2020 Democratic presidential primary

yes, he's smart, level, thoughtful, non-dramatic, has good instincts, and would be a good foil to Trump

No that's Sebastian Bach's

I recognize it would have to be paired with significant campaign finance reform bc otherwise having shitloads of money would be an even greater advantage, but otherwise why the hell cant we just have one big national primary that takes place on one day? Most votes wins. I know Iowa isn’t the be all end all now but it does have ridiculously outsized influence. If Pete wins there I think he’s going to remain a viable contender no matter how poorly he does in the south.

national primary would give even more weight to party insiders and whoever has the most name recognition as of day 1. like you don't get obama in 2008 for example.

Considering this week's campaign fuckup re non endorsements I'm gonna need citations on "smart" and "thoughtful" tbh

just an impression, I'm reluctant to follow this closely

My preference is for Harris

I think Obama is right in the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/barack-obama-2020-dems.html

How the hell is Pete pulling such a big lead in Iowa? Did the other candidates give up?

it's one poll

has Obama re-emerged over the Trump years to do anything but punch left

why would that would be a demerit

*would that be

you punch left, i punch right
we're caught up in the middle of a deep swamp fight
–john rich

why would that would be a demerit

oh I dunno there might be some other ills kicking around worthy of mention

Mayor Pete fans itt. US ilxors are a trip

also US ilxors have a vote

Most us ilxors dont have a vote that will matter

why would that would be a demerit

― Dan S, Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:03 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

bc the logic used by moderates to punch left is the same logic used by conservative to punch dems which undermines support for any of the dem platform. i.e. when pete or biden harp on "m4a will take away your plan" and "how do we pay fpr this" those are precisely the lines the gop used against obamacare and will be used again to undermine their more moderate plans. they are supplying the right with ammunition instead of changing the conversation on health care that might actually sell the public on a more progressive plan and take the wind out of the right's sails.

I agree with changing the conversation about health care but I think it also only changes in increments

xp we have much more of a vote in the primaries than in the general election

I think it also only changes in increments

may I recommend reading anything about history ever

I agree with changing the conversation about health care but I think it also only changes in increments

― Dan S, Saturday, November 16, 2019 9:43 PM (eleven seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

sure, it's just that moderate dems are not changing it at all by attacking m4a.

I don't think they're attacking it, just being realistic. We're not going to just leap from our current status to medicare for all. I think it will happen, but in carefully negotiated steps

lol "being realistic"

in that case Warren should be yr candidate since that's her brand now xp

luv 2 have adults in the room

Good talk guys

i will repeat this shit til im blue in the face.

bipartisan support is (mostly) a mirage. when you get it, its bc its a bad policy (no child left behind, iraq war).

intense partisan support is good. when you have it, you get what you want.

the plan that "can pass" is the one led by the candidate who can generate the most base enthusiasm and pack as many of your side into the house and senate. a moderate democrat, no matter how nice they are to republicans, is not going to get that.

NEVER BARGAIN AGAINST YOURSELF. dems who are seeking advantage against each other by walking away from at LEAST full m4a are doing some dumb games. warren's dumbest big move imo.

No one who volunteered to go to Afghanistan in 2014 has "good instincts."

lol 2014 are you serious i thought that shit was like last decade

he joined in 2009 but was in the reserve until 2017

Warren like every candidate has to triangulate between a progressive primary platform and a more centrist general election platform

it may be necessary right now but I don't think intense partisanship is a good thing

why

it's become tribal and toxic

I know it doesn't mean much in the face of the current insanity of the republican party, more in the abstract

https://media1.giphy.com/media/1nDm900wgGU1O/giphy.gif

cool, well its the historical norm for american government except for the anomalous cold war years. southern white segregationists and northern democrats shared a party until the the civil rights agenda scared off the white segregationists. it took a generation, but they all joined the republicans by the 1990s. the parties have been far apart ever since.

reversing this trend would require an overlap of agendas between the two parties which seems unlikely since one side's base wants free health care and the other base wants white nationalism.

in this situation, partisanship is v good and bipartisanship means giving white nationalists a concession.

xxp

you're right of course

*kisses biceps* goddamn right

may I recommend reading anything about history ever

― Simon H., Saturday, November 16, 2019 10:46 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

My view of history is that countries that are long stable and act with moderation have much higher scores when it comes to social progress.

The problem is that only American citizens don’t understand that at this moment in history, single payer health care is the actual moderate choice.

I was only trying to say that "progress is achieved incrementally" is ahistorical or at least not consistently true.

I think it's fair to criticize Warren's strategy (who knows what the congress is 3 years into her presidency) but I'm always shocked when someone expresses that she doesn't care about Medicare for All. One thing is analysis, the other is just being part of the cult.

I take no position on whether she "cares about" M4A but if I were a supporter of hers who was a strong proponent of M4A, earnest sentiments like this would concern me

Negative fallout from Medicare For All? @ewarren has a plan for that!
Her transition plan to MFA sounds more like that of @PeteButtigieg and @Joebiden, preserving private choice with a robust public option.
It’s a better place to be.https://t.co/HtoIiJDXsq

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) November 16, 2019

xp I disagree with that. I think progress has been achieved in many ways, increments is one of them. Comparing situation from beginning of 20th century, Nordic countries/Can/Australia/NZ had incrementalist approaches to social progress and have been more successful than most nations, including powerful nations that have tried to achieve social progress through more direct methods. I think there is such a thing as a populist trap where one side only think about its base which riles up the other opposing base who then only think about its base and then it just escalates from there into instability, and no progress seems to get done within unstable timeframe. In the case of the us, the big mistake of moderates is to not recognize that medicare for all can break the lock. I think the big mistake from the Warren/Sanders side (I support Warren) is to think everyone will and should get behind it in no time because it is the good policy. Deep down, I believe that had the US population wanted universal health care they would have voted for it a long time ago.

I said it upthread but I think preserving private choice is going to work long term because people will realize that there is no use paying much more for the same service than people with medicare will get.

I believe that had the US population wanted universal health care they would have voted for it a long time ago.

when have they had the chance to vote on this

Any day since it has been invented?

I mean electoral history chose a clear preference for racist demagogues over universal health care over the what? last 60 years?

again, when has that EVER been the choice presented

unless I've missed all those times M4A, single payer or an equivalent proposal was part of the Democratic platform as opposed to slight expansions/reforms