2020 Democratic presidential primary

^^^

I admit I only knew that one cause a close friend of mine grew up in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Controversy

In November 2013 it was made known that the Salvation Army was referring LGBT individuals to one of several conversion therapy groups.[167] As a response, the Salvation Army removed links to the conversion groups from their website.[168]

In 2016, The Salvation Army withdrew support for an Australian safe schools program that focused on LGBT students,[153] stating that "the provision of a government approved anti-bullying program needs to consider all high risk student groups."[169]

Is it better or worse than having worked for McKinsey?

the amount of bellyaching over harris is genuinely dizzying. I agree she tacked hard to the left once she had a safe senate seat and presumably she would have been more reliable than her record might indicate, but there were other, better choices on issues of criminal justice reform and she doesn’t get special points for finding religion later

she tacked hard to the left once she got to the Senate, but she's only been there two years and in the minority so yeah that's a thin record. And that enabled people to paint her as not a "true" lefty

How dare people use the available evidence of her political ideology against her, the absolute nerve.

xxp at least McKinsey paid him.

she also campaigned badly, evidently under the management of warring factions of nincompoops, so, like

I mean one argument is that she got an unfair shake, and that might be reasonable. but she wasn’t the only one running. you need to have some basis of comparison and there were simply better options. idk man

If you run a lousy campaign, you get lousy results.

As if she was the only candidate with the lousy campaign.

It did seem to be an exceptionally lousy campaign, going by that expose from the other day.

Harris ran a disgraceful, half-formed campaign that conflated biography with political skills and billed itself as the heir to something it couldn’t figure out.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) December 3, 2019

Have we talked about how this dude is still in:

A few sets of Ab rollers are a good way to start a workout. All the candidates should be "rolling" out specific plans to solve our nations challenges - check out my 30 minute documentary at https://t.co/TkAXcVmHFr for my plans and experiences. #fittobepresident pic.twitter.com/k96bpSq0Jw

— John Delaney (@JohnDelaney) November 26, 2019

is he the white male billionaire with all the ads

or the white male billionaire with all the abs

feeling all in on Warren these days and less interested in everybody but bernie by the moment

I want Delaney to bum rush the next Democratic debate and challenge everyone on stage to a deadlift competition

here’s how I feel about it: if the GOP’s baseline can be “life begins at conception” and “no taxes on the rich/ corporation EVAR” — two broadly unpopular positions—and still win elections AND bend the “balls & strikes” MSM to their will, then for a Democratic Party and it’s eventual standard bearer to not fully embrace M4A is basically malpractice imho.

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), 3. december 2019 20:45 (twenty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

But the GOP can only win in spite of those unpopular positions because their stance that racism is good is extremely popular with white voters, and even then they only win because the chess board is slanted in their favor. The lesson here isn't that Dems need to embrace unpopular policies like Medicare 4 All, it's that they would need something to offset that unpopular policy. A large problem for both Kamala and Warren has been that health care has played such an outsized role in the primary.

Yeah sorry I don’t think M4A is unpopular.

And yes I’ve seen the dumbass polls and the dumbass way it’s been pilloried by the media in a way that shitty forever wars and anti-choice and moar tax cuts forever and ever amen simply will never be.

I'm willing to raise the necessary funds for Kamala Harris if she 1) is a Pell Grant recipient and 2) starts and runs a business in a disadvantaged community for at least three years

— manny (@mannyfidel) December 3, 2019

A large problem for both Kamala and Warren has been that health care has played such an outsized role in the primary.

and you're shrugging this off? You sound like Chuck Todd. What should they concentrate on?

It is probably accurate to say that unpopularity of M4A is generally based on confusion about and fears of M4A, propagated by corporations that would prefer not to pay a dime for health care, unless it is a perk for upper level executives. It has very little connection to any unpopularity founded upon what M4A actually entails. Every attempt to cut through the bullshit and explain M4A to the public is immediately met by another wave of bullshit.

Bernie is good at explaining M4A in a simple and logical way, Warren is not. I wish Warren was better at this but these last couple months of flinching at the mention of taxes and proposing overcomplicated semi-compromises that no one likes are not inspiring hope.

and you're shrugging this off? You sound like Chuck Todd. What should they concentrate on?

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), 3. december 2019 21:54 (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Wealth tax! All things anti-corruption, anti-corporation, pro-consumer. Anti-gerrymandering. All those things are popular and good. Do that, harvest the rewards, do Medicare 4 All after midterms.

after the midterms in this country you lose momentum as a party

It's pretty clear that Bernie is all-in on M4A and he doesn't try to triangulate whether the idea this is a political asset or liability. Warren, otoh, is hesitant over M4A, so that her embrace of the idea is not firm and loving, but somewhat distant and distracted.

x-post: Usually, but I don't see why that should be a law? The last two times it happened for Dems it coincided with unpopular pushes for health care reform... It's also usually the case in Denmark that the governing coalition loses seats in the first election after they gain power, but it's not an ironclad rule.

you basically need 9/11 or unpopular impeachment for it not to happen here

From what I’ve seen the senate map is decent for democrats in 2022, so there’s an argument to be made that you could still get stuff done in your third year. On the other hand, it’s a dumb argument because you have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen in the meantime! The economy could collapse! Who predicted the Tea Party? Use the power you have while you have it, you can’t run on waiting to do the hard stuff later!

But the idea that anyone of the candidates will get the power to do Medicare 4 All in year one is crazy anyway.

I mean, that's the other thing which is so weird. It's not going to happen! And it's not popular! So Warren really triangulating on M4A is a sign that she really sorta kinda does mean it, she is fighting for a way to do it that won't bring her campaign down. You're supposed to lie about doing policies that are popular, like Trump did. So she should say she would shore up Obamacare, might look at a public option, then put forth a M4A bill anyway once she got power.

It is probably accurate to say that unpopularity of M4A is generally based on confusion about and fears of M4A, propagated by corporations that would prefer not to pay a dime for health care, unless it is a perk for upper level executives. It has very little connection to any unpopularity founded upon what M4A actually entails. Every attempt to cut through the bullshit and explain M4A to the public is immediately met by another wave of bullshit.

― A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, December 3, 2019 3:56 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

How much would corporations would foot the bill? Canada has single payer and corporate taxes are basically the same. I just feel like lots of selfish people in the US don’t care about paying higher taxes than they used to.

My feeling from afar is that it's genuine but irrational fear of losing the health care they already have, for something they don't know what is? Which is why Medicare 4 All (who wants it) polls better.

Corporate taxes are lower in Canada iirc?

Oh, not anymore: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/canada-has-completely-lost-its-business-tax-advantage-over-the-us

Depends on the province.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4DfJc0Une5g

it's genuine but irrational fear of losing the health care they already have, for something they don't know what is

tbh this sounds v reasonable to me

It does. I don't think irrational is the same thing as unreasonable. Though I should not be the authority on English here.

Or anything else

(Fwiw, Fred, it can be - b here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational
is almost identical to 1a here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unreasonable )

the thing about all this talk over what will be accomplished legislatively (which is correct, nothing sweeping will happen in 2 or probably 4 years) underscores is the need to vote for an executive that will give us the most left wing judges and most restrained foreign policy. I know who I trust the most

^^^

I think I said something completely different? That a lot of stuff could be accomplished legislatively, including sweeping stuff, just not unpopular stuff like M4A?

good grief, M4A is not unpopular!

M4A, wealth taxes, corporate taxes, prison reform -- all poll well.

Which version of M4A polls best?

M4A does not poll well from what I've seen. There's that big flaw that support goes way down if it includes abolishing private insurance. Wealth tax polls well no matter how you ask.

Part of the reason is successful corporate resistance; the Dem donor base has successfully inculcated the belie in many voters' minds that M4A will obliterate private insurance of any kind.

"Hey, would you like free health insurance?" would poll significantly better than "Hey, we're gonna take away your health insurance and then involve you in a risky socialist scheme where the government will tell you what doctor you can go to - is that OK with you?" And the latter is what's currently being polled in order to yield the result that "Medicare For All spells electoral dooooommmmm!!!!!"