All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

...

Put simply, despite his policies, Sanders lost by millions of votes on the "left".

Versus Biden having previously won the nomination when?

If he hasn't won it, how did he place once the nomination was won by someone else?

[aja_christopher]

If the following reflects actual reality, we cannot assume that your "Layup..." is actually what you say it is.

Since when did you start "reflecting reality"?

Let's see Sanders win the election instead of polls and then pay for his policies -- that's reality.

[numberthirty]

Since when did you start "reflecting reality"?

Let's see Sanders win the election instead of polls and then pay for his policies -- that's reality.

Anyone could say the exact same thing about Biden.

Meanwhile, Sanders came from outside of the party and was competitive in running for it's nomination.

The last time Biden ran for the nomination of his own party? The party that he has all of these accomplishments in... How well did he do?

Not saying Biden is a complete dud. Just saying that it doesn't make a lot of sense not to ask the same questions about Biden that you insist on asking about Sanders.

[aja_christopher]

Anyone could say the exact same thing about Biden.

You should say the exact same thing about Biden -- he's not a sure thing either.

But given the fact that I've been shown no real proof that Sanders' policies -- unlike Obama's -- can win a general election, I'll go with the odds.

Just to be clear, I know you can still miss a layup and with this economy it will be an uphill battle, regardless of the nominee.

[zinderel]

On the 'will the public accept raised taxes for Medicare for All question', I think it depends on the spin really.

The big thing about this is while taxes will undoubtedly go up, if you can sell the US populace on the fact that they pay more for their current premiums than they would on taxes for medicare for all, it might be doable. But it definitely requires the Dems taking the Senate and maintaining the house to even have a shot in hell.

In order to get the public to accept a raise in taxes in order to pay for Medicare for All, we first have to combat the stigma that taxes are ‘bad’, when in reality, they’re basically membership dues you pay to get the benefits of living here. Part of clearing that stigma might be more transparency - and, dare I say it, choice...? - as to where those tax dollars are allotted. Also, increased revenue from the wealthy actually being required to pay their share, and possibly (hopefully) taxing religious organizations which cross the line between church and state would help reduce the tax burden on the average citizen.

Our elected officials are too blatantly corrupt to trust to represent us effectively anymore. No one really has faith in them, especially they other guys, so maybe putting some control back into the hands of the people is better? I mean, the wealthy elite are a tiny fraction of a fraction of the populace controlling the vast majority of wealth and resources and doing NOTHING with it but hoarding, and I strongly doubt that there are more white supremacists out there than there are normal people. I would wager there are a LOT of people who would happily direct larger allotments of their tax burden away from the military industrialist complex or corporate welfare if it meant that their kid’s school got better funding, or less people died of preventable illnesses. And since our politicians and ‘representatives’ are largely no longer actually representing the citizenry as much as they represent the corporate and financial elites, stripping them of the power to control where our tax money goes might be beneficial to us all...

[numberthirty]

Along that line...

The idea that a for-profit insurance policy that you pay simply to have potential access to care that the company might still deny is not just as much of a tax as one that government takes out of paycheck is on pretty shaky ground.

If you give folks a choice between a tax that will actually get you medical care versus something like a protection racket that might still essentially deny you medical care, I tend to doubt that most folks would choose the option that is closer to a protection racket.

[aja_christopher]

A spark of character, but as always, I'll believe it when I see it.

-----
"Romney: 'It's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses' in Trump impeachment trial"

"Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R) said Saturday that it is “very likely” he will be in favor of calling witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump.

However, the GOP lawmaker said he will hold off on making his final decision until after Democratic impeachment managers and the president’s defense lawyers conclude their opening arguments.

"I think it's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses, but I haven't made a decision finally yet and I won't until the testimony is completed," the Utah Republican said Saturday after the first day of the Trump team’s opening arguments, CNN reported."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...mp-impeachment

[Tendrin]

A spark of character, but as always, I'll believe it when I see it.

-----
"Romney: 'It's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses' in Trump impeachment trial"

"Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R) said Saturday that it is “very likely” he will be in favor of calling witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump.

However, the GOP lawmaker said he will hold off on making his final decision until after Democratic impeachment managers and the president’s defense lawyers conclude their opening arguments.

"I think it's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses, but I haven't made a decision finally yet and I won't until the testimony is completed," the Utah Republican said Saturday after the first day of the Trump team’s opening arguments, CNN reported."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...mp-impeachment

Yeah, but *which* witnesses?

Romney keeps trying to act the decent and then crawling right away from it afterwards.

[Theleviathan]

Along that line...

The idea that a for-profit insurance policy that you pay simply to have potential access to care that the company might still deny is not just as much of a tax as one that government takes out of paycheck is on pretty shaky ground.

If you give folks a choice between a tax that will actually get you medical care versus something like a protection racket that might still essentially deny you medical care, I tend to doubt that most folks would choose the option that is closer to a protection racket.

People vote emotionally more than they do rationally. What I'm about to state is a fact. It in no way is a claim that Democrats shouldn't do something. It's in no way an attack on any one person running. It's a statement of fact and the challenge it presents. You digest that? Not going to go Knight on me and blubber out something nonsense? Ok...let's proceed:

The devil is in the details. Yes, people like the Medicare for All tag. They show support for it. But once you dig down a little bit? Well, then it gets a little dicey. This is admittedly hyperbolic, but it's like saying "People support lower property taxes!" but you fail to acknowledge that you're lowering their property taxes because your kids will forage for school lunches in the forest and learn out of a shack constructed by cardboard boxes. Of course people like the over-arching tag, but dig a little deeper and things aren't so rosey.

It is a challenge for anyone proposing Medicare for All that many voters (irrationally IMO) fear the word taxes enough that they won't see the personal benefit for them. Or their beliefs about government incompetence stop them from even considering it. They don't want to be booted off their insurance (even though it happens all the time). It's stupid. It's irrational. Nevertheless it IS a thing. It will be a challenge. And it could well cost anyone running the Presidency if they platform on it. Obamacare was unquestionably better than what came before it and the Republicans still managed to bludgeon Dems with it for years. If running uncontested I believe a Democrat could sell people on it. I think Bernie has made strong arguments to cut through the irrationality.

But voters vote on emotion. And under the surface of that poll support is emotion that is far more muddled.

[Celgress]

I want to see Trump v. Bernie I really want to see it for my own selfish reasons. As a sociologist, I am morbidly curious to see what happens when two extremists with cults of personality face each other in a national election. There are scores of committed cultists who claim they will literally die for Trump or Sanders.

[zinderel]

History professor and former Marine John J. Viall compiler a pretty comprehensive list of reasons to vote for anyone but Trump.

I Am not Ashamed: I Consider Trump a Menace

[numberthirty]

People vote emotionally more than they do rationally. What I'm about to state is a fact. It in no way is a claim that Democrats shouldn't do something. It's in no way an attack on any one person running. It's a statement of fact and the challenge it presents. You digest that? Not going to go Knight on me and blubber out something nonsense? Ok...let's proceed:

The devil is in the details. Yes, people like the Medicare for All tag. They show support for it. But once you dig down a little bit? Well, then it gets a little dicey. This is admittedly hyperbolic, but it's like saying "People support lower property taxes!" but you fail to acknowledge that you're lowering their property taxes because your kids will forage for school lunches in the forest and learn out of a shack constructed by cardboard boxes. Of course people like the over-arching tag, but dig a little deeper and things aren't so rosey.

It is a challenge for anyone proposing Medicare for All that many voters (irrationally IMO) fear the word taxes enough that they won't see the personal benefit for them. Or their beliefs about government incompetence stop them from even considering it. They don't want to be booted off their insurance (even though it happens all the time). It's stupid. It's irrational. Nevertheless it IS a thing. It will be a challenge. And it could well cost anyone running the Presidency if they platform on it. Obamacare was unquestionably better than what came before it and the Republicans still managed to bludgeon Dems with it for years. If running uncontested I believe a Democrat could sell people on it. I think Bernie has made strong arguments to cut through the irrationality.

But voters vote on emotion. And under the surface of that poll support is emotion that is far more muddled.

Here is the problem with the entire way you just laid that out...

It hinges on that is is muddled because folks will vote based on emotion while not even taking a single line to think out loud about what the emotional reaction of anyone who has ever had to use a garbage for-profit insurance policy was.

It's putting a bunch of weight on one side of a scale while ignoring that the other side even exists.

[aja_christopher]

People vote emotionally more than they do rationally. What I'm about to state is a fact. It in no way is a claim that Democrats shouldn't do something. It's in no way an attack on any one person running. It's a statement of fact and the challenge it presents.

That's basically it.

It's not that Sanders has bad ideas that won't work -- it's that you shouldn't overestimate the American voting public with regards to understanding his vision.

[zinderel]

I want to see Trump v. Bernie I really want to see it for my own selfish reasons. As a sociologist, I am morbidly curious to see what happens when two extremists with cults of personality face each other in a national election. There are scores of committed cultists who claim they will literally die for Trump or Sanders.

Yeah. The little inner Nero in me want to fiddle while the world burns around that battle. I won’t lie.

[Theleviathan]

Here is the problem with the entire way you just laid that out...

It hinges on that is is muddled because folks will vote based on emotion while not even taking a single line to think out loud about what the emotional reaction of anyone who has ever had to use a garbage for-profit insurance policy was.

It's putting a bunch of weight on one side of a scale while ignoring that the other side even exists.

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.

I don’t ignore that there are rational voters. 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.