Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Mickey Mouse Operation

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Thats a good thing to keep in mind as we parse Nate Cohn's poll match-ups between Trump and Biden/Sanders/Warren in swing states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

There is a table in there that is worth taking a look at (in particular Arizona where Biden is ahead of Trump the most compared to any other entries). We are still a year out, but a note of caution that preliminary indicators show similar behavior to 2016.

I remain so disappointed in all three of Biden/Sanders/Warren. I think they are all sub-par candidates and really hope someone else can break through in Iowa (probably Buttigeig, though with him I worry there's enough swing voters who are homophobes that won't vote for him). And I remain so infuriated that so many Democrats are focusing on big, divisive policy issues (like Medicare for All), when the only issue should be defeating Trump.

At the same time, I do think each of the three can do better than what that poll shows. We've entered the point of the primary where some number of supporters for each candidate don't want to admit they'd vote for one of the alternatives; but will fall in line at the end. The Trump vs. Generic Candidate numbers in that poll help point to that issue (although those numbers are too rosy for Democrats since generic candidates always outpoll people since people can project their perfect candidate onto them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fez said:

 And I remain so infuriated that so many Democrats are focusing on big, divisive policy issues (like Medicare for All), when the only issue should be defeating Trump. 

 

What are they supposed to do when healthcare is the issue in the US? I don't think having a divisive primary season is going to affect the dems in the general election. The republicans' divisive primary in 2016 didn't hurt Trump in the general.

I don't really understand this 'only issue is beating trump' so that's all we should talk about as opposed to the very real problems that the US currently faces ( and healthcare is one of, if not the biggest one)?  - I'm sure you'll find a pew/gallup poll that puts healthcare right up there as *the* issue among voters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raja said:

What are they supposed to do when healthcare is the issue in the US? I don't think having a divisive primary season is going to affect the dems in the general election. The republicans' divisive primary in 2016 didn't hurt Trump in the general.

I don't really understand this 'only issue is beating trump' so that's all we should talk about as opposed to the very real problems that the US currently faces ( and healthcare is one of, if not the biggest one)?  - I'm sure you'll find a pew/gallup poll that puts healthcare right up there as *the* issue among voters.

 

Democrats won't get any of their proposals implemented if Trump wins re-election. And, in truth, they won't get the big ones done even if they win the White House; even if Democrats take the Senate and get rid of the filibuster (unlikely) Democratic senators like Manchin, King, and Sinema will never vote for something like Medicare for All (in the way Sanders and Warren define it).

So why the hell are they spending so much time talking about something that won't happen and that is unpopular with enough of the swing voters that it hurts the Democratic electoral chances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Democrats won't get any of their proposals implemented if Trump wins re-election.

Of course. But what do they propose in their healthcare debates now? Do they all stick with middle of the road plans? Do they just repeat that all the want to do is beat trump? I still don't get what they're supposed to say in these debates?

The whole point of the primary is for voters do decide what path they want to go down, weather that be Medicare for all or Medicare at 50. In addition, it's also possible for candidates to move to something like Medicare at 50 once they are nominated & elected ( unlikely, but given the approval rating and the incremental nature of American politics, I wouldn't rule it out)

You run on your issues to turn out your base. This is what the primary is for, to *choose* what direction the party is going to go in.

( As an aside, I hope we don't see Buttigeg anywhere close to the nomination. Ugh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raja said:

Of course. But what do they propose in their healthcare debates now? Do they all stick with middle of the road plans? Do they just repeat that all the want to do is beat trump? I still don't get what they're supposed to say in these debates?

The whole point of the primary is for voters do decide what path they want to go down, weather that be Medicare for all or Medicare at 50. In addition, it's also possible for candidates to move to something like Medicare at 50 once they are nominated & elected ( unlikely, but given the approval rating and the incremental nature of American politics, I wouldn't rule it out)

You run on your issues to turn out your base. This is what the primary is for, to *choose* what direction the party is going to go in.

( As an aside, I hope we don't see Buttigeg anywhere close to the nomination. Ugh)

Against a normal GOP nominee, I'd agree. But I truly believe Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, especially if he gets another 4 years. Literally the only issue should be beating Trump. None of the other stuff matters; except to the extent of candidates saying that they will reverse Trump's policies. Run a return to normalcy campaign, and figure out what new policies Congressional Democrats will accept after the election is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fez said:

 Literally the only issue should be beating Trump.

This assumes that there is *one* way of beating Trump & that is to move to the middle, which I don't buy into at all. It *might* be one of the ways, but it is certainly not the only one.  Some reading here which I think is helpful & relevant! I don't agree with all of it, but I think it raises some points that repeatedly talked about in this thread.

 

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raja said:

This assumes that there is *one* way of beating Trump & that is to move to the middle, which I don't buy into at all. It *might* be one of the ways, but it is certainly not the only one. 

It is literally the only one that has worked to get Democrats elected in the last 80 years. I mean, realistically the only way to get a Dem elected is to have a shitty economy, but when you're talking prior candidates the ones that were more heavily progressive got roflstomped as a rule, and the ones that appealed to broader groups got more votes. 

This shouldn't be that weird to understand, as while the US has become more partisan it isn't perfectly so. And as your article suggests, appealing to 'independents' isn't a thing -it's appealing to a LOT of people. What that means in practice is that Warren and Sanders - who do not have universal appeal on their policies like M4A - are going to be worse because precisely of that and that alone. Running on improving healthcare is wildly popular; running on specifically getting rid of 140 million people's insurance is not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is literally the only one that has worked to get Democrats elected in the last 80 years. I mean, realistically the only way to get a Dem elected is to have a shitty economy, but when you're talking prior candidates the ones that were more heavily progressive got roflstomped as a rule, and the ones that appealed to broader groups got more votes. 

This shouldn't be that weird to understand, as while the US has become more partisan it isn't perfectly so. And as your article suggests, appealing to 'independents' isn't a thing -it's appealing to a LOT of people. What that means in practice is that Warren and Sanders - who do not have universal appeal on their policies like M4A - are going to be worse because precisely of that and that alone. Running on improving healthcare is wildly popular; running on specifically getting rid of 140 million people's insurance is not. 

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

I don't care about running on plans that won't get passed. That's fine. That can be good, even, at times, depending. Most successful POTUSes have done this to some degree or another. Obama certainly did.

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - that's the rub.  It ultimately has nothing to do with ideology or running on things that can't get passed - people do that all the time to roaring success.  It's the fact that when you frame M4A as abolishing private insurance - which is exactly what Sanders and now Warren are running on - it is significantly unpopular among Democrats.  

And I agree with Fez because, as has been said, health care promises to be a salient issue in the general -- and more importantly it should be the salient issue that the Dems have a distinct advantage on considering that the public trusts them more on the issue, Obamacare is generally quite popular, and the GOP has bungled any type of coherent response to it for a decade now.  Sometimes it is really hard to defend the party when people just roll their eyes and say "yeah the Dems will just shoot themselves in the foot again."  Against fucking Trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't care about running on plans that won't get passed. That's fine. That can be good, even, at times, depending. Most successful POTUSes have done this to some degree or another. Obama certainly did.

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll puts it at 51% for, 47% against, with the trend being negative (it was 56% for in April). Public option, OTOH, is more popular (73%) and trending upward (up from 69% in September).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

Yes, when you don't talk about any actual details people like the idea. Including Buttigieg. It's when you start talking about whether or not it has a public option, or abolishes private insurance, or how to pay for it that it becomes a Major Issue.

And M4A as Warren and Sanders have it is, actually, pretty unpopular. It's favored by only 64% of democrats. That's probably enough to win a primary, except public option is favored by 90%. And M4A with no private insurance is about 40% popular across the board, whereas M4A with a public option is 70% popular across the board, including with 46% of REPUBLICANS. 

Warren and Sanders are simply not doing what the country wants, and it will cost them (if it hasn't already). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

Not when it's framed as replacing private insurance:

Quote

It’s particularly unwise when the public’s views are as clear as they are here. A new Marist/NPR poll tested support for both “Medicare for all that want it — that is, allow all Americans to choose between a national health insurance program or their own private health insurance” and “Medicare for All — that is, a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance.” “Medicare for all that want it” polled at 71 percent. Medicare-for-all that replaces private insurance polled at 41 percent. Supermajority support becomes a minority position. Why?

These type of results are durable across a host of polls the past couple years.  And yes, the public option is consistently popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular

And that's why I think it is possible that the eventual nominee or the democratic president might eventually pivot to a public option/ medicare at 50 etc - I just don't agree with Fez's assertion that the primary should only be about defeating Trump and not on issues that are rightly important to the people and the democratic electorate. The primary process is to see these debates play out ( i.e. to see this debate between the more conservative universal coverage option vs Sanders/ Warren).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific.

I'd argue that nominees will get attacked either way, if they're vague or if they're specific when it comes to policy ( see the whole 'open borders' attacks towards the dems).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I will just point this bit out:

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

That was kind of my point. Stick to vague slogans rather than getting tied up defending specific plans.  Once in office you can float more specific ideas because you'll have time for people to forget about them if they go nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll puts it at 51% for, 47% against, with the trend being negative (it was 56% for in April). Public option, OTOH, is more popular (73%) and trending upward (up from 69% in September).

I guess there are some countries that have a M4A public health system. But my understanding is that almost all socio-economically comparable countries to the USA have a public option. M4A, therefore, would be a massive leftward lurch to take the USA from rather a far right health care model to a far left one. As Ran's poll data shows M4A has a lot of appeal, including to those of us who live in public option countries. But I don't think it has broad enough support to really be able to be implemented.

So, a couple of bits of news I've picked up down at the bottom of the world (might have been talked about already, but I'm too lazy to go back 1 page to check):

Job numbers were good, so that plays into a "the tax cuts are working" narrative.

Progress being made on trade talks with China.

Some kind of book recently published talking about Russia-gate being a Clinton family conspiracy to take down Trump in 2016. How the right is so fixated on the Clintons. I assume they want to make sure Chelsea never runs for office; she probably has the good sense to never go near elected office anyway. Or will the right never be satisfied until Bill or Hillary (or both) is convicted of something and sent to prison? I would have thought a bit less taking voters for granted and a bit of campaigning in MI, WI and PA would have been enough to take down Trump. Making up some Russia scandal, unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

That was kind of my point. Stick to vague slogans rather than getting tied up defending specific plans. 

I don't think you survive the democratic primary without being specific about your plans, especially when it comes to healthcare. There's a KFF poll that explicitly shows that democratic voters *want* their candidates to get specific about their healthcare plans.

Edit: I feel like the democratic debates have shown that you're going to get called out about your plans if you're sticking to vague slogans.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×