US Politics XIX: Just an Echo Chamber Living In Your Heads

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That was you?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It’s funny because I was like this guy could totally be from interference.

 

[womanfish]

I was at a bar with another american, an Australian, an Irish(wo)man, and a South African.

sounds like the start of a good joke.

 

[womanfish]

The hospitality unions, culinary in particular, don't just have good health care... they have amazing health care. Culinary Union health care in Nevada is free. Not a dime is taken from the employee's pay check - and that includes coverage for their families. There are no deductables. The care itself is heavily discounted, and they have supplementary funds set up in case of serious illness. The union has set up their own pharmacy for free generic medications - no copay.

The union also provides interest free housing loans and a very generous pension plan.

They are VERY strong and united. Attacking their leadership was galactically stupid.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, as this is a union that will be very united and very reluctant to give up their health care plan.

This is so true. As was said a couple days ago. People vote their interests. Why would people getting top notch, free health care, vote to put up a candidate that would give them free, but maybe not as accessible care, or they may need to change their providers, and also have their taxes go up.
Pair that with the fact that Biden is also very pro-union. It's sorta a no brainer.

 

[Irvine511]

This is so true. As was said a couple days ago. People vote their interests. Why would people getting top notch, free health care, vote to put up a candidate that would give them free, but maybe not as accessible care, or they may need to change their providers, and also have their taxes go up.

Pair that with the fact that Biden is also very pro-union. It's sorta a no brainer.

People don’t understand that they really don’t like their health care even when they like their health care.

 

[womanfish]

I know that the narrative is that that Biden has completely collapsed, bottomed out, he's a "corpse".
But I think this is still premature.
If we go by the current polling in NV and SC. I think the following is quite likely.
I put them in order of how they will place along with a general delegate allocation.
I didn't list Pete or Amy, because I don't believe they will reach the threshold to get any delegates.
Then at the bottom, the total amount of delegates that each candidate would have before super tuesday.

Nevada

Sanders - 17
Biden -13
Warren - 6

South Carolina

Biden - 25
S - 20
Steyer - 9


Before super tuesday - It could look like this...
Sanders - 57
Biden - 44
Pete - 23
Warren - 14
Amy - 7

I can't see how Amy could justify moving forward if this is actually how it comes out.
But as you can see, Biden would be in second, and be poised to get a boatload more delegates on super tuesday than Pete.
I know he was hobbled there in IA and NH. But i think the IA fuckup and the fact that there are so many candidates spreading the vote, it really does seem like NV and SC are voting how they want, not really letting those two races alter their opinion much.

 

[anitram]

I can't see how Amy could justify moving forward if this is actually how it comes out.
But as you can see, Biden would be in second, and be poised to get a boatload more delegates on super tuesday than Pete.
I know he was hobbled there in IA and NH. But i think the IA fuckup and the fact that there are so many candidates spreading the vote, it really does seem like NV and SC are voting how they want, not really letting those two races alter their opinion much.

The point is that Biden is a terrible candidate and a disaster in the general. The guy can’t campaign, inspires poor turnout and can’t even raise $. Of all the moderates still in the race, he’s the worst. So he can win a bunch of southern states that are going to go to the GOP in November anyway. Who cares?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

This is so true. As was said a couple days ago. People vote their interests. Why would people getting top notch, free health care, vote to put up a candidate that would give them free, but maybe not as accessible care, or they may need to change their providers, and also have their taxes go up.

Pair that with the fact that Biden is also very pro-union. It's sorta a no brainer.

I’m not sure you understand how Medicare for all would work. Nor am I sure you get how the health insurance system works. Ok, that’s maybe not fair to say, you’re not dumb. But... their healthcare isn’t “free” in any way. A job benefit is 100% an employer cost, and one would only hope that the mandate for implementation of a single payer healthcare system would explicitly state that those employer costs must be passed along to the employees at their total value. When an employer is paying the union members in benefits, and they’re paying for their dependents too, they’re literally paying an insurer hundreds of dollars per month per person. It’s not free.

There also is no notion of “changing providers” because the notion of healthcare being a product ceases to exist.

And it doesn’t need to be said any further... taxes go up, yes, and you no longer have a monthly premium. In a situation like this, there’s no fucking difference between withholding of taxes and withholding of benefits. Absolutely no difference. Especially not to hospitality workers, who wouldn’t be a part of the tax bracket you would expect to be “paying more.” Which, it’s not clear that someone actually has to pay more or not, because no actual plan has diffed the two systems.

 

[DaveC]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA
Prof. Alison P Galvani PhD, Alyssa S Parpia MPH, Eric M Foster, Burton H Singer PhD, Meagan C Fitzpatrick, PhD
Published: February 15, 2020

Summary

Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I was at a great exhibit at the NY Historical Society last eve about Bill Graham gifted rock promoter (Live Aid w as one of his later efforts w their pay-what-you-wish fri eve policy, so belated . .


Oh, and I picked up a copy of The Constitution at their gift shop.

 

[womanfish]

The point is that Biden is a terrible candidate and a disaster in the general. The guy can’t campaign, inspires poor turnout and can’t even raise $. Of all the moderates still in the race, he’s the worst. So he can win a bunch of southern states that are going to go to the GOP in November anyway. Who cares?

Well, yes and no.
I don't know about the "can't campaign" part. Sure on the debates he has been up and down. But during the general it's a lot of speech giving and the guy can still do a great speech. I think he has more energy and fire in him than Clinton could ever try to fake.
And while turnout might be an issue. This is a whole different ballgame than 2016. Removing Trump is the motivator. Plain and simple.
2016 was this mish-mash of Trump being this new and different type of candidate. People out there sick of the usual politician wanted were willing to give him a chance. People didn't think he could win, so they many voted in sort of a "protest" way, where they knew he would lose, but they weren't going to vote for a bland politician, with a worn out last name, who was under FBI investigation,

All that has changed. And the point of my post is not the he will most likely be the nominee. But just saying he is much more in the mix than Pete or Amy.

And not sure how he is a "disaster in the general." Truly the one candidate that has the most paths to victory. Not sure about Bloomberg, cause yeah, he could buy some paths.

But say Biden and Bernie.
I think Bernie can win. But I don't think he can win an overwhelming victory.
If he pulls off PA, WI, and MI - he wins by 18 points.
If he can't pull off PA, but gets the other two... Then what? What other state does he pick up? Maybe Arizona?? Then he would win by 20.
Any way you slice it, it will be close.

For Biden, his running mate will be crucial. I've said all along a Biden/Abrams ticket is very formidable.
Even with another running mate he could win PA, WI, MI, NC - a 48 point win, throw in a good possibility of FL and you would have a 106 point win.
With Abrams, take all those and add in GA - a 138 point win.
And Even TX would be very much on the table - a 214 point win.
The kind of win that would wipe out Trump and Trumpism for good.

Again, no idea how Biden will do this month. He may disappoint once again. I can't even begin to predict super tuesday with Bloomberg in the mix.
But I don't think that just scraping out a victory is what we need.

Maybe a Bernie/Abrams - could be put him in stronger position in the general.

 

[anitram]

I think that Bernie can win (maybe narrowly) but my biggest concern with him aside from his age/health is that I think he’s be a negative on downticket voting. Particularly in battleground states. And given the obsession with ideological purity of his hardcore supporters I’m not convinced that they’d be reliable blue voters up and down the ballot either.

 

[BEAL]

I think that’s exactly what will happen. Bernie may win, but we’ll lose the house and have no shot at the senate.

Bernie on top of ticket will be framed - Socialism vs MERICA!!!

Trump is so hated that even a socialist can beat him but down ticket will be brutal.

2018 midterms, not a single Bernie/AOC backed candidate won. Dems retook the house on centrist policies. This was the direction from the top, fighting the progressive wing and it turned out to be the right move

I would imagine Bernie’s followers would eventually turn on him once he’s in office and gets nothing passed.

Lastly

Trump isn’t going to concede any loss.

Claims voter fraud
Filed lawsuits
Works with GOP states to produce “evidence”
Media plays along and contributes to its validation
Lower federal court (with Trump appointed judges) rule in favor
Dems have to appeal

Complete disaster

 

[Irvine511]

I think that Bernie can win (maybe narrowly) but my biggest concern with him aside from his age/health is that I think he’s be a negative on downticket voting. Particularly in battleground states. And given the obsession with ideological purity of his hardcore supporters I’m not convinced that they’d be reliable blue voters up and down the ballot either.

This can’t be said enough.

The moral thing to do is to select a candidate who is going to overturn vulnerable R Senate seats.

“Socialism” will energize the right in the way that a black president did. Completely unfairly, but that’s the reality.

 

[mikal]

I received a Twitter warning for telling Rudy Giuliani that I hope he gets AIDS this morning...in response to his tweet making fun of Hilary passing out. [emoji4]

 

[anitram]

I received a Twitter warning for telling Rudy Giuliani that I hope he gets AIDS this morning...in response to his tweet making fun of Hilary passing out. [emoji4]

While the orange menace literally neurologically degenerates before our very eyes they’re obsessed with a fainting spell of a private citizen not currently running for any office.

Sick, the whole lot of them.

Never forget this after Trump is gone.

 

[DaveC]

This can’t be said enough.

The moral thing to do is to select a candidate who is going to overturn vulnerable R Senate seats.

“Socialism” will energize the right in the way that a black president did. Completely unfairly, but that’s the reality.

voting for sanders is immoral.

now there's a hell of a take.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

At that, I’ve noticed that pretty much nobody wants to engage my posts. If the point is to speak your mind and just have someone say “preach!” Or “this!” in response to your thoughts... ??

 

[womanfish]

voting for sanders is immoral.

now there's a hell of a take.

I think what she's saying is that there is more to all this than a person. The larger picture here is the keeping the house and taking the senate. Controlling all three will be key in undoing what Trump has done and making sure the judicial branch is kept in tact.

The legislative and the judicial are the real ones that make actual change. The president, not so much. So having a president, that is hamstrung by a Senate that won't do a damn thing, or confirm any of your judges, pretty much is useless.

So yes, morally, I would back a candidate that will bring sweeping overhaul to the houses and thus the judicial, creating real change for years to come.

 

[womanfish]

I think that’s exactly what will happen. Bernie may win, but we’ll lose the house and have no shot at the senate.

Bernie on top of ticket will be framed - Socialism vs MERICA!!!

Trump is so hated that even a socialist can beat him but down ticket will be brutal.

2018 midterms, not a single Bernie/AOC backed candidate won. Dems retook the house on centrist policies. This was the direction from the top, fighting the progressive wing and it turned out to be the right move

Remember, Bloomberg funded 21 out of the 23 people that won in the 2018 midterms. He is focused on what is important. The houses

 

[DaveC]

I received a Twitter warning for telling Rudy Giuliani that I hope he gets AIDS this morning...in response to his tweet making fun of Hilary passing out. [emoji4]

i like how just last weekend you were pretending like you had some kind of moral superiority over the twitter bernie bros.

 

[mikal]

i like how just last weekend you were pretending like you had some kind of moral superiority over the twitter bernie bros.

Dude. I have moral superiority over no one. I’m an asshole that talks shit all day all night. You know that. Rudy sucks and so do Bernie bros. So fuck you.

 

[DaveC]

Dude. I have moral superiority over no one. I’m an asshole that talks shit all day all night. You know that. Rudy sucks and so do Bernie bros. So fuck you.

so maybe don't be all fucking santimonious then about some bernie bros being "the absolute worst" because they booed hillary clinton or called buttigieg "wall street pete", while you're out there being proud of yourself for literally wishing AIDS on people.

 

[mikal]

so maybe don't be all fucking santimonious then about some bernie bros being "the absolute worst" because they booed hillary clinton or called buttigieg "wall street pete", while you're out there literally wishing AIDS on people.

Awwww do you need a diaper change? I’m so sorry. The next time Bernie fans act like shitheads, I’ll praise them and talk about how great Guiliani is just for you. [emoji3590]

 

[DaveC]

grow the fuck up, you sound like a teenager.

 

[mikal]

grow the fuck up, you sound like a teenager.

Grow some thicker skin, lol! You’re too easy to rile up. [emoji1787]

 

[Gzusfrk]

I think what she's saying is that there is more to all this than a person. The larger picture here is the keeping the house and taking the senate. Controlling all three will be key in undoing what Trump has done and making sure the judicial branch is kept in tact.

The legislative and the judicial are the real ones that make actual change. The president, not so much. So having a president, that is hamstrung by a Senate that won't do a damn thing, or confirm any of your judges, pretty much is useless.

So yes, morally, I would back a candidate that will bring sweeping overhaul to the houses and thus the judicial, creating real change for years to come.

I love it, “the President, not so much”.....then what have you handful of keyboard warriors been prattling on about for four years, and hundreds of useless pages on an Internet forum? To think of the amount of hours wasted.

 

[DaveC]

Grow some thicker skin, lol! You’re too easy to rile up. [emoji1787]

i'm not riled up in any fashion, that post was just flat-out stupid and childish. next time try something a little more mature than what you'd hear in a middle school cafeteria if you actually want to piss me off.

 

[mikal]

Man, Bernie Bros are the absolute worst.

 

[BEAL]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1229043887815028737?s=21

BENGAAAAZZZIIII