Democratic Primary Thread (Updated Poll #2)

[Irish YJ]

Fraud is spelled B-E-R-N-I-E

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So does this fall under the category of hypocrisy, irony, or poetic justice?<br><br>All three?<br><br>Can’t make this stuff up.<a href="https://t.co/QWI344GYCp">https://t.co/QWI344GYCp</a></p>— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1152671506062815238?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

This is on the heels of reports a few days ago that despite his outspoken support for $15/hr minimum wage he is only paying some of his campaign workers $13/hr.

do as i say, not as i do.....

 

[ACamp1900]

Democrat: completely hypocritical fraudulent swindler who manipulates the lowest common denominator to accomplish everything they accuse the Republicans of doing. / real talk, wake, the fuck, up.

 

[Old Man Mike]

..... my parents were democrats .... enjoyed the tribute to their memory.

a pretty rough broad brush.

 

[ACamp1900]

How about current Democrat leadership, better? I think it’s a pretty fair paint job and one of the reasons I’m no longer among them. Also if any poster should refrain from complaining about others being passive aggressive and hitting with broad stokes it’s you. Good day

 

[Old Man Mike]

I accept the change on the broad brush --- and I don't do it in my posts (if you want to follow the recent IE school-of-thought characterizing them as "passive-aggressive", OK, but they are rarely broad-brushing categories of people.)

Some people do not like being unjustly buried in such labels especially when it's really personal to them (On our IE, Dakota, who I disagree with on practically everything, is, however, a fairly good policeman on several of these broadbrush issues, calling loose commentators out.)

I have many people who are quite dear to me who have differing well-thought-out views. Broad brushes are the quick labeling way of sweeping large numbers of folks under buses they don't deserve to be under. It also ensures that this country will never get back to discussing anything with one another.

But, what-the-He!l --- posting on IE is a risk-taking business.

 

[IrishLax]

This debate is insane. Lots of candidates making lots of sense but the only applause is for total nonsense talking points that Bernie and Warren are willing to yell.

 

[Irish YJ]

I love the question. "How can you convince AAs that you should be the Dem nominee".

But the answers are nothing but theater.

Having a guy like Don Lemon moderate is just adding to the carnival atmosphere.

 

[IrishLax]

This Tim Ryan guy is legit.

 

[Irish YJ]

This Tim Ryan guy is legit.

Stop yelling!

 

[IrishLax]

I’m changing my mind on Ryan a little, but overall really solid. I also think Hickenlooper is having a great night.

Bernie is D-O-N-E. Elizabeth Warren embarrassed herself at many points. Most of her policy positions are incoherent.

 

[Irish YJ]

I’m changing my mind on Ryan a little, but overall really solid. I also think Hickenlooper is having a great night.

Bernie is D-O-N-E. Elizabeth Warren embarrassed herself at many points. Most of her policy positions are incoherent.

I have to stop watching lol... It's like rolling by an accident on the highway. All the top candidates, Beto, Bernie, Warren, Mayor Pete, are all jokes. Williamson is cracking me. This body shaking cap off is funny AF.

 

[IrishLax]

I have to stop watching lol... It's like rolling by an accident on the highway. All the top candidates, Beto, Bernie, Warren, Mayor Pete, are all jokes. Williamson is cracking me. This body shaking cap off is funny AF.

7 out of 10 people on that stage would probably beat Trump comfortably in the fall. Ironically, the two most likely to lose are the ones with the highest poll numbers on that stage.

 

[IrishLax]

Klobuchar right now absolutely destroying Warren and Sanders in an interview. The “free college” and “no student debt” plans are insane. Completely destroying private insurance is unpopular and insane. You cannot win the general election on that platform. This is common sense.

 

[IrishLax]

Even MSNBC is destroying Warren and Sanders right now. These are horrible, losing policies on healthcare, border security, and everything else.

 

[Irish YJ]

7 out of 10 people on that stage would probably beat Trump comfortably in the fall. Ironically, the two most likely to lose are the ones with the highest poll numbers on that stage.

I don't agree that 7 would beat him, but I do agree that the most popular of the 10 are the ones most likely to lose against him.

 

[Legacy]

What’s The Role of Private Health Insurance Today and Under Medicare-for-all and Other Public Option Proposals? (KFF)

Introduction
The role of private health insurance under Medicare-for-all and other proposals has emerged as a prominent issue in the Democratic primary and an important issue for voters. Candidates are debating what role private insurance should have in the U.S. health care system and the implications of such a change for individuals across the country.

For more than two years KFF polling has found a majority of the public favoring a national Medicare-for-all plan with the most recent poll finding a slight dip in support with about half the public (51%) now saying they favor Medicare-for-all. However, surveys also show most people do not have a clear understanding about the current Medicare-for-all proposals, and how they might change the nature of coverage people have today. For example, based on a poll fielded in early 2019, 55% of the public think that they and their families would be able to keep their current health insurance under Medicare-for-all; 54% think they would continue to pay health insurance premiums and 69% think they would continue to pay deductibles and copays for covered health services. Public opinion is malleable in response to additional information and arguments about Medicare-for-all. Support for Medicare-for-all increases to 67% when people hear it would eliminate insurance premiums and reduce out-of-pocket health costs, and increases to 71% when people hear it would guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans, but drops to 37% when people hear Medicare-for-all would eliminate private health insurance.

This brief begins by examining the role that private insurers play in providing health coverage for Americans today, not only in employer plans and the individual insurance market, but also in Medicare and Medicaid. It then discusses how that would likely change under Medicare-for-all and other proposals and summarizes evidence on consumers’ experiences with private insurance.

Medicare-for-All and Public Plan Buy-In Proposals: Overview and Key Issues

Medicare-for-All Would Eliminate Most or All of Medicaid, But No One Is Talking About It

 

[BGIF]

Winners and losers from the first night of the CNN debate
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 2:17 AM ET, Wed July 31, 2019

WINNERS
*Bernie Sanders: The Vermont senator clearly got the message that he wasn't lively or active enough in the first debate of the cycle. He came out feisty -- and stayed that way. Asked about former Maryland Rep. John Delaney's criticism of his health care plan, Sanders responded bluntly, "You're wrong." Questioned about his single-payer "Medicare for All" plan, Sanders snapped, "I wrote the damn bill." Sure, Sanders probably came across to some people as irascible and scoldy. But for liberals looking for Sanders to stand up proudly and unapologetically for the need for huge structural change in our politics and our culture got exactly what they wanted. And not for nothing, Sanders clearly outshone Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in this debate.

*Steve Bullock: The Montana governor, to his immense credit, understood that this debate was his one big chance to make an impression with voters -- and move from the third tier upward. I'm not sure if his numbers will move in a major way, but Bullock went for it -- from his opening statement on. He made clear, time and time again, that he did not believe that the liberal views of Warren and Sanders were grounded in reality and did believe that those views would cost Democrats the election. He blasted "wish-list economics" and talked about the need to solve the "here and now" problems rather than offering what he views as unworkable pie-in-the-sky policies. If moderates were looking for someone other than former Vice President Joe Biden to support in this primary, Bullock offered himself as a viable alternative.

* Pete Buttigieg: As in the first debate, the South Bend, Indiana mayor played it (relatively) safe. But unlike the first debate, there was a clear message: I am young, yes, but the older people on stage with me haven't fixed any of these problems, so it's time for something different. I think it's smart for Buttigieg to a) own his age (he's 37) and b) try to turn it from a perceived weakness into a strength. The idea that politics (and politicians in both parties) have failed and it's time to give a whole new generation of politicians a chance has always been a powerful one -- especially in a time where people on all sides of the political spectrum hate politics. That said, there were moments in this debate where Buttigieg leaned too far into his own mystique; "The racial divide lives within me," he said at one point. Dude, what?

*John Delaney: Before this debate, no one knew who Delaney was or what he believed. If you watched this debate, both of those questions were answered. That doesn't mean you necessarily loved Delaney, as he quite clearly embraced a moderate view on almost everything. But Delaney's repeated clashes with Sanders and Warren were a win for the former Maryland congressman in the very fact that they existed. Yes, Warren dunked on Delaney over what she insisted was his emphasis on what Democrats can't or shouldn't do, but all in all, this was a very good debate for him.

* Elizabeth Warren: Her retort to Delaney was the line of the night -- and encapsulates for a lot of Democrats why it's so important to nominate someone who is willing to take on big fights, unapologetically. And her answer on electability -- that no one thought Donald Trump could win -- was pitch-perfect.

*Donald Trump: An extended conversation about eliminating all private insurance. A top-tier candidate -- Warren -- fully embracing decriminalizing illegal immigration. All of that is music to the President's ears. Remember that his poll numbers -- job approval that has never broken 50%, etc. -- suggest that there is no positive message that wins Trump a second term. Which means he needs as much fodder as possible to cast Democrats as deeply out of touch and representative of a creeping socialism. He got plenty on Tuesday night.

*Opening statements: I really liked the fact that each of the candidate got a chance, right at the top of the debate, to lay out who they are and what they believe. It felt like a policy-centric and abundantly fair way of starting off a debate for president, and each candidate used the time well to make their case.

*"Emotional turbulence" and "dark psychic forces:" God bless Marianne Williamson. We'll miss you in future debates.

LOSERS
*Beto O'Rourke: The former Texas congressman needed a good debate. A much better one than he had last month. While he was mildly more energetic than in the first debate -- his answer on Trump's weaponizing of race was O'Rourke's best moment in either debate -- there were large swaths of the debate where he simply disappeared from the conversation. And too many times when he did have a chance to speak, he sounded too rehearsed and wooden, a problem that plagued him in the first debate. O'Rourke has already qualified for the third and fourth debates this fall, so he won't be going anywhere anytime soon. But if this was seen by his campaign as a chance to change the downward narrative (and spiral) surrounding his bid, I don't think they got it.

*Amy Klobuchar: Ask yourself this: If you watched, what do you remember about the Minnesota senator's debate performance? Maybe it's her emphasis in her opening statement on her unblemished record of victory in campaigns? Maybe? That's a problem for Klobuchar, who seems to be treading water in search of a moment or a surge. She didn't get one tonight. And candidly, she didn't really come close.

*Elizabeth Warren: Yes, she made both lists. She had moments, without question (See: Winners). But Sanders seemed to better and more strongly articulate the liberal positions that define both of their campaigns, repeatedly. And Warren's high-profile embrace of decriminalizing illegal immigration will add fuel to the fire for the already existing concerns among some Democrats that she is taking positions that could make her unelectable in a general election.

...

 

[Irish#1]

When you're younger, you're a smart as$ and when you get get into your 70's, you're feisty? I only saw highlights, but Sanders constant interrupting and waving his arms didn't come across as poised.

 

[IrishLax]

Winners and losers from the first night of the CNN debate
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 2:17 AM ET, Wed July 31, 2019

I completely disagree with that opinion on Klobuchar. I thought she made a huge impact, and cemented herself as someone who is incredibly electable and will probably be one of the final 6 or so candidates remaining heading into the actual primary season. She absolutely destroyed Sanders/Warren on a couple points and was even more poignant in post-debate interviews.

I also thought it was interesting watching CNN's talking heads relative to MSNBC. First time I've watched either channel in years. I now sort of get what people say about CNN... it was totally disjointed, amateur hour punditry. MSNBC was professional and insightful, regardless of whether you agree with what they're saying. The weirdest CNN moments were Van Jones bringing up race regardless of what the conversation topic was. "What do you think about the healthcare topics?" "Well, there is a divide in this party, and we spent a lot of time on that tonight, but you know what we didn't see that we will probably see more of tomorrow? Talk about race." That's literally the kind of shit he said. At one point he was talking about how Buttigieg's youth and positions on some topics... and then out of nowhere closed with a non-sequitur of "but until he tackles his race issue I don't know if he can win." Mind boggling.

 

[Old Man Mike]

... didn't watch (why bother?) But if that was Sanders m.o., then he was expressing his Inner Trump. (the master of invading other's spaces.)

... "debate" no longer has any civilized component.... anywhere.

 

[dublinirish]

When you're younger, you're a smart as$ and when you get get into your 70's, you're feisty? I only saw highlights, but Sanders constant interrupting and waving his arms didn't come across as poised.

Anger is something young Dem's/liberals want to see. He had to show some stomach.

 

[RDU Irish]

I completely disagree with that opinion on Klobuchar. I thought she made a huge impact, and cemented herself as someone who is incredibly electable and will probably be one of the final 6 or so candidates remaining heading into the actual primary season. She absolutely destroyed Sanders/Warren on a couple points and was even more poignant in post-debate interviews.

I also thought it was interesting watching CNN's talking heads relative to MSNBC. First time I've watched either channel in years. I now sort of get what people say about CNN... it was totally disjointed, amateur hour punditry. MSNBC was professional and insightful, regardless of whether you agree with what they're saying. The weirdest CNN moments were Van Jones bringing up race regardless of what the conversation topic was. "What do you think about the healthcare topics?" "Well, there is a divide in this party, and we spent a lot of time on that tonight, but you know what we didn't see that we will probably see more of tomorrow? Talk about race." That's literally the kind of shit he said. At one point he was talking about how Buttigieg's youth and positions on some topics... and then out of nowhere closed with a non-sequitur of "but until he tackles his race issue I don't know if he can win." Mind boggling.

You seem to focus on the content of what is actually said - that is not what moves the polls. Williamson seems to be getting some attention for digging deep in to the emotional component - Google analytics are off the charts for her during the debate with not much action for others.

Find it hilarious how quickly the MSM is painting open borders as extreme now. The idea that anyone who stumbles across our border should be handed citizenship is vile to most sane people.

 

[IrishLax]

You seem to focus on the content of what is actually said - that is not what moves the polls. Williamson seems to be getting some attention for digging deep in to the emotional component - Google analytics are off the charts for her during the debate with not much action for others.

Find it hilarious how quickly the MSM is painting open borders as extreme now. The idea that anyone who stumbles across our border should be handed citizenship is vile to most sane people.

That doesn't get you votes though. People are googling Williamson because they're asking themselves "who the hell is that?" They aren't googling her because she's a serious candidate... the reason she made this debate was in large part due to Republicans donating money after the first one so that she would qualify. I appreciate that she is emotional and authentic, but she is not presidential and people are taking this election way too seriously to vote for her.

 

[Wild Bill]

Williamson is concerned about the optics of medicare for all in a general election while simultaneously believes, to the delight of the audience, a $500 billion reparation payment is the "only" way to heal our racial divide.

They really have their finger on the pulse of whites in the rust belt this time.

 

[RDU Irish]

That doesn't get you votes though. People are googling Williamson because they're asking themselves "who the hell is that?" They aren't googling her because she's a serious candidate... the reason she made this debate was in large part due to Republicans donating money after the first one so that she would qualify. I appreciate that she is emotional and authentic, but she is not presidential and people are taking this election way too seriously to vote for her.

She is stealing thunder from the others, mission accomplished. In a party dominated by emotional arguments you are seeking substance? Good luck with that.

Montana Steve looks to me like their best hope but I don't think the average primary voter cares much for him.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Marianne Williamson is a full-out and, as far as I have been able to discover, an authentic spiritual idealist. Her once-upon-a-time weekly Church broadcasts out of the Eastern Michigan area were filled with fine uplifting sentiments about what humanity could be if we "just" followed the New Testament Gospel of Love. I used to listen to these and could almost always pick out something worth meditating upon, which was in line with my Catholicism.

She is quite experienced at addressing audiences which are confused and mainly depressed about the state of the world, and gives talks based upon Hope. Because her vision/hope is so far off "pragmatic realities" she will gain smiles, sincere thank you's, and applause, but no votes. I can imagine Marianne Williamson as Mayor of a modest eco village, but nothing so large as a city let alone the country. She's a nice person who cares.

We should be able to tolerate listening to such sentiments once in a while.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Marianne Williamson is a full-out and, as far as I have been able to discover, an authentic spiritual idealist. Her once-upon-a-time weekly Church broadcasts out of the Eastern Michigan area were filled with fine uplifting sentiments about what humanity could be if we "just" followed the New Testament Gospel of Love. I used to listen to these and could almost always pick out something worth meditating upon, which was in line with my Catholicism.

She is quite experienced at addressing audiences which are confused and mainly depressed about the state of the world, and gives talks based upon Hope. Because her vision/hope is so far off "pragmatic realities" she will gain smiles, sincere thank you's, and applause, but no votes. I can imagine Marianne Williamson as Mayor of a modest eco village, but nothing so large as a city let alone the country. She's a nice person who cares.

We should be able to tolerate listening to such sentiments once in a while.

Well said.

She's being cast as the crazy stone-healing lady when in fact, the long form interviews I've listened to, show she cares for all people and our planet. She wants to lead with love and create policies that support the most vulnerable and are compassionate in nature. (Although she's pro-choice and I find that a bit hypocritical in that regard.) Anyways, I think we'd be better off if more mainstream candidates shared some of her character traits.

 

[Legacy]

Too bad our political system comes down to two parties and money. 2016 came down to 77,744 vote difference in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in total with 87,000 voters in Michigan not picking either candidate for President on their ballots. We have a lot of disaffected voters out there who want better jobs, more pay, lower taxes, health care not eating up income, and are angry, disaffected and disappointed. About half of us don't pay taxes and about half of us aren't in the stock market. Everyone hates Congress because they don't do much and everything is negative. Empty promises like

- better health insurance
- coverage for chronic diseases
- lower drug costs
- term limits
- restrictions on those coming from government to lobby

and dealing with
- climate change
- personal and federal debt

If Reps had protected chronic diseases, lowered drug costs, increased middle class tax breaks, Trump would have been a shoe-in even if this still is the same Swamp as in 2016. Biden's too much like Clinton except male. Second terms come down to what have you done not what are you promising. My philosophy has always been to give them one term and if they are not doing their job, kick them out.

 

[RDU Irish]

Too bad our political system comes down to two parties and money. 2016 came down to 77,744 vote difference in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in total with 87,000 voters in Michigan not picking either candidate for President on their ballots. We have a lot of disaffected voters out there who want better jobs, more pay, lower taxes, health care not eating up income, and are angry, disaffected and disappointed. About half of us don't pay taxes and about half of us aren't in the stock market. Everyone hates Congress because they don't do much and everything is negative. Empty promises like

- better health insurance
- coverage for chronic diseases
- lower drug costs
- term limits
- restrictions on those coming from government to lobby

and dealing with
- climate change
- personal and federal debt

If Reps had protected chronic diseases, lowered drug costs, increased middle class tax breaks, Trump would have been a shoe-in even if this still is the same Swamp as in 2016. Biden's too much like Clinton except male. Second terms come down to what have you done not what are you promising. My philosophy has always been to give them one term and if they are not doing their job, kick them out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/15/are-prescription-drug-prices-going-down/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.40a6370427a4

"The White House and Trump’s campaign said the prescription-drug index declined 0.6 percent in 2018. That was the first calendar-year decline since 1972, making it a 46-year record, not 51 years as Trump tweeted."

MSM - "Can't believe that lying POS claiming 51 years - what a dishonest d-bag."

 

[GoIrish41]

Klobuchar right now absolutely destroying Warren and Sanders in an interview. The “free college” and “no student debt” plans are insane. Completely destroying private insurance is unpopular and insane. You cannot win the general election on that platform. This is common sense.

The latest polling on "free college" is polling at 53%, according to Marist's newest poll. Medicare for All is at 70%. Indeed, many progressive issues are polling above 50%, a hurdle that Trump's job approval rating has yet to clear in any poll during his term. Hell, another recent poll said that 54% of Americans say they wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstance. While I appreciate that you think some of their ideas are "insane," (I don't agree with them all either) but the notion that you cannot win the general election on a platform that most of the country seems to want strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.

Here are some of the other progressive policy proposals in which people seem to want:

Green New Deal - 63%
Free public tuition at public colleges - 53%
Background checks for gun show purchases - 89%
Medicare for All - 70%
Govt. regulation of prescription drugs - 67%
Pathway to citizenship for those here illegally - 64%
Legalizing marijuana - 63%
Ban on "assault weapons" - 57%
$15 minimum wage - 56%
Rejoin Paris Climate Agreement - 53%
Tax on carbon-based fuels - 50%

Consider that whomever wins this primary is going to be running against an agenda that includes denial of man-made climate change, doing nothing to ease the burden on college tuition, no gun laws of any kind, repealing Obamacare and replacing it with ... well, nothing, only market-based limits big pharma price gouging, locking people in cages on the border, doubling down on the destructive war on drugs, wages too small to live on, being the only nation not cooperating through the Paris Accord, and deregulation of carbon-based fuel. I don't agree with your premise that you cannot win on progressive issues. Evidence points to the opposite conclusion this cycle. It is a different thing altogether, whether the guy who doesn't comb his hair and flails his hands around when he talks, or the woman who speaks breathlessly like she's explaining to first responders how a fire started can win in a general. But people seem to want what they are selling even if they'd rather have a different sales rep.