What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (3 Viewers)

IC FBGCav said:
52% of Republicans wants medicare for all.  How many Republican politicians want it?  Over 70% of Democrats want Medicare for all.  How many Democratic politicians want it?  My point is time to clean house for the people but it's hard to let them donate when they live paycheck to paycheck.  
Click to expand...
I'm in favor of Medicare for All, but IMO these numbers are pretty much useless. At this stage in the game "Medicare for All" is pretty poorly defined. And it's the kind of thing that sounds good to just about everyone until you get into the details- like saying people love tax cuts, which the GOP recently discovered is not actually as universal as they hoped.  This is from KFF, which I think most people consider a trustworthy source for health care data:

Yet, how politicians discuss these different proposals does affect public support (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There is robust support among Democrats, and even support among Republicans, for an expansion of the Medicare program through a Medicare buy-in or a Medicaid buy-in proposal (Figure 7). In addition, nearly half of Republicans and majorities of independents and Democrats favor an optional Medicare-for-all plan (Figure 8). Yet, it is unclear how much staying power this support has once people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side. Public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 9) and recent polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan (Figure 10), suggesting another potential area for decreased support.
Click to expand...
I think those of us who want to move America in this direction need to start doing better than blindly saying how "everyone wants Medicare for All" and start realistically discussing the details and the costs as well as the benefits. A big problem for Dems is that I'm not sure the labor movement is gonna be on board, because many people employed by large companies  like their current coverage and rightly don't trust their employer to transfer savings on premiums to wages or other employee benefits.  To believe employers would do this assumes a perfectly functioning labor market, which is an absurd notion to any progressive.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm in favor of Medicare for All, but IMO these numbers are pretty much useless. At this stage in the game "Medicare for All" is pretty poorly defined. And it's the kind of thing that sounds good to just about everyone until you get into the details- like saying people love tax cuts, which the GOP recently discovered is not actually as universal as they hoped.  This is from KFF, which I think most people consider a trustworthy source for health care data:

I think those of us who want to move America in this direction need to start doing better than blindly saying how "everyone wants Medicare for All" and start realistically discussing the details and the costs as well as the benefits. A big problem for Dems is that I'm not sure the labor movement is gonna be on board, because many people employed by large companies  like their current coverage and rightly don't trust their employer to transfer savings on premiums to wages or other employee benefits.  To believe employers would do this assumes a perfectly functioning labor market, which is an absurd notion to any progressive.
Click to expand...
It's laid out.  Short version.  People pay more taxes get back what they pay in healthcare.  Simplified administration will save 2 trillion over 10 years.  I believe that is without negotiating costs.

 
IC FBGCav said:
It's laid out.  Short version.  People pay more taxes get back what they pay in healthcare.  Simplified administration will save 2 trillion over 10 years.  I believe that is without negotiating costs.
Click to expand...
I understand how it works and why it's good, and that's why I personally support it.  What I'm saying is that the approval numbers are misleading and a lot depends on how you present the question. The link shows this pretty clearly.

 
Regarding Medicare for All:

I support moving toward a system more like what they have in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, etc. I'm also okay with calling that general sentiment "Medicare for All."

But we should keep in mind:

1. "Medicare for All" is more of a slogan than a policy. Ultimately, we'll need a policy: one with details and stuff.

2. We can't really have a healthcare system like what they have in Canada, France, the UK, Norway, or Germany. There are differences between our country and theirs that prohibit copying exactly what they do. For example, two of the biggest costs within our healthcare system are drugs and labor. Drugs cost more in the US than elsewhere for reasons related to patent law. There's no easy fix to this, only tradeoffs. Also, American doctors and nurses are paid way more than doctors and nurses in other countries. This also has no easy fix. It's partially because college and med school cost so much more here, but it's also partially just because income inequality in general is higher here. Doctors probably need to be at the upper end of the income distribution here as they are elsewhere (if we're going to attract the quality of candidates we want) ... but the upper end is simply higher here in absolute terms. There are many other differences here as well. So we really can't estimate what socialized medicine would cost here by looking at what it costs in other countries. There are many reasons why it will inevitably cost more here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
To be fair, where you are somewhat wrong is they were not lying - they just didn't have enough conviction in their beliefs and enough votes to get stuff done.  I agree with Henry - you need somebody who can get stuff done.  Where I differ with him is that even though I think Bernie is an idealist I think he can work across the aisle as he has done for years.
Click to expand...
Name three pieces of significant legislation (not just amendments to someone else's bill - full bills) Bernie Sanders has gotten passed in 28 years in Congress. Alternatively, name five amendments he's gotten passed that are of actual significance and he had to fight for (not some "anti-cancer" or other bill that everyone would vote for.)  Alternatively, name one bill he's authored that he got passed despite significant objections from Republicans.

I don't know if these exist, but I haven't seen them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Regarding Medicare for All:

I support moving toward a system more like what they have in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, etc. I'm also okay with calling that general sentiment "Medicare for All."

But we should keep in mind:

1. "Medicare for All" is more of a slogan than a policy. Ultimately, we'll need a policy: one with details and stuff.

2. We can't really have a healthcare system like what they have in Canada, France, the UK, Norway, or Germany. There are differences between our country and theirs that prohibit copying exactly what they do. For example, two of the biggest costs within our healthcare system are drugs and labor. Drugs cost more in the US than elsewhere for reasons related to patent law. There's no easy fix to this, only tradeoffs. Also, American doctors and nurses are paid way more than doctors and nurses in other countries. This also has no easy fix. It's partially because college and med school cost so much more here, but it's also partially just because income inequality in general is higher here. Doctors probably need to be at the upper end of the income distribution here as they are elsewhere (if we're going to attract the quality of candidates we want) ... but the upper end is simply higher here in absolute terms. There are many other differences here as well. So we really can't estimate what socialized medicine would cost here by looking at what it costs in other countries. There are many reasons why it will inevitably cost more here.
Click to expand...
Doctors costs would significantly drop with malpractice  insurance and administration.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Name three pieces of significant legislation (not just amendments to someone else's bill - full bills) Bernie Sanders has gotten passed in 28 years in Congress. Alternatively, name five amendments he's gotten passed that are of actual significance and he had to fight for (not some "anti-cancer" or other bill that everyone would vote for.)  Alternatively, name one bill he's authored that he got passed despite significant objections from Republicans.

I don't know if these exist, but I haven't seen them.
Click to expand...
No thanks - if you don't think he's worked across the aisle that's fine.  You may even be right.  Here's a link to a site (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislative-landmarks) - you can judge what you consider to be significant but we could argue that (me poorly, you not poorly) but we wouldn't really know how much influence he really had on the ones you consider significant (if there are any). 

There were things discussed during 2016 election like the VA legislation and the comments of many senators which leads me to believe he is not a partisan guy - especially since he still claims to be an independent.  Again, you may be right but I think this is one where its our opinions much more than facts.

 
AAABatteries said:
No thanks - if you don't think he's worked across the aisle that's fine.  You may even be right.  Here's a link to a site (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislative-landmarks) - you can judge what you consider to be significant but we could argue that (me poorly, you not poorly) but we wouldn't really know how much influence he really had on the ones you consider significant (if there are any). 

There were things discussed during 2016 election like the VA legislation and the comments of many senators which leads me to believe he is not a partisan guy - especially since he still claims to be an independent.  Again, you may be right but I think this is one where its our opinions much more than facts.
Click to expand...
I've read that page top to bottom.  I've honestly been looking for a reason to push for him again.

It's not that I think he's a partisan guy.  It's that after this presidency, the GOP is going to be more obstructionist than ever (if that's possible) and Sanders just doesn't get contested stuff passed, nor controversial significant legislation.  That's going to need to happen in the next cycle in my opinion.  That's all.

 
Henry Ford said:
I've read that page top to bottom.  I've honestly been looking for a reason to push for him again.

It's not that I think he's a partisan guy.  It's that after this presidency, the GOP is going to be more obstructionist than ever (if that's possible) and Sanders just doesn't get contested stuff passed, nor controversial significant legislation.  That's going to need to happen in the next cycle in my opinion.  That's all.
Click to expand...
You were a big Bernie supporter last time and you didnt look that stuff up? I'm not being flip here when I say I'm surprised because you of anyone else here does your homework so that's extremely not what I expected.

 
Dedfin said:
You were a big Bernie supporter last time and you didnt look that stuff up? I'm not being flip here when I say I'm surprised because you of anyone else here does your homework so that's extremely not what I expected.
Click to expand...
I did.  It's not news to me.  As I said, I wasn't as concerned with having to push controversial legislation - we'd just finished eight years of GOP obstructionism, where the GOP was basically trying to prove it was about Obama, not about the Democrats.  We were trending upward economically, socially, internationally - it was just a different time and didn't need what I think we're going to need this time around.  

 
Henry Ford said:
I've read that page top to bottom.  I've honestly been looking for a reason to push for him again.

It's not that I think he's a partisan guy.  It's that after this presidency, the GOP is going to be more obstructionist than ever (if that's possible) and Sanders just doesn't get contested stuff passed, nor controversial significant legislation.  That's going to need to happen in the next cycle in my opinion.  That's all.
Click to expand...
I get your point and I don't disagree - but I'd flip it.  Who among those who have already announced has gotten contested stuff passed? - if that's the criteria then we have to be consistent.  Maybe Harris or Booker or Warren have and I just don't know.  I will say I'm beginning to come around more to the idea that we are hopelessly deadlocked and what will have to happen is we stay deadlocked until the changing demographics give the Dems a super majority.  After the last two years I'm not sure anybody wants to compromise about much of anything.

 
Henry Ford said:
I've read that page top to bottom.  I've honestly been looking for a reason to push for him again.

It's not that I think he's a partisan guy.  It's that after this presidency, the GOP is going to be more obstructionist than ever (if that's possible) and Sanders just doesn't get contested stuff passed, nor controversial significant legislation.  That's going to need to happen in the next cycle in my opinion.  That's all.
Click to expand...
I get that but what happened last time.  We got a shutdown over a wall, what if Obama shut down for single payer?  Plus he didn't fight for Garland.  Which was a Republican choice.  Who knows but he tainted him and we got Kavanaugh.

Beer....I should love him but I don't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
I get your point and I don't disagree - but I'd flip it.  Who among those who have already announced has gotten contested stuff passed? - if that's the criteria then we have to be consistent.  Maybe Harris or Booker or Warren have and I just don't know.  I will say I'm beginning to come around more to the idea that we are hopelessly deadlocked and what will have to happen is we stay deadlocked until the changing demographics give the Dems a super majority.  After the last two years I'm not sure anybody wants to compromise about much of anything.
Click to expand...
Harris hasn't, but Warren has.

Harris: https://www.congress.gov/member/kamala-harris/H001075?q={"bill-status"%3A"law"}

Cosponsored (with less than 30 cosponsors): Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018, Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act, Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017

Has only been in Congress since Jan. 2017, though - two years.  Prior to that she was AG of the State of California, and her record there is stellar.  She's a tough cookie.

Warren: https://www.congress.gov/member/elizabeth-warren/W000817?q={"bill-status"%3A"law"}

But her signature achievement came before getting elected.  She drafted and advocated for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau legislation, which was a signature piece of Dodd-Frank.  It wouldn't have existed without her.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Harris hasn't, but Warren has.

Harris: https://www.congress.gov/member/kamala-harris/H001075?q={"bill-status"%3A"law"}

Cosponsored (with less than 30 cosponsors): Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018, Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act, Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018, Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017

Has only been in Congress since Jan. 2017, though - two years.  Prior to that she was AG of the State of California, and her record there is stellar.  She's a tough cookie.

Warren: https://www.congress.gov/member/elizabeth-warren/W000817?q={"bill-status"%3A"law"}

But her signature achievement came before getting elected.  She drafted and advocated for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau legislation, which was a signature piece of Dodd-Frank.  It wouldn't have existed without her.  
Click to expand...
A tangent so forgive me but I have to let you know about a wonderful interview by Ezra Klein of Katie Porter 

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/57758844

In part of it she tells a piece of the story of her and Kamala Harris working on this project. I really loved the interview and you may as well. Big fan of Porter (and Harris)

 
This thread was buried on page 3?

$6 million raised in his first 24 hours and tons of money left over from the last run. I believe the previous high water mark for this field was Kamala at 1/3 this amount in her first 24 hours.

Maybe we should put down the shovels and stop digging this man's grave.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
[scooter] said:
79 is too old. It just is.
Click to expand...
Is it though? The enthusiasm is clearly there. If people are that excited to hand their money over to him, it's a much smaller ask to pull a lever for him.
Click to expand...
Yes, the enthusiasm from liberals is definitely there. Unfortunately, liberals only make up about 20-40% of the country.

The worst thing that could happen is that Bernie does what Trump did in the Republican primaries. He'll use his solid base to win primaries with just ~35% of the vote, while the majority of Democrats divide their vote among more moderate (and oftentimes more appropriate) candidates. Then he'll face off against Trump, who will spend the entire campaign railing against socialism and communism and taxes (not to mention the fact that Bernie is an "old man" compared to even Trump), and all the moderates in this country will begrudgingly vote for Trump yet again.

This is the same dumb strategy that Democrats employed in '72, '84, and '88 -- nominate the super-liberal guy who has massive appeal to your own party, but which will attract very few crossover votes from Republicans or independents.

This is going to be a disaster for Democrats and for the country.

 
[scooter] said:
Yes, the enthusiasm from liberals is definitely there. Unfortunately, liberals only make up about 20-40% of the country.

The worst thing that could happen is that Bernie does what Trump did in the Republican primaries. He'll use his solid base to win primaries with just ~35% of the vote, while the majority of Democrats divide their vote among more moderate (and oftentimes more appropriate) candidates. Then he'll face off against Trump, who will spend the entire campaign railing against socialism and communism and taxes (not to mention the fact that Bernie is an "old man" compared to even Trump), and all the moderates in this country will begrudgingly vote for Trump yet again.

This is the same dumb strategy that Democrats employed in '72, '84, and '88 -- nominate the super-liberal guy who has massive appeal to your own party, but which will attract very few crossover votes from Republicans or independents.

This is going to be a disaster for Democrats and for the country.
Click to expand...
If only we had some evidence about what happens when you run a centrist Democrat against Trump.

 
Murph said:
And yet she was still touted as the "electable" one.
Click to expand...
Lots of us predicted that Hillary would struggle in a general election.  Admittedly, hardly anybody thought that she was capable of losing to Trump, but it is not Monday morning quarterbacking to point out that she was one of the move vulnerable people the Democrats could have nominated.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Lots of us predicted that Hillary would struggle in a general election.  Admittedly, hardly anybody thought that she was capable of losing to Trump, but it is not Monday morning quarterbacking to point out that she was one of the move vulnerable people the Democrats could have nominated.  
Click to expand...
Which is why conventional wisdom about "more moderate (and oftentimes more appropriate) candidates" should be treated with skepticism.

 
If Warren were to get the nomination it would be almost a perfect political experiment. Many similar flaws to Clinton relating to likeability/trustworthiness but more progressive policies.

 
Henry Ford said:
Among other things, pragmatism.  We aren’t where we were in 2016, trending upward on most of the major issues like social justice, economics, world standing, etc.  Sanders is an issues idealist, which is perfect for that moment.  

We’re going to need someone who can fix things.  Actually get people together and fix a large number of things.  And that includes making tough, sometimes indimidating choices where someone who doesn’t deserve to lose is going to lose.  I don’t trust Sanders to do that as much as I believe is going to be necessary.  When presented with two choices that each has someone getting screwed who shouldn’t, he’s going to give the “I don’t accept that” speech.  But sometimes that’s just how it is.  
Click to expand...
Pretty much where I am at too

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Hillary lost to Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with being a centrist.
Click to expand...
Correct. Likability and lack thereof was her downfall. Her electorate wasn't as passionate as it needed to be to get out and vote for her in certain places. I've never gotten the sense that it's an issue for Bernie. And the initial returns since his 2020 announcement indicate the passion is still there. The idea that Bernie will cost Dems the WH doesn't ring true to me at all. Right now he seems like one of the safest bets to get the vote out.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
IvanKaramazov said:
Hillary lost to Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with being a centrist.
Click to expand...
Correct. Likability and lack thereof was her downfall. Her electorate wasn't as passionate as it needed to be to get out and vote for her in certain places. I've never gotten the sense that it's an issue for Bernie. And the initial returns since his 2020 announcement indicate the passion is still there. The idea that Bernie will cost Dems the WH doesn't ring true to me at all. Right now he seems like one of the safest bets to get the vote out.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the passion for Bernie will extend to conservatives that he absolutely will need to vote for him if he wants to win?

 
[scooter] said:
Why do you think that the passion for Bernie will extend to conservatives that he absolutely will need to vote for him if he wants to win?
Click to expand...
He needs the Left, left leaning, and middle to beat Trump. And I couldn't be more sure that he'd get it. Easily. When people who don't normally donate to political causes are writing checks and typing in their credit card info, it's a powerful indicator of willingness to turn out on election day. Perhaps (probably) the most telling indicator.

 
Trump didn't squeak out a victory on the back of conservative support. He squeaked out a victory on the back of Hillary hate (Trump votes) combined with Hillary indifference (Hillary non-votes).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous said:
[scooter] said:
Why do you think that the passion for Bernie will extend to conservatives that he absolutely will need to vote for him if he wants to win?
Click to expand...
He needs the Left, left leaning, and middle to beat Trump. And I couldn't be more sure that he'd get it. Easily. When people who don't normally donate to political causes are writing checks and typing in their credit card info, it's a powerful indicator of willingness to turn out on election day. Perhaps (probably) the most telling indicator.
Click to expand...
Sorry but "the middle" is largely opposed to socialism. The reason that many of them voted for Hillary is because she was a moderate (and even a conservative) on many issues that appeal to the middle. Bernie WILL NOT have the same appeal to those people. They will either stay home or they will hold their nose and vote for Trump.

You keep citing people who don't normally donate to political causes. Those people are liberals. They will help Bernie win the primaries but they will do him little good in the general election. You may see a slight bump in Democratic turnout but it will barely compensate for the exodus of moderate/independent votes.

I mean, just replace "Bernie" with "Mondale" or "Dukakis" and you've got the '80s all over again. This is a losing strategy for Democrats.

 
[scooter] said:
Why do you think that the passion for Bernie will extend to conservatives that he absolutely will need to vote for him if he wants to win?
Click to expand...
He needs to win back the rust belt and hold the other states that Hillary won.  That wasn't a tall task before.  He beat Hillary in Michigan and was competitive in the rest.  On top of that, those that took a flyer on Trump in those areas now see what good that did them.  It's a completely different ball game when there is data/history on you vs being an unknown.

 
scooter, I think you're missing something with the Bernie phenomenon. He drew tons of support from people in the middle the last go around. There's plenty of evidence of it within these 394 pages. And to my surprise, it appears as though the support is still there. If anything his ideas are more mainstream this cycle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
He needs to win back the rust belt and hold the other states that Hillary won.  That wasn't a tall task before.  He beat Hillary in Michigan and was competitive in the rest.  On top of that, those that took a flyer on Trump in those areas now see what good that did them.  It's a completely different ball game when there is data/history on you vs being an unknown.
Click to expand...
As someone who lived in Wisconsin most of my life, I have zero doubt Bernie would win that state away from Trump.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Trump didn't squeak out a victory on the back of conservative support. He squeaked out a victory on the back of Hillary hate (Trump votes) combined with Hillary indifference (Hillary non-votes).
Click to expand...
It's true that many people voted for Trump solely because they hated Hillary. Just as it will be true that many people will vote for Trump solely because they hate socialism.

You can't just assume that any Democrat will beat Trump. You still have to appeal to moderates and conservatives. This isn't a popular vote, it's an electoral college. And the electoral college is stacked against Democrats. You have to win the purple states too.

 
The Commish said:
[scooter] said:
Why do you think that the passion for Bernie will extend to conservatives that he absolutely will need to vote for him if he wants to win?
Click to expand...
He needs to win back the rust belt and hold the other states that Hillary won.  That wasn't a tall task before.  He beat Hillary in Michigan and was competitive in the rest. 
Click to expand...
Bernie was popular in Michigan among Democrats. He was not competitive in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

He won't be nearly as popular among independents and Republicans.

At any rate, for every Michigan that Bernie wins, there will be a Virginia or a Florida that he loses.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
458
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
814
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top