-
[QUOTE=zinderel;4801801]Yeah. The little inner Nero in me want to fiddle while the world burns around that battle. I won’t lie.[/QUOTE]
This may or may not be relevant, but Nero really doesn't deserve the reputation he has as the worst emperor ever or what have you. Being sadistic and cruel was par for the course for Roman emperors, the ones that are celebrated as great gained their fame by being that much more violent and brutal than their rivals. Nero's real crime was attempting to rule as a populist and pissing off the established elites, who by virtue of being the literate class went out of their way to slander him in the history books, including making up that whole fiddling while Rome burned story from nothing.
-
[QUOTE=Theleviathan;4801807]No....and bear with me again, you are terrible at recognizing reality.....that isn’t how voters do things. We just had a link last week about how the left fails to see the power of emotion in voting.
[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]I don’t ignore that there are rational voters. [/COLOR][/B] There are. What I do is recognize they are the vast minority. Voter irrationality and contradiction is a major challenge for all candidates. By factual evidence, that exists in spades on Medicare for all. Doesn’t mean you don’t try, just go in eyes open to the challenge.[/QUOTE]
You are ignoring that there are voters who are emotional(and will vote that way...) about decent healthcare.
Just by trying to paint them as simple "Rational" you are minimizing it.
-
[QUOTE=PwrdOn;4801822]This may or may not be relevant, but Nero really doesn't deserve the reputation he has as the worst emperor ever or what have you. Being sadistic and cruel was par for the course for Roman emperors, the ones that are celebrated as great gained their fame by being that much more violent and brutal than their rivals. Nero's real crime was attempting to rule as a populist and pissing off the established elites, who by virtue of being the literate class went out of their way to slander him in the history books, including making up that whole fiddling while Rome burned story from nothing.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I figure it’s another historical hitjob, like MacBeth. But that phrase - “Nero fiddling while Rome burned” - is a great metaphorical Image, all the same.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4801826]You are ignoring that there are voters who are emotional(and will vote that way...) about decent healthcare.
Just by trying to paint them as simple "Rational" you are minimizing it.[/QUOTE]
Went out of your way to miss the point.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4801826]You are ignoring that there are voters who are emotional(and will vote that way...) about decent healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Not ignoring it at all.
Just asking for any data that proves they will show up to vote those policies into effect.
Protecting the ACA is what motivated many 2018 midterm voters, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be willing to support paying more health care.
In truth, that's just one more sign that voters might be more open to Biden's candidacy, since he's the most obvious inheritor of said legacy.
Maybe Sanders can convince voters (and Congress) that his plan is better than the ACA, but that remains to be seen, especially given the associated costs.
Regardless, I personally won't assume that voters will necessarily be motivated by the same issues during a national election against Trump.
----
[B]"The midterm elections cemented Obamacare's legacy and showed Democrats can actually win on healthcare"
[/B][I]
"Just two years after the future of the law was seriously in doubt, the results of Tuesday night's midterm elections solidified Obamacare's standing as the law of the land and showed that many aspects of the landmark healthcare law are getting more popular.
Democrats ran hard on the preservation of key aspects of the Affordable Care Act, a choice that many in the party credit for their House victory. A handful of states also voted to expand their Medicaid programs under Obamacare.
With Democrats regaining control of the House, the GOP push to repeal and replace Obamacare is buried for the time being. If you ask Democrats, the prospect of another shot at repeal helped propel the party to victory.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, widely assumed to be the next speaker of the House, pointed directly to healthcare as the key to the party's path to the majority.
"It's about stopping the GOP and Mitch McConnell's assault on Medicare, Medicaid, affordable health care, and millions of Americans living with pre-existing medical conditions," Pelosi said during a victory speech, referring to the Senate majority leader.
Healthcare ranked as the top issue for voters in exit polling, and Americans generally trusted Democrats more than Republicans. According to an exit poll of 75 competitive, GOP-held districts by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, 52% of people said they trusted Democrats more on healthcare, compared to just 44% who trusted the GOP more.
The switch represents a huge change from the 2010 and 2014 midterms, when Republicans hammered Democrats on the ACA and healthcare in general."
[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/2018-midterm-election-results-obamacare-healthcare-big-winner-2018-11[/url][/I]
-
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;4801838]Not ignoring it at all.
Just asking for any data that proves they will show up to vote those policies into effect.
[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]
Protecting the ACA is what motivated many 2018 midterm voters, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be willing to support paying more health care.[/COLOR][/B]
In truth, that's just one more sign that voters might be more open to Biden's candidacy, since he's the most obvious inheritor of said legacy.
Maybe Sanders can convince voters (and Congress) that his plan is better than the ACA, but that remains to be seen, especially given the associated costs.
Regardless, I personally won't assume that voters will necessarily be motivated by the same issues during the 2020 election.
----
[B]"The midterm elections cemented Obamacare's legacy and showed Democrats can actually win on healthcare"
[/B][I]
"Just two years after the future of the law was seriously in doubt, the results of Tuesday night's midterm elections solidified Obamacare's standing as the law of the land and showed that many aspects of the landmark healthcare law are getting more popular.
Democrats ran hard on the preservation of key aspects of the Affordable Care Act, a choice that many in the party credit for their House victory. A handful of states also voted to expand their Medicaid programs under Obamacare.
With Democrats regaining control of the House, the GOP push to repeal and replace Obamacare is buried for the time being. If you ask Democrats, the prospect of another shot at repeal helped propel the party to victory.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, widely assumed to be the next speaker of the House, pointed directly to healthcare as the key to the party's path to the majority.
"It's about stopping the GOP and Mitch McConnell's assault on Medicare, Medicaid, affordable health care, and millions of Americans living with pre-existing medical conditions," Pelosi said during a victory speech, referring to the Senate majority leader.
Healthcare ranked as the top issue for voters in exit polling, and Americans generally trusted Democrats more than Republicans. According to an exit poll of 75 competitive, GOP-held districts by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, 52% of people said they trusted Democrats more on healthcare, compared to just 44% who trusted the GOP more.
The switch represents a huge change from the 2010 and 2014 midterms, when Republicans hammered Democrats on the ACA and healthcare in general."
[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/2018-midterm-election-results-obamacare-healthcare-big-winner-2018-11[/url][/I][/QUOTE]
To go back to this...
[URL="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll"]https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412552-majority-of-republicans-say-the-support-medicare-for-all-poll[/URL]
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=5]Majority of Republicans supports 'Medicare for all,' poll finds [/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]However, other polling has shown that the increased attention on "Medicare for all" could be peeling away senior citizens' support of Republicans in the midterms.
A Morning Consult survey released last week found that 52 percent of voters whose top issues are Medicare and Social Security said they would vote for a Democrat in the midterms.[/B][/QUOTE]
It seems like you might be ruling an obvious possibility out.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4801850]It seems like you might be ruling an obvious possibility out.[/QUOTE]
And it seems like you still have tunnel vision, so you're not listening to what I'm saying.
The phrase you highlighted and the link provided refers to the ACA -- not Medicare for all.
It's possible that Sanders can win on running for Medicare for all, but it's even more likely that voters won't want to pay more and/or raise taxes for health care.
If anything, Biden is the better choice in that respect because people associate him with Obama and the ACA, which they are already familiar with.
Sanders brings into play a lot of unknowns, especially since Medicaire for all is only one of the social programs that he is trying to sell to the public.
People might be open to expanding the ACA but still not support the New Green Deal, free college for all or any of his other (expensive) proposals.
This isn't even anything to be argued -- it's something that will have to play out in the voting booth.
I'll add that I personally think the recent record turnout was more about Trump than healthcare, but that's just my opinion.
-
“Bernie has been a big supporter of the LGBT movement all along and a big supporter of me. Joe Rogan is of course distasteful but he has seven-plus million followers ... I’m willing to make deals with the devil in order to defeat Donald Trump.”
- Christine Hallquist, the first openly transgender gubernatorial nominee of a major party
Of course, as we know, the Devil always comes out the winner in those deals. Maybe not the best comparison to make...
-
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;4801871]And it seems like you still have tunnel vision, so you're not listening to what I'm saying.
The phrase you highlighted and the link provided refers to the ACA -- not Medicare for all.
It's possible that Sanders can win on running for Medicare for all, but it's even more likely that voters won't want to pay more and/or raise taxes for health care.
If anything, Biden is the better choice in that respect because people associate him with Obama and the ACA, which they are already familiar with.
Sanders brings into play a lot of unknowns, especially since Medicaire for all is only one of the social programs that he is trying to sell to the public.
People might be open to expanding the ACA but still not support the New Green Deal, free college for all or any of his other (expensive) proposals.
This isn't even anything to be argued -- it's something that will have to play out in the voting booth.
[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]
I'll add that I personally think the recent record turnout was more about Trump than healthcare, but that's just my opinion.[/COLOR][/B][/QUOTE]
That's fair enough.
That said, I think that we could easily go a step further and ask "What About Trump?"
It's not exactly unfathomable that folks who had voted for him looking for the "Better" healthcare program he was selling could be weighing their options.
Can't really prove it, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;4801891]That's fair enough.
That said, I think that we could easily go a step further and ask "What About Trump?"
It's not exactly unfathomable that folks who had voted for him looking for the "Better" healthcare program he was selling could be weighing their options.
Can't really prove it, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable possibility.[/QUOTE]
I think voters showed up as a protest to Trump but when asked what they cared most about, health care topped the list.
With that in mind, I don't know Medicare would be the driving force behind winning the presidential election, but we'll see whether Sanders can sell it as such.
I'm wary of sudden shifts like this regardless since hot button issues can change with every election.
If voters stay consistent in that regard over a few elections, and continue to show up for midterms, then I'll accept that their support for said issue is solid.
-
[QUOTE=Rosa Luxemburg;4801499]The reaction to the Bernie/Rogan fiasco is a clear example of how fucked US politics are.
The Americans voting today have spent years, if not decades, voting for and supporting war criminals. The politicians they favor and see as moral actors, support an apartheid state, and run countries around the world into the ground. They pal around with war criminals, and have them campaigning for them, but all of that is normal.
George W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, or Madeleine Albright endorsing one of the Democrats running would cause less backlash from liberals in the country than Joe Rogan. Obama or Hillary endorsing a candidate would be business as usual, no one would bat an eye.
Looking at what's supposed to be hard hitting criticism of Sanders in this forum and twitter liberals, it ranges from the complete nonsense to a lack of priorities. People will spend more time hanging this over Sander's head than him voting in favor of bombing Kosovo, voting for the AUMF, or his decision to continue drone killings if he were to become President.
People should scrutinize Sanders for him sharing Rogan's comments about him, but it's sickening to see people view this as a bridge too far and position themselves as morally superior as they accept or even fawn over support from people with so much blood on their hands.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe we do not have the privilege of those tolerating the move.
-
[QUOTE=KNIGHT OF THE LAKE;4801513]Spoiler: they didn’t like him anyways so of course they were going to make a big deal about this. Every single one of them is on record excusing worse from their preferred candidate. Just take them with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
Spoiler: Paul and I linked to quotes from people on twitter who used to actively donate to the Sanders campaign and say nice things about him after the debate who "make a big deal" out of this and have rescinded their support. Stop lying that this is just something everybody uses to fuel their existing Bernie hate.
-
[QUOTE=zinderel;4801889]“Bernie has been a big supporter of the LGBT movement all along and a big supporter of me. Joe Rogan is of course distasteful but he has seven-plus million followers ... I’m willing to make deals with the devil in order to defeat Donald Trump.”
- Christine Hallquist, the first openly transgender gubernatorial nominee of a major party
Of course, as we know, the Devil always comes out the winner in those deals. Maybe not the best comparison to make...[/QUOTE]
I liked this look at Sanders' and Biden's records on LGBTQ issues. Yes, Biden voted for DOMA in a very different era. But he did get behind marriage equality much sooner than many others, and did so when it could have cost him and Obama re-election.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/4f8ZSXE.jpg[/img]
-
[QUOTE=Billy Batson;4801305][B][I]Feel the Bern:
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/us/politics/democratic-iowa-poll-sanders.html[/url]
[IMG]https://i.redd.it/c83mxxc5fwc41.png[/IMG][/I][/B][/QUOTE]
As this is a caucus, it will be interesting to see how the votes distribute in the second round. Need 15% to make it. If Warren misses that, Sanders probably gets many of her votes in the second round. Klobuchar's share goes to Biden largely. Steyer, who knows. Yang supporters torch the place and go home.
-
[QUOTE=SquirrelMan;4801930]I liked this look at Sanders' and Biden's records on LGBTQ issues. Yes, Biden voted for DOMA in a very different era. But he did get behind marriage equality much sooner than many others, and did so when it could have cost him and Obama re-election.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/4f8ZSXE.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Yeah. To ignore that and claim that Bernie has ‘always’ been a supporter is...problematic. Odds are, he was just playing it safe professionally, while personally holding a different view, but...that doesn’t really do anything for anyone, does it?
Especially not when he could have made a clear statement by, I dunno...vocally supporting Vermont’s 2009 legalization, when it really could have used his help to be less close than it was...?