are others who could come up with a Main Street-type platform for folks to turn to.

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bossman said:

Let me preface this first by saying I'm very ignorant when it comes to politics. I almost never post in the political forum.

... but I've been wondering .... Seems voters like the idea of a "non-politician" as president. Trump still favored to win 2020 (if not impeached)?

Whether voters like the idea of a step back from politics as usual ... or just somebody they can relate to as a regular person and not a greasy car salesman - career politician.

Why doesn't a candidate come forward with the stance that they voted for Trump and believe in the "no more politics as usual"

.... and they want to continue to make america great again ... but without the dumb tweets, bigotry, and other shenanigans of Trump. 

Democrat or Republican, Wouldn't that stance win over most Trump supporters? ... and many non-Trump supporters?

or does this candidate already exist?

You have an interesting hypothesis and I think someday it could work.

But in today's climate, I don't think a candidate could win over enough Trump supporters, because many of them are attracted to Trump, in part, because of the dumb tweets and other shenanigans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 8:06 AM, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’m not much of a Kamala Harris fan for a number of reasons, but this is especially troubling:

Right now, in 2019, is not the time to argue for a major new expansion of presidential powers.

It's legal:

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44597.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of my favorite threads.  Is there any chance you guys could take the cstu discussion to a new thread or to the existing one in the FFA?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, krista4 said:

This is one of my favorite threads.  Is there any chance you guys could take the cstu discussion to a new thread or to the existing one in the FFA?

Yeah, I don't know exactly how to handle this. If the people who were cheated want cstu gone, he'll be gone. If they'd rather handle this some other way, I'm open to suggestions. But let's do this elsewhere. The thread in the FFA seems right. If someone can bump it, I'll move it over here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston Globe/Suffolk University  New Hampshire Poll

Sanders: 16%
Warren: 14%
Buttigieg: 13%
Biden 12%

Gabbard 6%
Yang 4%
Harris 3%
Booker 2%
Steyer 2%

Edited by Sinn Fein
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copying the detail in here to look at trend:
Buttigieg looks to be siphoning from Warren, Biden support is like a slow leak, Sanders looks capped, Harris debate bump had little staying power and Klobuchar can win this if we can put the election off for a couple of years.
 

   DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
                     Nov 26  Oct 24  Oct 14  Oct 08  Sep 25  Aug 28  Aug 06  Jul 29  Jul 02
                     2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019    2019  
                             
Biden                24      21      27      26      25      32      32      34      22    
Sanders              13      15      11      16      16      15      14      11      13    
Harris                3       5       4       3       3       7       7      12      20    
Warren               14      28      30      29      27      19      21      15      14    
Booker                2       1       2       2       -       1       2       1       3    
Klobuchar             3       3       2       2       2       1       1       1       1    
Castro                2       1       1       1       2       -       1       -       1    
Gabbard               1       1       -       -       1       1       1       1       1    
Delaney               -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Buttigieg            16      10       8       4       7       5       5       6       4    
Yang                  2       1       2       3       2       3       1       2       1    
Williamson            -       -       -       -       -       1       -       1       -    
Bennet                2       -       1       1       1       1       -       -       -    
Bullock               -       -       -       -       -       1       -       -       -    
Sestak                -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -    
Steyer                -       1       2       -       -       -       -       -      na    
Patrick               -      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na    
Bloomberg             3      na      na      na      na      na      na      na      na   

 

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which statement is more correct?

A) People never change their minds about politics.

B) Man, people sure change their minds a lot about politics!

The case for the latter statement: Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.

It reminds me of how Clinton won in 1992, the Democrats got smeared in 1994, but then Clinton won again in 1996. George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings in recorded history a quarter of the way through his first term, and among the lowest approval ratings ever late in his second term. Obama won in 2008, the Democrats got smeared in 2010,  but then Obama won again in 2012.

People do change their minds.

The upshot is that we anti-Trump folks shouldn't be too optimistic based on the 2018 midterms. Maybe they don't mean much about 2020.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Betting markets are buying the Pete hype (or, perhaps more accurately, the Warren doom). He's now in second place at 17.9%, behind only Biden at 21.7%, as Warren has fallen sharply to 15.9%. (Numbers current as of the time of this post at electionbettingodds.com.)

I have been seeing the same thing on predictit- specifically the bottom dropping out on Warren more than a Buttigieg surge in the Dem nominee market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Which statement is more correct?

A) People never change their minds about politics.

B) Man, people sure change their minds a lot about politics!

The case for the latter statement: Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.

It reminds me of how Clinton won in 1992, the Democrats got smeared in 1994, but then Clinton won again in 1996. George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings in recorded history a quarter of the way through his first term, and among the lowest approval ratings ever late in his second term. Obama won in 2008, the Democrats got smeared in 2010,  but then Obama won again in 2012.

People do change their minds.

The upshot is that we anti-Trump folks shouldn't be too optimistic based on the 2018 midterms. Maybe they don't mean much about 2020.

Feel like I've seen analysis before where the odds are ridiculously stacked in favor of the incumbent, but can't remember where.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I have been seeing the same thing on predictit- specifically the bottom dropping out on Warren more than a Buttigieg surge in the Dem nominee market. 

What do you think accounts for the Warren drop?  I have some theories (including her increasingly seeming disingenuous, and rolling out ideas that are quite far left) but admittedly don't stay as well-versed as many of you.

To me there seem to has been an upsurge in negative "Pete can't get African-Americans" news lately.  Not just the crap posted here, but several NYT articles, one in the New Yorker, etc. that dig deeper into caustion rather than just indicating an issue.  Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.  

Edited by krista4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, krista4 said:

What do you think accounts for the Warren drop?  I have some theories (including her increasingly seeming disingenuous, and rolling out ideas that are quite far left) but admittedly don't stay as well-versed as many of you.

To me there seem to has been an upsurge in negative "Pete can't get African-Americans" news lately.  Not just the crap posted here, but several NYT articles, one in the New Yorker, etc. that dig deeper into caustion rather than just indicating an issue.  Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.  

Warren decided she wanted to publish plans and bring specific ideas to the marketplace.  It's resulted in her spending a lot of time defending wonky details that don't matter all that much in the this stage of the process.  She's treating her campaign like it's a job interview.  And while there should be merit to that approach, it's a dumb one to take in USA politics.

In 2016 the black vote was like 10% of the electorate and was like 90% for Clinton.  The bigger barriers to getting the black vote out will be local/state level ones like voter roll purging and suppression, voting machine allocation, unfounded fraud accusations, and convoluted voter registration/ID laws.  You know, the stuff that delivered WI and GA to Trump in 2016.  If Buttigeig can spark a big turnout increase in the 18-29 and 30-49 ranges (demos that broke hard for Clinton in 2016 among those who showed up) it won't matter what skin color they are.       

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
I'm also open to the possibility Warren's gender is playing a role in her slide, but GL getting a statistically significant number of voters to admit to that.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, krista4 said:

What do you think accounts for the Warren drop?  I have some theories (including her increasingly seeming disingenuous, and rolling out ideas that are quite far left) but admittedly don't stay as well-versed as many of you.

To me there seem to has been an upsurge in negative "Pete can't get African-Americans" news lately.  Not just the crap posted here, but several NYT articles, one in the New Yorker, etc. that dig deeper into caustion rather than just indicating an issue.  Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.  

Warren - I think the drop is primarily a result of the attacks on her Medicare For All plan - she took a few hits at the October debate on that issue, specifically how she will pay for it.  I think she was hurt by the initial claims that the middle-class would not pay for it, before later acknowledging that the middle-class probably would pay a little.

I don't think this (Warren drop) is a sexism issue because, as you recall she started the campaign at near zero support following the ancestry issues.  So, any support she lost in the last several weeks was also support she had earned over the last several months.

 

Pete - I think this is simply a function of being a perceived threat.  Like Warren, once she became the front-runner, the attacks are more pointed, and come from many directions.  Its my opinion that many of the media stories are carefully placed Opposition Research pieces by various campaigns - so they can stay above the fray and still make the points.  Pete is now a threat to the three front-runners, and a major obstacle for Klobuchar, Harris, and Booker - those three are backed into a corner right now, and the only way they survive is to come out swinging. 

 

I think this quote from Michael Harriot is good:

"He is not the perfect candidate nor will there be one. But this does not mean the Democratic Party is divided. The entire point of the primary process is for voters to dictate their concerns to the candidates and for candidates to learn from voters. Black America wants their party to emerge victorious but not if we have to offer our votes as a living sacrifice for the sake of “party unity.” What good is a white savior if he doesn’t save us?"

I think we are simply at that vetting stage where people are poking and prodding to see what kind of people/candidates we have.  I am not worried about having an electable candidate - because I think they all can be electable in a general election - both because someone like Warren is likely to move back towards the center, and because someone like Pete will prove to be acceptable to a large percentage of the Dem base.  And, if someone else emerges as the favorite - it will be because they won over the Dem voters during the primaries.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate for the Dems.  Biggest most adamant support base, most individual donors, best support among working class, best pull from Trump, doesn't have a problem connecting with minorities.  Can think straight and speak clearly.  Economic populism is more timely, winning message than tepid centrism.  But nominating him would upset their donors, and the DNC can not have that.  I think they would rather lose to Trump again than upset the status quo.  

It will be interesting to see how they betray their base this time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, krista4 said:

What do you think accounts for the Warren drop?  I have some theories (including her increasingly seeming disingenuous, and rolling out ideas that are quite far left) but admittedly don't stay as well-versed as many of you.

To me there seem to has been an upsurge in negative "Pete can't get African-Americans" news lately.  Not just the crap posted here, but several NYT articles, one in the New Yorker, etc. that dig deeper into caustion rather than just indicating an issue.  Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.  

I honestly believe Wall St made some calls, kind of an internal marketing campaign that a President Warren would be harmful to the American Way of Life as reflected in the Dow Jones Averages. And using the Hillary brush (oh, the stridency!) to do it.

Mayor Pete's black prob is part frontrunner prob, part that his appetite for inclusion makes him vulnerable to appearing the panderer. The smart tactic would be ignoring self-appointed African-American juries and convince a semi-prominent black figure to stump for him. Peteyjudge is soooo white (one of the late-night talkingheads posted a picture of an envelope as his 8x10 glossy) that someone's gonna need to vouch for him to make black outreach not look totally fake.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Which statement is more correct?

A) People never change their minds about politics.

B) Man, people sure change their minds a lot about politics!

The case for the latter statement: Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.

It reminds me of how Clinton won in 1992, the Democrats got smeared in 1994, but then Clinton won again in 1996. George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings in recorded history a quarter of the way through his first term, and among the lowest approval ratings ever late in his second term. Obama won in 2008, the Democrats got smeared in 2010,  but then Obama won again in 2012.

People do change their minds.

The upshot is that we anti-Trump folks shouldn't be too optimistic based on the 2018 midterms. Maybe they don't mean much about 2020.

I think it indicates to me that voting for President and voting for "other stuff" are two completely different considerations for many people. And Bush's ratings fell apart in conjunction with the economy falling apart (to which the policies of his administration were certainly a major contributor).

 

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, krista4 said:

 Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.  

I don't think we do. I think a lot of these candidates have some good ideas, some good intentions, but they don't inspire, they don't seem "leaderly." Then there's Joe, who has the persona, but the appearance of competency and coherency has left him. There's really nobody sitting on the sidelines who'd be a better candidate either - except maybe Michelle Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the scathing article in NYT about Harris’ campaign signals the beginning of the end for her. 
 

I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I would guess the scathing article in NYT about Harris’ campaign signals the beginning of the end for her. 
 

I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

It’s been said before that how a candidate runs a campaign is a good indication of how they’d manage as President.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I would guess the scathing article in NYT about Harris’ campaign signals the beginning of the end for her. 
 

I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

 

"Many advisers to Ms. Harris point to the July Democratic debate, and her weak response to an attack by Representative Tulsi Gabbard, right, as accelerating Ms. Harris’s decline as a candidate."

There was really no coming back once her record was exposed.  Black support tanked immediately.  Think the same thing could very easily happen to Biden in a general.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

 

There was really no coming back once her record was exposed.  Black support tanked immediately.  Think the same thing could very easily happen to Biden in a general.  

Black voters have alternatives in the Dem primary. Not so much in the general if the alternative is Trump. Perhaps some will stay home, but I doubt many will vote for Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I would guess the scathing article in NYT about Harris’ campaign signals the beginning of the end for her. 
 

I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign. 
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html

i'm maxed out or the yr for NYT reads. anybody wanna gist it fuh me?

Kamala was my bet w myself when we didn't know who any of these folks were, but she appeared very much a Willie Brown protege from the start and the "i cornered this market so i can corner that" don't work so well past the Bay, maybe Sacto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, the moops said:

Black voters have alternatives in the Dem primary. Not so much in the general if the alternative is Trump. Perhaps some will stay home, but I doubt many will vote for Trump.

What 2016 showed us, is that some will be content to stay at home if the Dem nominee doesn't give them a reason to vote for something.  His vague emotional ties to Obama won't last forever.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Thompson @AlxThomp

New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Pete's rhetoric on M4A and free college to be extremely disingenuous.  It could be that he actually believes people who can't afford it don't want free healthcare & public/state university, which have both risen astronomically in cost over the years. 

The more likely explanation is that the billionaires, lobbyists and special interests who support Buttigieg's campaign have a direct financial incentive to back a candidate who argues against the idea of poor people having nice things.  The rhetoric is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I find Pete's rhetoric on M4A and free college to be extremely disingenuous.  It could be that he actually believes people who can't afford it don't want free healthcare & public/state university, which have both risen astronomically in cost over the years. 

The more likely explanation is that the billionaires, lobbyists and special interests who support Buttigieg's campaign have a direct financial incentive to back a candidate who argues against the idea of poor people having nice things.  The rhetoric is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton's.  

To claim he is bashing those things is funny.

Also to just claim he is fake and big business seems more disingenuous that his stance on things.  Seems more he is moving where the public is moving.  Smaller steps rather than jumping all in in those progressive ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wikkidpissah said:

i'm maxed out or the yr for NYT reads. anybody wanna gist it fuh me?

Kamala was my bet w myself when we didn't know who any of these folks were

She was my bet in the spring because she seemed to be the one appealing to both moderates and progressives. Followed by numerous actions causing disingenuous/inauthentic to be popular descriptors and started defending herself to critics like Gabbard simply with "You're wrong".

Also, clearing cookies usually allows me to see NYT. WaPo when I'm over limit. Also use multiple browsers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bananafish said:

What exactly do you find extremely disingenuous about Pete's rhetoric? Did you actually listen to what he said, or just the comments from the tweet you quoted? They all seem to assume that he is against free college, which is directly contradicted by the ad they're supposedly commenting on.

What I find disingenuous is the framing of 'not wanting to pay for college for the children of billionaires.'  What it implies is that the idea that a random billionaire's kid might get free college is somehow a serious argument against millions of other students getting it as well.  Do you think people holding some of the $1.2 Trillion dollar student debt bubble care if a handful of rich people's kids get free college as well- to public/state universities they tend to bypass in favor of private institutions anyway- if it means forgiving their debt?  It would largely be funded by progressive taxation against the exceedingly wealthy.  

Basically it's the slick McKinsey consultant framing for a half measure, repackaged through populist rhetoric.  Subsidizing the system as it is generally just drives up cost, as federal student loan programs have done, and generally adds means-testing to the equation where families making over $100K are lumped in rhetorically with the same 'children of millionaires and billionaires' subset.  

To be clear, it's also an argument against ALL universal programs.  Why should we pay for public parks that billionaires might walk on?  Why pay for fire dept. services for the children of billionaires?  Why pay for universal K-12 education on the off chance a billionaire's kid might use it?  It's really a ridiculous argument.  You could use it against literally any universal public service.  It's just a disingenuous framing to me.  And like "Medicare For All Who Want It" co-opts progressive messaging while preserving the interests of private insurance cos., it just feels like the sort of poll-tested smarm you'd come to expect from a smooth corporate politician.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bananafish said:

The David Sirota tweet you're using to support your "more likely explanation" is from a member of Bernie's campaign staff, and while I love Bernie and have given him 10x the amount of money I've given Pete, his graphic of the article titles "damning" Pete is meant to titillate rather than inform. He posted it today like it's some shocking new revelation, but most of the articles are months old and don't back up the corporate shill narrative Sirota is trying to generate: "You shouldn’t be surprised that this particular candidate is basing his entire campaign on attacking Medicare for All and tuition free college plans that are financed by taxing billionaires & corporations."

Not sure what silver lining you found in those articles, they're a pretty bad look.  The thing is, he IS attacking M4A now as potentially a bureaucratic nightmare that kicks people off their private insurance.  He's very keen to take backwards shots at it like "kicking people off their insurance" and 'people in Washington telling you how to live your lives' (or something to that effect I don't remember exactly).  Maybe he's right.  But that wasn't his position before.  Here is Pete in February 2019:

Quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you are for Medicare for all. I want to talk about the issues in the campaign. You're for it, but isn't Kamala Harris, who is also running for president right when she says that means doing away with private insurance?

BUTTIGIEG: I don't see why it requires that. I mean, after all, if the framework we're using is Medicare, a lot of people who have Medicare also have Medicare supplements, Medicare Advantage, something like that. There can be a role for the private sector, but just leaving people...

STEPHANOPOULOS: but you're for a single payer system, aren't you?

BUTTIGIEG: I think so. I think that's the right place for us to head as a country, and we can debate the finer points of how to get there.

But I've been in countries -- look, I studied in the UK where there is not only single payer, there's national -- nationalized medicine, which we're not calling for. Even there, there is a role for the private sector. I just don't believe that leaving Americans to the tender mercies of corporations is the best way to organize the health sector in this country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But single-payer, you would be replacing private health insurance.

BUTTIGIEG: Yes, at least -- again, Medicare for all is the best framework, right? So if we want to make Medicare available to everybody, whether it's as a public option to buy in or simply establishing that as how the payer structure works in this country, that's going to be the center of gravity. And the bottom line is we need to make sure that every American is able to get health care.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How are you going to sell that when President Obama, he didn't get rid of all private health insurance, he said if you like what you have, you can keep it. He was scorched by those who couldn't keep their plans. You would have single payer, eventually that would mean doing away with everyone's plans. How can you possibly sell that in this country today?

BUTTIGIEG: Well, you had to make sure that it leads to better results. And if we need a road, a gradual way to get there, then we can start with Medicare for all who want it by making some version of Medicare available on the exchanges for people to opt into, as part of the pathway to Medicare for all so that you can try before you buy so to speak as a country.

Look, there are a lot of ways and in the course of this conversation we're going to get into a lot of the different frameworks that are past to this, but the bottom line is most citizens in most developed countries, enjoy access to this kind of health care and Americans don't. It's wrong.

And one very interesting thing when you talk about the experience in the Obama years is the short amount of time in which ACA went from a political loser -- I mean, what it was like to be a Democrat in 2010 as those town halls happened, and by 2018, it was perhaps the winning issue for Democrats, because when we saw what those steps actually meant, when we saw how they made our lives better, we realized that all this crazy, conspiratorial talk about death panels or the horrible things that will happen if we don't make sure there is a big corporate role in our health care system, a lot of the things we're being sold don't actually come to pass in the real world.

Here is Pete now, in November 2019:

Quote

BUTTIGIEG: Well, the insurance companies are fighting my proposal, because they don't want the competition. What is just not true is that hers is the only solution. This my way or the highway idea, that either you're for kicking everybody off their private plans in four years or you're for business as usual, it's just not true. I'm proposing Medicare for all who want it. Now, if we do that, that's the biggest change in American health care in 50 years. The difference is, the way I would do it, you get to keep your private plan if you want to. I trust you to make that decision.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You used to be for broader Medicare for all. You didn't qualify it in any way. Is your main argument against Medicare for all now that it can't get passed or that it won't work?

BUTTIGIEG: Look, I think it could very well be the long-run destination, but I think there's got to be some humility in our policy here. Let's put this out there and see if it's really the best plan for everybody. I think it will be the best plan, but I'm not willing to assume that it is the right plan for you out of Washington and order you to take it whether you want to or not. If it's the right plan, then everybody will move to it until it is the single payer. And if it's not the right plan for everybody, then we're going to be really glad we didn't kick some Americans off their private plans.

Let's be real clear here: this rhetoric about "kicking everybody off their private plans" and "my way or the highway" is not where he was in February.  It's the sort of defeatist language and framing that boxes Warren/Sanders in to a position that scares away boomers, and a complete departure from the sort of advocacy he was making before.  Before, M4A was the "center of gravity," "leaving Americans to the tender mercies of corporations" was wrong, and he appeared to endorse other countries he's been where there are single payer systems.  He went from M4A being the forefront of a conscious and sensible policy, to taking backhanded swipes at it like it's the work of centralized, ivory tower bureaucrats. Now, there "has to be some humility in our policy."  Now, "leaving Americans to the tender mercies of corporations" is more palatable.  That's a flipflop. 

It's the sign of a person who won't fight for tangible policies they believe in.  It's the sign of a person who will cave the second he faces serious pushback from entrenched power.  But worst of all, it's the sign of a politician that slyly changes his positions whichever way the polls and the winds are blowing, but especially wherever the donors are putting their $$$$$.  It seems like his first instincts now are to punch left; it's a distinctly different stature than the one he had before.  

Edited by ren hoek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be more clear. He lays out in that first answer that “we can debate the finer points on how to get there”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With such an emphasis on electability in this primary, here’s an interesting new study: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Moderate and conservative voters become much more likely to support progressive policies if the policies are framed around ‘conservative’ values such as patriotism, freedom, liberty, etc. People seem to like progressive policies but not progressive rhetoric. Framing matters!

  • Thinking 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Lets be more clear. He lays out in that first answer that “we can debate the finer points on how to get there”.

Seems like the 'there' has changed to a different 'there.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, identikit said:

Seems like the 'there' has changed to a different 'there.'

 Not really...if you listen to all of what he has said...he realizes people aren't as likely to support the big change fast...but incremental.  I think he sees where the public will support and congress may support.  Its a more pragmatic approach.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the first time I heard him, til now...the first word that comes to mind is ...”thoughtful”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better start moving towards the center fast or you got absolutely no chance. We will not vote for a far left candidate and we decide who gets elected.

Signed 'independents'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Better start moving towards the center fast or you got absolutely no chance. We will not vote for a far left candidate and we decide who gets elected.

Signed 'independents'.

did someone email that to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 6:30 AM, ren hoek said:

Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate for the Dems.  Biggest most adamant support base, most individual donors, best support among working class, best pull from Trump, doesn't have a problem connecting with minorities.  Can think straight and speak clearly.  Economic populism is more timely, winning message than tepid centrism.  But nominating him would upset their donors, and the DNC can not have that.  I think they would rather lose to Trump again than upset the status quo.  

It will be interesting to see how they betray their base this time.  

I would vote for Bernie even though I am not a fan. 

But I am afraid the GOP will hammer him about the heart attack and call him damaged goods. And I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

538 gives that pollster a C-.

It is the most recent poll we have, but we haven't seen Warren below ~15% in quite some time, so this just may be an outlier.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She had a bigger fall in Quinnipiac  (scroll up near top of page). Some think it is related to push back on her M4All plans. in the Quinnipiac poll, her drop is similar to Buttigieg's rise. In this one, she's down by the amount of Buttigieg+Bloomberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

What did I miss why Warren is falling?

I think she has leveled out - but she has been falling pretty steadily since the October Debate when she got hit pretty hard on her Medicare For All, and how to pay for it.

Losing support is never a good thing, but i think the timing will still work out well for her - I think she has time and room to re-gain her supporters over the next couple of months.  I think she can bounce back to contend in Iowa and could win New Hampshire - but that should be close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.