The NYT is working on a story about the brave feminist oil pumps who are fighting for freedom and democracy as we speak.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
There are a lot of Democrats who don't want Single-Payer. It's not just a compromise or pragmatism.
If you could wave a magic wand and Warren could get Single-Payer done, they would vote for someone else.
It's about maintaining their position and advantage over others versus needing to actually use whatever the public option ends up being.
Many of the influential democratic pundits are happier with segregated healthcare.
If you could wave a magic wand and Warren could get Single-Payer done, they would vote for someone else.
It's about maintaining their position and advantage over others versus needing to actually use whatever the public option ends up being.
Many of the influential democratic pundits are happier with segregated healthcare.
Would you extend this argument to nationalizing the entire healthcare system, not just the payment side of it?
That's not what I said at all.
Passing immigration reform should be its own fight. It should be the thing we do regardless of whether or not it's going to make your medicare 4 all numbers work. I don't care if immigration reform adds to medicare costs: get the kids out of fucking cages.
Well, I'm completely opposed to nationalizing healthcare delivery. It sets up an abusive relationship between doctors and patients, which has disproportionate impacts on minorities and LGBTQ people.
Warren and her team know this plan doesn't work.
It's not some oopsy.
No one's plan is paid for. The goal is to shift the overton window. The right has been proposing batshit insane policies for decades and then "compromising" somewhere just south of "fuck the poors."
The end game here is for a public option. If we start at M4A then that leaves a lot of room to "compromise".
I also don't get the worry that moderators are going to get into taxation weeds on a debate stage. They'll ask dumbass questions like "will middle class people see a tax increase?" and "Do you hate Senator Sanders now that you've changed his plan?".
The really puzzling thing to me is that you already know all this.
The thing is, "ACA + public option" is already an easy sell to most of the incumbent Dem senators.
I will never agree with this notion of "start furthest left possible so you can negotiate down to a more left compromise," it greatly underestimates each senators' autonomy and leverage to kill a bill they don't like. Total hypothetical, but if there's a 50-50 Senate, and you have 49 votes for single-payer, and 49 votes for a public option, and Joe Manchin doesn't want either of them, you're stuck. You need his vote, it's not like the leadership at that point could just be like "well screw you, we'll pass single-payer then" as a gambit to get Manchin to cave on a public option, because you can't pass the single-payer bill either. It's an empty threat. Schumer would know it, Bernie would know it, Manchin would know it, everyone would know it. In fact, given the political dynamics of his state, Manchin would probably look like a hero to his constituents for "standing up" to the president.
This is also why the strategy floated in 2010 after Brown won the Mass Senate seat of breaking the ACA up into smaller components to be passed individually was stupid AF, along with basically any other "start over" alternative suggested after the bill had passed both the House and Senate. All roads lead to "this needs 60 votes to pass." After Democrats lost the 60 votes, anything else was impossible. The House taking the Senate bill as-is and making tweaks in reconciliation was literally their only option. (besides nuking the filibuster)
If you want Manchin (or literally anyone else, again, hypothetical) to come around to a public option or single-payer bill he's not necessarily on board with as-is, successful negotiation would need to sweeten the deal for him, not bully him into coming around (because, I reiterate, you can't credibly do that). The Cornhusker Kickback in the original ACA was incredibly shady politicking, but guess what? It worked. The bill probably wouldn't have passed without it.
(btw all of this applies at least a hundredfold when talking about getting Republican senators or congressmen to support something. No, Obama being tougher on the Republicans - after 2010 anyway - would never have worked. Defying Obama always endeared themselves to their base)
Like, I think whenever this comes up people are getting ahead of themselves. Sanders and Warren didn't propose M4A while secretly hoping it gets whittled down to a public option. M4A is what they want. Ditto for Biden's plan. Obama ran on getting the ACA passed with the public option, and the public option ended up being the only major concession. Biden's coming in with "well I want the public option too," when the ACA is already the status quo. There's not really a middleground option there.
Something to look forward to
Monday morning: Times/Siena results for Biden/Warren/Sanders v. Trump in the six closest states carried by the president in 2016: Mich., Penn., Wisc., Fla., Ariz. and N.C
"No one's plan is paid for" is a really reductive way to look at this. I mean, yes I know this (we all know this), but clearly it's not that simple or she would have put out a plan months ago.
Some candidates have put more effort into making feasible plans than others. I get the politics of Warren's strategy here. But, not gonna lie, I was expecting her plan to be a little more approachable than this.
Very interested to see these numbers. Siena has supplanted Monmouth as the highest-rated pollster on 538.
Everyone just need to inherit huge wealth. Then healthcare isn't an issue. From Wikipedia:
Donny Deutsch joined his father's advertising firm, David Deutsch Associates, in 1983 [at age 25]. In 1989, David Deutsch handed full control of the agency to Donny Deutsch, who became chairman. Deutsch renamed the agency Deutsch Inc. and later sold it to the Interpublic Group of Companies in 2000 for $265 million.
IIRC they've been releasing impeachment results from these polls, and it seemed fairly typical in terms of the inquiry being popular, but the question of removing Trump being underwater. Hopefully we get head-to-head numbers closer to the former.
It's been a while since it's come up, so who knows what the whip count would be like today, but it does seem like the public option wouldn't face too much resistance within the party.
It's literally impossible for it to be.
We can't pay for it without a radical restructuring of the healthcare system, the government, and revenue.
I want M4A. Full stop. The change required to get there is going to take boomers dying off just to start. Then slowly, over a decade or two, government institutions dealing with healthcare will gain strength, wisdom, and legitimacy.
It's a hard spot for Warren. She knows she has to call for the end goal now, but also knows she has to "pay for it". Because unlike Sanders, she actually has a chance of facing the electorate in the general.
I think her team has done the best they can here. If she flipped to the public option, progressives would be livid. If she continued to say she couldn't pay for it, it would be an albatross in the general.
This way, she gets to say middle class taxes won't go up and doesn't have to fend off "flip-flopped" attacks.
Yeah, problem with that and everything else about Trump's campaign was it was just another point where the media could go "hahahaha, that wacky Trump! anyway let's talk more about Clinton's emails"
There is no Lieberman equivalent in the Senate atm so I think it's safe to say that the votes favor a public option.
Now, here's the problem with Manchin being the last vote. He is very against nuking the filibuster and would probably be just as against overriding the parliamentarian, so....
"Candidate Trump mocked a disabled person today, the silly boy.
In other news, did the devil witch Killary acid wash children in the basement of a pizza parlor? We'll let our panel discuss when we come back."
Public option could probably pass reconciliation as-is, though. Same with lowering the age of Medicare, which I suspect would be another key component to the next big healthcare bill.
Utah would require the Democratic nominee not being super hated, Trump still being super hated, and a credible, conservative third party challenger to steal votes from him. Even then, I'm not sure it would be enough.
Alaska and Montana could go next, small populations make them easier to swing. Missouri and Indiana are occasionally brought up - both were close in 08, Obama even won Indiana then, but I think they're too far gone.
South Carolina has always been my underrated pick for next red state to turn purple. It was Clinton's 31st best state in terms of percentage. Like other southern states, it's got a high floor for any Democratic candidate due to the large black population, but a low ceiling as the white majority is significantly more lockstep Republican than say, Midwestern whites.
Obama also held both of the Dakotas under ten points in 2008, randomly, but given that he only lost West Virginia by 13 points that year, probably not super fertile territory for any future Democrat.
Is the fatigue so high there is no memo release thread?
Abusing natsec for personal gain smh.
This is part of why Flynn's judge was incredulous at Flynn *wanting* to be sentenced.
Obama would have been impeached, removed, and prosecuted for shit like this.
Good lord these dumb white men think they are smart because they failed up. And somehow Flynn Jr. is even dumber than Flynn. The best genes, I tell you. Somebody make a fucking thread I have the flu and need more sleep.
Abusing natsec for personal gain smh.
This is part of why Flynn's judge was incredulous at Flynn *wanting* to be sentenced.
Obama would have been impeached, removed, and prosecuted for shit like this.
Good lord these dumb white men think they are smart because they failed up. And somehow Flynn Jr. is even dumber than Flynn. The best genes, I tell you. Somebody make a fucking thread I have the flu and need more sleep.
It's annoying, but I still don't want less push back, if anything there should be even more scrutiny. There should be tons more increased on the Republican side especially
I don't think a ton of states will flip. PA, WI, MI flipping back + one more (NC? AZ?) seems most likely to me.
Big old-school blowouts can never happen in the era of hyperpolarization.
Big old-school blowouts can never happen in the era of hyperpolarization.
Well if you look at the reasons why those particular states have the potential for flipping, it comes down to all of them having major metropolitan areas. There was that one article in... the Atlantic(I think) a few months ago looking at state trends and how the rust belt/iowa are trending gop due to urban decline while AZ and Texas have these large growing metropolis' and the argument certainly has merit to it if you look at the trends. That being said, maybe Montana or Idaho? Boise is becoming quite the tech hub while Montana seems less partisan than most states up there.
You were just twisting in the air saying Warren's plan isn't feasible because we have to pass immigration reform. Why can't getting kids out of cages and making them citizens be connected for her overall message? Bakari-level talking points.
PA is not going for Trump again. I can tell you that much.
it is a fluke. Just like IN was to Obama in 08
PA and MI are flipping back, I don't really have any doubt there. WI is the wildcard.
As Aaron said, above water on the inquiry itself, below water on removal.
Hillary's map + MI is our bare minimum. PA also had a huge snapback at the state level last year, but people are a little hesitant about it because Hillary hit her marks in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas and still lost. I'd still say it's favored to return to us, though.
As you say, everything will come down to the third state.
I don't think Warren's plan is very feasible for a whole host of reasons.
This continued harping on what I must think about immigration reform is...weird. I'm not giving Warren a cookie here. Who is the damn Democrat on that stage who isn't for immigration reform? Immigration reform is a part of her overall message because it had better fucking be.
Well no, you're never going to see like, a Reagan-esque landslide anytime soon.
On the flip side, the Democrats carrying all the Clinton states, WI, MI, PA, AZ, NC and FL? That's literally just a rerun of the Obama 2012 map, only trading IA and OH for NC and AZ. That's still in the upper range for how I might expect a Democrat to perform, but it's very plausible.
Add IA, TX, GA and OH to that and that's probably the max for any Dem nominee next year.
I think people are focusing on that part of your post because it's odd that you act like Warren pointing out that if we pass immigration reform, that will expand the tax base and bring in more taxable revenue to fund M4A is somehow one of the most fantastical elements.
Compared to almost every other part of her proposal, it's one of its most grounded components. The obvious question you raised is, so you don't think we're going to pass immigration reform? So then why are all these other Democrats running on it?
Did anyone listen to the two part Dollop episode on Ronald Reagan with Patton Oswalt? It was fucking phenomenal. I had some inkling of how bad his presidency was, but wasn't expecting the same kind of rampant criminality of the Trump administration, along with the incompetence and mental decline... and holy shit at Nancy Reagan running every decision past her astrologer. Shit was nuts!
But this is her using stick house policy to pivot to brick house politics.
The entire reason it's in there is so that when people ask her about it, she can give her immigration stump.
This paragraph is somewhere in the middle of the plan. It's the amount she forecasts the feds would have to spend.
(Re: reading/searching policy papers on the weekend. For real. I need to go outside.)
It's a challenging, difficult plan. It means upheaval. Even as a Warren supporter, the scope of this, seeing it written out like a spell that might one day invoke it into being real: it's a little scary, because change is scary. Even though I support it, I feel intimidated and humbled by the obstacles that lie before it. So I can understand how a lot of people's reaction to a proposal like this will be: "hold up. say what now? let's take a minute." That's why I think it's good people talk about this plan. That we (the voters) slide past the shock, familiarize ourselves with what it says, and understand the aspirations and outcomes of going down this road. Some will reject it. And others will take hold of their nerves about what this means, and get on board for this crazy big vision for change.
As for how she'll pay for the other stuff. Even before this plan, Warren proposed a wealth tax - the 2 cents for every million in excess of a person's first $50 million. That wealth tax would cover: student loan forgiveness, child care, and free college tuition at state schools.
It's a separate tax with different allocations from the revenue raising measures she proposes in the M4A plan.
My suspicion is that the Dem nominee will end up in the 240-300 EV range and won't get as high as Obama 2012 (332). But we'll see!
I mean, yeah. Hillary got 232. Just winning MI, which I think we're pretty much guaranteed to win, gets us to 248.
Not for nothing, but Yang is really off on immigration. I even have doubts on Tulsi.
This is why the Green New Deal resonates, I think.
Almost everything is in there in some form.
The standards to which the Democrats are held to isn't even in the same stratosphere as Trump. Trump's standard is "please don't publicly humiliate the US today for once."
Aaron Noted on your post. I don't disagree with most of what is said and I agree that this is so far ahead into the future that it's not really our place to discuss the minutia of political leverage among congress.
Last edited:
- Status