2020 Democratic Nomination Process Mega-thread

[CID1990]

Guys, the default position is that a substantial majority of Americans favor the idea of having government take care of health care. Yes, if you can convince them that bad things will happen support drops. But the default position is to favor it.

Look at slide 5 of that presentation I linked. It shows how support varies depending on the language used. But even when the terminology is "Socialized Medicine" more respondents had a positive reaction to the thought than had a negative reaction to it. Digest that. Here Republicans are all into this "Socialist" things yet more respondents to that poll had a positive reaction to the terminology "Socialized Medicine" than had a negative one.

Look, I do not favor government health care. I do not think health care is a right. But there is no benefit in being in denial about trends in public opinion. The general trend is towards more support for government taking care of it.

John, arguing the technicality on polling on this issue is a bit silly. Americans would be in favor of an infinite number of really bad ideas if they are kept in the dark.

The reality is that we have not (yet) reached the point where our media is completely agenda driven. Therefore, Americans will find out what the score is on Medicare for All and they will not vote for losing their private insurance. People are deluding themselves to think otherwise.

Why you choose to spill ink on this is baffling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Here's another one for you guys to look at:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_ ... ncern.html

In the poll under discussion, support for "Medicare for All" dropped when people were told private insurance would be eliminated and everyone would get their health care through Medicare. But the "support" position still beat the "oppose" position by a substantial margin. Here's the quote:

“Do you support or oppose Medicare for All, which is a system that will eliminate all private health insurance companies, and where all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the government’s Medicare system?” Even with that caveat, 55% were in support, with 34% opposed.

That's a 21 percentage point edge for the "support" position.

BTW I am in the "oppose" camp. But I'm not going to kid myself about where public opinion is on this.

Completely meaningless poll question, because private health insurance wouldn’t be eliminated under single payer. It would maybe be no longer employee based, but most people who could afford it would get it.
Those without the means: govt provided/no private insurance/longer wait times/rationing/not the best doctors & care.
Those with the means: private health insurance/lesser wait times/better doctors & better care.

Of course everyone would pay higher taxes. And there would be teeth gnashing about how the system was patently unfair..

[Ivytalk]

I love the way JSO protests his innocence by adding “oh by the way, I oppose the guvmint solution” in almost every one of these posts. As if the Great and Powerful God of Polls (omniscient and omnipotent, in John’s jaundiced view) will persuade everyone on this board, if not across the country, that “the end is nigh” for Trump because....well, science.

Got news for ya, boy. The 20 Morons are competing for the right to lose to Trump next year. The Donald is right: Joe Biden, who I thought (and still think) has the best chance of winning, looks increasingly like a tired and befuddled old man.

[kalm]

So whats’s the truth about taxes? Bernie’s plan include’s the math regarding how the annual cost savings in medical expenses will more than offset middle class tax increases. I’m all open to hearing about an alternative view of the numbers.

Why don’t you look into criticisms of Bernie’s math first? Or, look at sources that say Bernie hasn’t actually given a detailed plan about how his Medicare for All scheme will be paid for (because he knows either a massive tax hike, a VAT, or a combination of the two will be required... and there will be co-pays which will slide ever upwards like postage)

“Sanders didn’t offer a specific way to pay for the plan. A statement on financing it said, “We will continue to get the best ideas from economists, doctors, nurses, and ordinary Americans to guarantee health care as a fundamental right.””

http://fortune.com/2019/04/10/bernie-sa ... -all-bill/

There are plenty of those “alternative views” out there and not all of them are right wing -




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could be right. It obviously is going to depend a lot on employee’s shares of premiums plus deductibles vs tax increases for those 110 million people covered that way. Group plan premiums have risen over 200% since 2009 according to Kaiser and there are a few other factors to include as well...not that voters will necessarily drill down into the minutiae of either side’s arguments.

Still, our system is extremely expensive compared to other countries, and people like their Medicare. I managed my mom’s healthcare the last two years of her life and with Medicare, it was simple and affordable (except when it came to skilled nursing at the end which she didn’t qualify for - $9,000 out of pocket).

Easy and affordable are sellable and winnable especially if potential underlying costs (like taxes) are ignored or don’t affect enough voters.

We’ll see.

[CAA Flagship]

"Medicare" is a confusing word to use. Anyone that is on Medicare knows that it doesn't pay for everything. A supplemental insurance is needed and sometimes that isn't even enough.
The additional cost to taxpayers for Universal Health coverage doesn't have to start at zero. Technically, most people with health insurance is paying for it in some fashion. The job supplied insurance is essentially a deduction of your salary. That pool of money (let's call it X dollars per employee at any given time) can be the first thing that goes to the cost for Universal. Then the cost for supplemental insurance that people have can be added on. Each of those costs include profit for the insurers (that will cover some of the inefficiencies of big, and soon to be bigger, government).

Now, having said all that, there is still a major gap to cover everyone. I find it odd that with all the bullshit that is thrown out there by campaigners that nobody has at least thrown out this information to persuade voters, instead of pandering to the "gimme free shit" crowd (maybe they have and I haven't caught it).

[BDKJMU]

Why don’t you look into criticisms of Bernie’s math first? Or, look at sources that say Bernie hasn’t actually given a detailed plan about how his Medicare for All scheme will be paid for (because he knows either a massive tax hike, a VAT, or a combination of the two will be required... and there will be co-pays which will slide ever upwards like postage)

“Sanders didn’t offer a specific way to pay for the plan. A statement on financing it said, “We will continue to get the best ideas from economists, doctors, nurses, and ordinary Americans to guarantee health care as a fundamental right.””

http://fortune.com/2019/04/10/bernie-sa ... -all-bill/

There are plenty of those “alternative views” out there and not all of them are right wing -




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could be right. It obviously is going to depend a lot on employee’s shares of premiums plus deductibles vs tax increases for those 110 million people covered that way. Group plan premiums have risen over 200% since 2009 according to Kaiser and there are a few other factors to include as well...not that voters will necessarily drill down into the minutiae of either side’s arguments.

Still, our system is extremely expensive compared to other countries, and people like their Medicare. I managed my mom’s healthcare the last two years of her life and with Medicare, it was simple and affordable (except when it came to skilled nursing at the end which she didn’t qualify for - $9,000 out of pocket).

Easy and affordable are sellable and winnable especially if potential underlying costs (like taxes) are ignored or don’t affect enough voters.

We’ll see.

Yep but only if you can con the majority of VOTERS into not believing or ignoring increases in wait time, rationing, lower quality care (best docs only doing private insurance as GF pointed out), in addition to the higher taxes.

And if you don’t believe there would be increases in wait times, rationing, and the best docs gravitating towards only accepting private insurance, then I have a bridge to sell you..

[JohnStOnge]

I love the way JSO protests his innocence by adding “oh by the way, I oppose the guvmint solution” in almost every one of these posts. As if the Great and Powerful God of Polls (omniscient and omnipotent, in John’s jaundiced view) will persuade everyone on this board, if not across the country, that “the end is nigh” for Trump because....well, science.

Got news for ya, boy. The 20 Morons are competing for the right to lose to Trump next year. The Donald is right: Joe Biden, who I thought (and still think) has the best chance of winning, looks increasingly like a tired and befuddled old man.

The polls provide by far the best information we have on public opinion. And the effort hasn't been to make the case that the end is nigh for Trump. It's to point out that he is an extremely weak candidate.

I'm going to try to remind you of something I posted before. 2016 is supposed to be a year during which the polls did really badly. But polls are a snapshot in time. And here is what happened with polls that were conducted latest during the 2016 eleciton:

There were 24 State polls that are listed at Real Clear Politics which were completed during November 1 - 6, 2016 and which covered the period most recent among polling periods prior to the election. In 23 cases, the candidate that "won" among repsondents to the poll won the State. That includes the last polls prior to the election in both Michigan and Pennsylvania. The only poll among those "latest previous to the election" polls that got a State wrong was the one conducted in Wisconsin.

And of course we already know that the polls of overall national vote were pretty darned close. And oh by the way we just saw the polls be very close for the 2018 mid terms.

I know thinking that polls are not accurate is chique. It's "in." But it's ignorant. It's based on not really looking closely at what has happened. Pollsters do a remarkable job and their results are a powerful tool for insight into public opinion.

So, like for instance: When you see a reasonably credible poll like the CNN poll conducted June 28 - 30 with 56% of registered voters disapproving of Trump's handling of immigration vs. 42% approving, 61% disapproving of the way immigrants attempting to cross the border are being treated vs. 33% approving, and 60% favoring allowing refugees from Central America to seek asylum in the United States vs. 35% opposing you are kidding yourself if you don't recognize that the Republicans are not doing well on the illegal immigration issue right now.

The poll is at https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/07/ ... ration.pdf.

[JohnStOnge]

“the end is nigh” for Trump

What I've said is that any Democrat that gets the nomination will have a chance because Trump is a weak candidate. Take a look at the Real Clear Politics display of a head to head between him and Harris. Yes, she's about in the same place in the average vs. Trump as Clinton was and Clinton lost the Electoral College. But I'd be willing to bet that if the election were held tomorrow she'd win the popular vote over Trump. She'd also have a good shot in the Electoral College. And all of those polls were taken prior to her debate success. I think she was disingenuous. But there is no question that she improved her position significantly.

And her being up in the head to head overall vote polls vs. Trump is in the context of a situation in which people perceive the economy as doing well. The fact that Trump isn't blowing her away with the perceptions fo the economy being what they are is an indication of how weak he is.

Here's the display:

[JohnStOnge]

I also think that if Harris does get the nomination Trump is going to have a very difficult time dealing with her. He's already got issues with women and is going to lose among women by an overwhelming margin. She doesn't have the baggage Clinton did. As far as I know we wouldn't be seeing her being investigated by the FBI through much of the campaign and wouldn't have an FBI bomb dropped on her 11 days prior to the election. She's also better than Clinton at the thing we call "debates" and Trump lost all three of his debates with Clinton.

Trump benefitted from lack of Black enthusiasm for Clinton. Not likely that Harris would have that problem.

[CID1990]

If Trump loses in 2020 will you shut the fcuk up?

His eventual opponent has got my vote and all my dead relatives' votes if that's the case

[JohnStOnge]

If Trump loses in 2020 will you shut the fcuk up?

No.

[CID1990]

Well then I guess I'm voting for Amash.

[Ibanez]

If Trump loses in 2020 will you shut the fcuk up?

No.

[Ibanez]

Well then I guess I'm voting for Amash.

Pip, farting on a snare drum, could do a better job.

[CID1990]

Well then I guess I'm voting for Amash.

Pip, farting on a snare drum, could do a better job.

Abetter job than Amash?

Would that be better or worse than Trump?

Or Warren or Harris?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Pip, farting on a snare drum, could do a better job.

Abetter job than Amash?

Would that be better or worse than Trump?

Or Warren or Harris?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All of the above.


And it's a movie reference.

[Ivytalk]

If Trump loses in 2020 will you shut the fcuk up?

No.

Yup. You’ll have virtual diarrhea about the brave new world of socialism that you helped to usher in, thus outing yourself ideologically.

Fraud.

[Chizzang]

If Trump loses in 2020 will you shut the fcuk up?

No.

CID
Why would you want one of the posters on here that YOU respond to the most "shutting up"..?



seems like you should be asking him to keep going

[CID1990]

No.

CID
Why would you want one of the posters on here that YOU respond to the most "shutting up"..?



seems like you should be asking him to keep going

(Actually I think I respond to you more.... I troll John)

I do like most of John’s oddities.

I’m referring to things he’s already said 100 times

[CID1990]

Abetter job than Amash?

Would that be better or worse than Trump?

Or Warren or Harris?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All of the above.


And it's a movie reference.

I never saw that movie

[Chizzang]

CID
Why would you want one of the posters on here that YOU respond to the most "shutting up"..?



seems like you should be asking him to keep going

(Actually I think I respond to you more.... I troll John)

I do like most of John’s oddities.

I’m referring to things he’s already said 100 times

In his defense I think I only have maybe four things I post around here...
1) we don't have a revenue problem
2) abortion is complicated
3) comcast is the devil
4) we are told what to think (that one covers religion and politics)

[Ibanez]

All of the above.


And it's a movie reference.

I never saw that movie

Airheads




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

(Actually I think I respond to you more.... I troll John)

I do like most of John’s oddities.

I’m referring to things he’s already said 100 times

In his defense I think I only have maybe four things I post around here...
1) we don't have a revenue problem
2) abortion is complicated
3) comcast is the devil
4) we are told what to think (that one covers religion and politics)

Are you aware of what happened yesterday in the SE with Comcast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

Why aren't the Obamas endorsing Biden?

Is it because he has just been discovered as racist?

[Pwns]