Maybe? But your post is still a whataboutism. If you want to bring up issues around Harris, why not just make a thread rather than using them to deflect?
NYT: For Bernie Sanders, Holding Onto Support May Be Hard in a 2020 Bid
- Thread starter Kirblar
- Start date
First, let me apologize for the assumptions I made. There's just been a common line with Bernie supporters on this forum where they basically place Obama as a neoliberal centrist/buzzword of the day that basically means "unacceptable" for them. And I'd much prefer if talks about the nitty-gritty of candidate's policy positions were more like this post, because then there'd be a conversation to be had.
First, for rural areas I do agree they're dying because the type of service economy that's been built up does not favor rural areas. I disagree that the average "city"(The majority don't deserve the name) in a place like Florida would be better off with a $15 minimum wage. A $15 minimum wage would be the equivalent of $31,200 a year full time. Some of those "cities" in florida have a median personal wage of 25-30k, but because of cost of living, that's a solidly middle class income. On the other hand, in a place like New York, you'd be all but living on the street making $15 an hour. Which is why it doesn't make any sense for $15 to be the target for the entire nation.
And, let me just say, I voted for Gillum in Florida despite the fact that I find his goal of making the state's minimum wage $15 unreasonable.
I dunno. How do you feel about Trump's supreme court picks? And, please, do look at the next post I quoted.
That's actually pretty hilarious. Some of those aren't even about Bernie and even the ones that are most of them are neutral to positive. The persecution complex is real.
I feel like the Biden talk hasn't really ramped up because A) it's a candidate most on here can agree needs to fuck off so there's no traditional dems vs. progressive dems proxy war between candidates and B) maybe this is a misread on my part but I don't think he stands a chance in the current climate during a competitive primary.
it is funny to see both Beto and Bernie supporters be like "why are yall focusing on Bernie/Beto? Biden's right there and he sucks way worse!"
if Biden runs expect a lot of criticism, especially if he does well
it is funny to see both Beto and Bernie supporters be like "why are yall focusing on Bernie/Beto? Biden's right there and he sucks way worse!"
if Biden runs expect a lot of criticism, especially if he does well
Not sure about you but in my timeline Trump has already appointed two anti-choice conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Yep, and if he isn't modifying his platform it will be well-deserved.
I still don't believe he's running though
OP
OP
There was an excellent article on Politico at some point in the past week using Biden as kind of a clickbait headliner to get into a much more mundane story of how busing was absurdly unpopular and became politically toxic. Which is probably why it didn't get posted up, because it was very interesting background on a failed attempted policy to combat inequality in public schools, but not really not specifically about Biden other than him reading the room as the public soured on it.
Probably right. Just my general impressions from the bernie threads we get here in addition to those post plus the ostensible lack of biden threads. I hope youre right and agree with you fully about him as a pick.
Oddly enough you're forgetting that both Sanders and Biden are the most "known" quantity politicians which is probably the biggest reasoning behind they rank so high.
There's plenty of ammo that will tank Biden, we still have a WHILE until we know who our main lead is. Biden making it in the front would pretty much come down to "He was Obama's VP".
My point is, in 2016 we were told that if we didn't support hilary clinton we would have a conservative court and all hell would break loose. Bernie supporters such as myself were mocked and ridiculed for daring to support someone we truly believed in. However, bernie supporters in the end voted for hilary (even me) and we still lost. And guess what? That conservative majority in the court was brought to us because hillary neglected to camping in the rust belt. She lost the most winnable election in history. SO now the same people that told us how easy hillary would beat trump want to tell us that those of us that are skeptical of more centrists are hurting the party because we actually want someone more in line with leftism. Fam, the more you guys want to smear bernies supporters, the more i want to vote for him. I'm sure others feel the same way. DO i think he can win? Maybe, but id rather vote for someone that i believe in than another centrist i don't.
I think Era (generally) thinks Biden is trash, but there's this weird complacency that even if he ran (which thankfully, its looking less likely) he would fail in the primaries.
I think the average voter in America won't understand how awful a Biden presidency would be, and would likely form their opinion off of the "Uncle Joe" persona he built from his Vice Presidency, and all those wacky memes he's in. I think people underestimate how little research will go into undressing all his problems before its far too late.
But yes, hopefully he ends up not running. He needs to stay out of this.
Its not that I dont agree with this, its just that Biden should be priority one of keeping off the ticket, especially compared to Bernie imo.
Neither Biden or Bernie should run. Anyone who wants someone who will be nearly 80 when taking the oath of office is downright crazy. Biden is obviously more electable than Bernie in a general election but he should not run.
I'll extend an olive branch to the "people more progressive than someone who actively wants to burn the capitol to the ground and show these monsters what justice means" side and give you Beto/Harris or Harris/Beto.
That's as far as it goes.
That's as far as it goes.
Nah fuck that. Biden is leagues worse than Bernie. If were going to start a discussion about who shouldn't run that effort should be Biden priority 1. Bernie probably isn't even in that conversation for me tbh. Having an actual progressive candidate is better than any of the obama coalition or other moderate dem.
you don't listen to us when we say it ten million times, maybe you'll listen to Noted MSNBC-Show-Haver Chris Hayes?
I really hate this talking point because it lets so many voters off the hook for electing Trump. Trump did not win the presidency only because of some campaigning fuck ups on Hillary's part. He won because a very large segment of the electorate responded to his race-baiting, white nationalist appeals; it was his fucking slogan!
Yes, there's no excuse for Hillary never stopping in Wisconsin (conversely she campaigned hard in PA and iirc lost that state by an even bigger margin than WI, so it's not a 1:1 cause and effect here). But most winnable election? 2000 and 2004 were much closer, and Trump performed better than Bush did - not because Hillary was a worse candidate than Gore or Kerry, but because more Americans wanted what Trump was selling them!
Well good. Voting for the candidates you believe in the most are what primaries are all about. But give me a break with this centrist nonsense. Voting for Bernie Sanders doesn't give you exclusive ownership over progressivism.
Let anyone run in the primaries. Primaries are for picking out the nomination. That being said once we pick a nom as a party we should spirit bomb energy gather that nom instead of staying home in a pile of salt. What's the point in voting in the primaries if you stay home for the vote that actually matters?
While I don't like Bernie as a candidate, I don't know about that anymore. I don't see people crossing over to vote Trump - I see more people leaving than joining.
I could see him winning 2016. 2020 is going to be extremely difficult for him.
He's not taking Michigan or PA again. If NC, GA and Florida would stop cheating, he would not win there either.
Wisconsin is still a toss up, but I think it's going back blue.
Last edited:
It really is. And I absolutely loathe it. Anytime anything is said about him thats not positive its like folks take it so damn hard. Make up this entire "attack" on the guy thats not even real.
What do you want, then? Everyone to line up behind Bernie and lavish nothing but praises for him for he is the one true progressive king? For people to not voice their opinions about whether they think some people's view of centrism is just a surrogate for "whatever they don't like" and is simply a no true Scotsman argument? Cause, as Kirblar proved, there really aren't that many threads on reset that have anything negative to say about Benie. There are literally about 7 including this one.
What other dems have that many negative threads about them, for a point of comparison?
For reference, that's 7 total.
For point of comparison:
Hillary:
https://www.resetera.com/search/166020/?q=hillary&c[title_only]=1&o=date
Not including locked duplicates, the ones that are negative: 7(Of course, literally any positive thread about Hillary went down the shitter in like 3 posts saying she should either speak up or shut up).
Considering that Hillary was not running for office or in elected office(And is probably not running in 2020) during the period this forum has been active, that's quite a lot don't you think?
Also
Beto(Who only really popped up in the national scene... 6 months ago? And everyone was singing high praises for him before he was running for president):
https://www.resetera.com/search/166...nodes]=1&c[nodes][0]=9&c[title_only]=1&o=date
4 negative
Biden:
https://www.resetera.com/search/166065/?q=biden&c[title_only]=1&o=date
3
Harris has none, but she only has like 4 threads total.
Booker:
https://www.resetera.com/search/166075/?q=booker&c[title_only]=1&o=date
One negative thread with like 5 threads total.
Happy?
I want everyone to vote for people who align most to whichever politician's publicly stated policy is, not whatever projection is put on the candidate. I want to vote for someone who has a policy that is consistent with the history of the politician. I don't want someone that switches positions because it is convenient.
People like Warren or Bernie or, to a lesser extent, Brown (until the weird medicare 55 thing) and Abrams have a consistent philosophy. You pretty much know that their stated policy is going to be their presidential policy.
Here's the thing about that: Biden has run for President a lot. He ran in 2008 and lost badly. He ran in 1988 and lost badly. He set up for a run in 2016 and got kneecapped by Obama, his own running mate. He's getting kneecapped by Obama again right now.
The Democratic Party has considered Biden as a presidential candidate more than probably any other living politician. They've passed every single time.
I'm afraid of Biden getting the nomination too, but I also think it's ultimately pretty unlikely. He's had more than his share of chances.
Honestly, polls at this point mean fuck all. Absolutely no one has a solid platform yet. Maybe Bernie would be the closest to us knowing what he's running on as he's pretty consistent, but everyone else hasn't run recently. I guess Biden too for that matter, tho I have a feeling he'll be leaning more left than previously...
but for real
It's really just a poll based on how people feel towards people's names right now.
but for real
It's really just a poll based on how people feel towards people's names right now.
I'm not talking about why someone wants to vote for Bernie. The poster I was quoting earlier in the convo stated that she feels like going Bernie or Bust because people are complaining about Bernie. The "What do you want?" question was more one of: "What do you want from people who don't automatically love Bernie?"
Although I'd argue that the fact of the matter is Bernie, Warren and Brown are bog standard dems. They vote with the party 95+% of the time. I'd personally take Warren over Bernie, but Bernie honestly has a better grasp of manipulating politics and so is more likely to win. I like neither, but I don't really like any of the hopefuls and I don't have nearly as much distaste for Warren as she is more pragmatic on a policy level.
11% of Germany's population has private health insurance, the other 89% are covered under public health insurance managed by the government. Comparatively, 8% of Britons have private health insurance, and I doubt you would find anyone that would deny that the NHS is a single-payer system due to the presence of that 8%.
The idea that Germany's system isn't single payer is laughable. You are not even allowed to buy private health insurance unless you make nearly 3 times the median income. When a single entity (whether it be a government or a private company) is responsible for insuring nearly 90% of the country, that is effectively a single-payer system.
Last edited:
The private health insurance number for britain is supplements on top of the NHS. Germany's system IS multi-payer.
Let's be clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
Germany is strictly defined as a multipayer system. The NHS is strictly defined as a single payer system, as is the Canadian system. Know what your terms mean. Make no mistake, when the government makes medicare for all a multi-payer system, you'll have very similar numbers of publicly insured vs privately insured individuals when things pan out, so all this whining about how multi-payer is some sort of centrist bullshit is nonsense.
Chris Hayes is on-point here. The primaries are our time to pick the candidate who aligns best with our beliefs. A lot of the center-left posters want to skip primaries and just go ahead with the coronation of Beto. Some of these exact same posters wanted us to coronate Hillary in 2016. It didn't benefit our nation then, and it's not going to happen this time around. I love to see TYT and Secular Talk and The Majority Report, among other leftist media, come out swinging on Beto's voting record early and often. As long as they get behind whoever is the eventual nominee in the general election it's healthy discussion at this point.
it is "technically" multi-payer because a small percentage of the affluent population has the ability to opt for private insurance instead, but it is effectively single-payer because the vast, vast majority of the population is covered by a single entity, and thus that entity has the power to dictate terms to healthcare providers (and thus lower costs), as most hospitals and physicians can't really stay in business by catering to just 10% of the population, who are also to likely have lower healthcare utilization rates, as the affluent are typically much healthier on average.
Only if you force the majority of the population to enroll in a public healthcare plan, as Germany does with its income restriction, a very important detail that I have yet to see any "multi-payer" advocate support. Without such a mechanism private insurers and healthcare providers will aggressively collude together to sink any public option by ensuring that its coverage network will be paltry to non-existent. You already see this mechanism in play with medicaid, and to a lesser extent medicare. Health insurance that no doctor or hospital accepts has no value, regardless of how generous its on-paper benefits are.
For starters people here can stop slandering bernie supporters as being "bernie bros" or peddling lies how bernie sanders cost hillary the election. We came out to vote for hillary at 90%. The same can't be said for hillary back in 08. bernie sanders seems to be the only candidate where its acceptable here to attack his supporters. I'm not going to attack people that like kamala harris or whatever centrist candidates people prefer. Lots of people call us "russian bots" and i don't find it acceptable, just because we like a different candidate than you. You have to admit. this forum loves to antagonize anyone that shows support for bernie. The erasure of women and minorities that support bernie is disgusting. yet that is allowed. The worst criticisms of beto are pretty standard stuff. Vetting his record. Oh wow, so horrible!
Many would probably consider the very word "centrist" to be an attack.
So he still has the most negative threads of any dem candidate who will have a serious run? Hmmm
It's not so much that nobody is neutral to positive as it is that there is this visceral LOATHING of Bernie and his fans, like he and they are personally responsible for every ill of Trumpism.
Seriously. And most are mods or at least "prominent users". It is shameless how much political discourse they are willing to bring a forum. Whether it be the old one or this one, they are relentless.
Large swathes of the population will go for it instantly, because a large percentage of people aren't even insured, all you need is a clause that if you don't have private insurance, you're on the government plan automatically. We have a greater percentage of people insured since Obamacare as hobbled as that bill was, and we'd have close to 100% with a medicare for all multi-payer system. The thing with medicare isn't because of health insurance companies, it's because of how medicare negotiates doctor prices down. Doctors get paid 80% of what they'd get with some private insurance companies. And even then it's not impossible to find doctors with medicare. If it's substantially cheaper than private insurance and covers everything, people will flock to it, and thus doctors will be forced to flock to it. If it's not, single payer isn't gonna go over well anyway.
On top of that, while health insurance companies would be lobbying against it, employers would probably prefer NOT having to pay buttloads to insure their employees through company plans. In either case, if you're worrying about health insurance companies having the pull in congress to completely sabotage a multi-payer bill, then there's no chance for a single-payer bill anyway.
Not to mention I have yet to see a single-payer advocate that states who they're going to deal with the dismantling of health insurance companies who account for about 10% of our gdp? Like, you think if your universal healthcare plan causes an instant recession that you'll be able to hold on to power long enough for it not to be repealed?
Slandering Bernie? There's been 7 threads since the founding of this forum that are negative about Bernie and as many about Hillary. And they've been on very very questionable race related matters that he absolutely brought on himself. And, for the record, I have absolutely called out people for calling people russian bots to win an argument. It's as stupid as the constant no true scotsman arguments that come from bernie supporters.
I dislike Beto as much as I dislike Bernie. If it were simply vetting his record, then I'd be all for it, but the shit that's been harped on? Not at all reasonable.
Oh please. You don't think that it's used to separate people who vote on the same bills the same way 92% of the time rather than as an actual political denomination?
Goalposts. Bernie's been a high-profile senator during the entire time the forum has founded and has run in the past and been making signs that he's going to run for the presidency again. Beto's been a nobody running in texas for the majority of this forum's life and only has had his 4 negative threads in the last 2 months.
Not to mention, Hillary has as many without even being on any ticket. Every other candidate is so low profile that they don't even have a quarter page worth of threads in the search, positive or negative.
This has been debunked by a simple title search for Bernie. There have been about 35 Bernie threads, only 7 of which were negative for the entire life of the forum. The exact same amount of negative threads for Hillary exist.
And you're gonna tell me there's no visceral loathing of anyone who doesn't like Bernie? Those establishment neoliberal centrists?
And, honestly, I wouldn't mind Bernie fans so much if they weren't one big no true Scotsman argument in every single solitary thread.
Last edited:
Bernie may not be the answer and I am interested to hear everyone's platform, but let's not pretend there isn't a real schism in the Democratic Party between those who wish to address economic inequality in this country through its many forms and others who wish to protect the current deleterious system.
I hope we have a candidate in the upcoming Presidential Election who is young, won't take money from banks and oil companies, and is willing to push for real reform. I actually hope Beto is this person, but I'm worried we will get another candidate who campaigns on changing the system, ending our illegal wars, and repairing the American Dream only for that person to turn around and bail-out bankers while regular people are foreclosed on, take enormous money from banks to get elected and then go on to rake in speaking engagement money from the people who were supposed to be reigned in by the same reform candidate.
It's a good thing people are asking tough questions and pushing ideas forward, because this will enable the Democrats to put forward a platform the people want and can be energized by.
I hope we have a candidate in the upcoming Presidential Election who is young, won't take money from banks and oil companies, and is willing to push for real reform. I actually hope Beto is this person, but I'm worried we will get another candidate who campaigns on changing the system, ending our illegal wars, and repairing the American Dream only for that person to turn around and bail-out bankers while regular people are foreclosed on, take enormous money from banks to get elected and then go on to rake in speaking engagement money from the people who were supposed to be reigned in by the same reform candidate.
It's a good thing people are asking tough questions and pushing ideas forward, because this will enable the Democrats to put forward a platform the people want and can be energized by.
honestly super ironic how we've got folks complaining about "negative bernie threads" the same week we had no less than three separate signal-boosting threads about david sirota*
also extremely interesting how not a single fuckin' one of them took the Twitter thread in which he blocked me after one innocuous interaction, or his lack of disclosure of the fact that A Certain Candidate endorsed his wife this year, into consideration
You should vote for Joe Manchin to be President then if this is the attitude of the Democratic Party.
A party that shapes its direction based on the most diluted center-right candidate in the Senate is failing.
Real reform is needed in this country and starting the debate to the right of center is pushing this country off-the-rails.
Pragmatism is becoming an excuse to not even try to put forward a policy agenda which offends anyone who makes over 200K a year.
The uninsured rate is 8%. If you think enrolling just that 8% into your hypothetical public option is going to give the government the kind of clout and bargaining power it would need to ensure that most doctors and hospitals would be effectively forced to accept the insurance, you're delusional.
72% of the U.S. population has private insurance, that's a FAR cry from the situation in Germany, which is why any attempt to emulate their system is going to fail without a drastic and compulsory shift of coverage from private to public.
On paper, not in practice. The "official" insured rate in America is 92%, but I guarantee you 92% of Americans are not able to withstand a serious illness or injury without facing severe financial hardship, if not outright insolvency. For someone making $30k a year, $300 a month for an HMO with an $8,000 deductible isn't health insurance, because it doesn't actually mitigate any risk in that scenario. You still go bankrupt if you get sick or hurt.
Exactly, and the same mechanism would occur with your public option. The government would not be able to offer the same absurd level of compensation to providers as private insurance without also passing those outrageous expenses on to the patient via unaffordable premiums and deductibles (just as private insurers do), and if the government did attempt to negotiate prices down to a reasonable level, providers would simply tell them to kick rocks as they would still have the remaining 70%+ of the country that is covered under private insurance to sell their services to.
it doesn't matter what the benefits are if no provider actually accepts it. A person could look at this generous and affordable public option (Lets say monthly premiums capped at 10% of your discretionary income and a $0 deductible just as a hypothetical example), and then they'd check the coverage network and see that the closest physician that takes the insurance is 80 miles away, laugh, and stick to their private plan.
Eh, he should've tried. If I'm being honest about the black community where I live, Bernie's problem wasn't his platform, it's that he didn't get his name out there enough. My folks voted for Clinton in the primary, with some of them straight up saying "If we get Hilary, we'll have Bill back in Office".
There's a little thing here that you're missing. 20% of people are already insured by Medicare/caid. Number would be brought up to 28% with the uninsured. Then you'll have the swathes of the barely insured that you mention in the next quote that will flock to anything better than the shit insurance they're given now. Then you'll have people on the Obamacare exchanges that will likely be forced into the public option. Honestly, I don't see a scenario where the public option doesn't have greater than 50% of the market the instant it's implemented. And that's by one provider. Which would mean that every other health insurance company wouldn't really have all that much leverage left.
My point was one of comparison that also had the qualifier that the Obamacare bill was horribly hobbled. I am not saying that the private health insurance companies are good, but having it was better than the uninsured number before. And, pointing out that most private insurance covers literally nothing also helps my point that a public option would, indeed, be quite a popular thing to switch to regardless of how hard it would initially be to find doctors that take it, because a lot of insurance plans as is are only slightly better than having nothing.
You really think insurance company's rates are entirely due to how much they pay doctors? Really?
For starters, this problem of finding a doctor also crops up with a lot of private plans, so yeah, it'd be preferable to the majority of Americans. Not all, at first. Employer plans at big company's will still be quite good and seemingly affordable to the employee.
Also, you're conveniently ignoring the economic collapse thing that I pointed out no one really talks about in the single payer bit.
Indeed.
Why? After all, it is Democrat tradition to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
I mean, it turned out we were exactly correct and all of the bad consequences happened. Seems like it was a pretty good argument? The question of whether an argument won an election is irrelevant to whether it should move you, the individual voter. It should!