Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 243: Kurd, I Stan

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean there is no reason why Bernie should not want his name associated with socialized healthcare. That is his policy. If it's a good policy, he should be happy to have his name on it. Any reluctance to support it fully will be seen as a tacit admission that it's bad.

The primary benefits of single-payer are:

1. You can negotiate better rates, because there is now only one buyer of healthcare services, who holds a monopoly.
2. Because healthcare will now be paid for through taxes, people will pay depending on their level of income - the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less.

You do not get the full force of either of these benefits if you retain private choice. But you do get choice. And it's up to the voters to weigh the pros and cons and decide what they want.
---

In general liberals greatly underestimate average voters. The average voter's thinking process goes something like this:

1. Before Obamacare I was paying $4,000 a year for health insurance, and it covered a, b, c, d, and e.
2. After Obamacare I am now paying $8,000 a year for health insurance, and it doesn't cover anything unless I get hit by a truck because the deductible is so high.
3. Obamacare is bad.

The average liberal thinks like this:

1. I read a policy paper saying that Obamacare saves people money.
2. Obamacare is good.
---

Elizabeth "No Mercy" Warren

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1184078610367471617

A professor who had sexually harassed her invited her to speak at his funeral. She used her eulogy to talk about the harassment.

WaPo article that is the source of the tweet...

With a smile on her face and humor in her voice

god help anyone who tries to come at her in the debate
---

sounds like Pete continuing the bullshit display he had in the September debate

hardly a coincidence he's been such a big fundraising candidate in spite of his polling (glaring at that Q2), as Biden goes perhaps a tangible switch to Pete begins soon

... but a Biden to Pete switch is going to be tough with their stark contrast with black voters
---

xp1337 posted...

god help anyone who tries to come at her in the debate

She's the frontrunner now! People will basically have to come at her.

---

sadly she's not still not frontrunner / centre-pedestal yet :(
---

Just saw that national poll averages have Bernie down to 11%

That heart attack didn't kill him, but it may have killed his chances
---

RCP currently has Biden +6, and the highest it ever had Warren was +0.2. She's never been clearly ahead of Biden. The reason it feels like she is is a combination of momentum and the fact that you're much more likely to see reporting on individual polls where Warren is ahead because it's a more exciting story than "Biden still ahead by 8 in poll"

---

Oh I guess Biden jumped since last I saw. I was referring to that 0.2%, yeah. It was minor and well within MOE but it was enough for people in the media to (I guess briefly) declare her frontrunner status.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Just saw that national poll averages have Bernie down to 11%

That heart attack didn't kill him, but it may have killed his chances

He's still a strong tier of his own above Butt/Harris on RCP, at about 15%. I don't know what the most reliable aggregator is though

---

I think Biden has less of a chance every day, but man would it be an awful feeling for him to win and we go 2016 Part 2.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This is a lack of self awareness so astonishing that it leads me to consider that he might not be sentient

Wasn't it also Mitt Romney's niece?

Or I should say Fred Trump's grandson and George Romney's granddaughter.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I think Biden has less of a chance every day, but man would it be an awful feeling for him to win and we go 2016 Part 2.

Spoilers Biden loses to Trump. Republicans take control of 38 states and amend the Constitution to allow presidents to have unlimited terms. Trump's campaign slogan in 2024 is a single word, "Emails." Hillary can't resist and runs and loses to Trump again.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

He's still a strong tier of his own above Butt/Harris on RCP, at about 15%. I don't know what the most reliable aggregator is though

I trust them less than 538, but unfortunately the latter doesn't have an overall tracker. They'd have to do a terrible job to be worse than looking at individual polls, though!

---

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans take control of 38 states and amend the Constitution to allow presidents to have unlimited terms.

Bad move, Democrats will just have Obama run for his 3rd term and he'll coast off his popularity to become President for Life.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Oh I guess Biden jumped since last I saw. I was referring to that 0.2%, yeah. It was minor and well within MOE but it was enough for people in the media to (I guess briefly) declare her frontrunner status.

Warrens wins are generally +3s to +6, but Biden polls have still been remaining where they've been, +10 and beyond without much movement (ie.Morning Consult )

Last week the aggregate was just among a bunch of Warrens and 1 strong Biden poll, but this week couple more Biden polls have come up overwriting the Warrens -- thus back to a "jump" for Biden

Like at the moment now the RCP aggregate is based on 3 strong Biden polls and two modest Warrens so yeah, stark difference from last week
---

https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1184178018278879232?s=21

lock him up!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

He's still a strong tier of his own above Butt/Harris on RCP, at about 15%. I don't know what the most reliable aggregator is though

I trust them less than 538, but unfortunately the latter doesn't have an overall tracker. They'd have to do a terrible job to be worse than looking at individual polls, though!

The two main groups I know doing aggregates here are RCP and The Economist.

Economist has Warren+2 right now.

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

RCP, IIRC, takes the stance of throw everything on the pile and what will be will be. The Economist seems to look only at polling outfits they deem high quality.

I wish 538 would give their own aggregate because I'd trust them the most but =/
---

Hmm interesting

Anyway, I definitely think one could make an argument that Warren is the most likely candidate to win, but theres really no case to be made that shes a clear front runner (defined based on current standing in the race) right now.

If I had to give odds Id go like Warren 45%, Biden 40%, field 15%.

---

Yeah, clear frontunner I'd disagree with. She just isn't. She's absolutely trending in the right direction (and Biden is, at best, staying even) and I do believe it's accurate to call her the favorite based on these trends but clear frontunner implies to me that they both have the trends and a substantial polling lead... and Warren does not have the latter yet. She's basically pulled even with Biden +/- a few points depending on how you look at it.

To expand on The Economist's aggregate, just taking a quick glance, looking at the polls they're counting (just the recent ones displayed by default, I didn't expand it for all of them because that'd take too long) it's the list you'd get if you filtered 538's National Poll list with the requirement that you look at B-ranked pollsters and above - with two exceptions. The Economist includes two polls that 538 does not assign a ranking to (lack of data, I assume) both are Warren polls. One is a +2 poll but the other is a this-has-to-be-an-outlier +13 Warren poll.

The other thing is, that B-rated quality filter excludes only two pollsters over that timeframe from 538's list. Morning Consult (B-) and HarrisX (C+). These are uniformly all polls that are at least Biden+10 so there's that too. Now, what exactly it means that on 538 that you can draw a clear line at between B-and-above rated pollsters and B- -and-below pollsters where you have a close race with the better rated ones and a clear Biden lead on the lower ones I don't know, but it is an interesting contrast, I think.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1184178018278879232?s=21

lock him up!

Gotta love the rule of law party
---

Rick Wilson is right on this:

https://twitter.com/therickwilson/status/1184131286576877568?s=21

---

Definitely trending towards a Warren vs Biden scenario.

Warren has done a good job grabbing free airtime to get her name out there.

Need a lot of the lesser candidates to drop out already.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27852132/protesters-trample-burn-lebron-james-jerseys-hong-kong

This is such a cowardly response from James. He had been so good about being vocal about social issues, but apparently that only extends as far as he can still profit off of it.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Definitely trending towards a Warren vs Biden scenario.

Warren has done a good job grabbing free airtime to get her name out there.

Need a lot of the lesser candidates to drop out already.

I'm hoping we get a nice big culling for those candidates that miss the next debate, because otherwise I feel like all this dead weight is going to be bloating the field until Iowa at least.

---

I feel like there will only be a few more significant dropouts before Iowa.
---

Yeah, I was really disappointed in LeBron for that HK response. Especially because of how good he's been on most other issues.
---

Not sure we needed a John Barron/(Tom Riddle/Voldemort) crossover, but:
https://twitter.com/mmcassella/status/1184167134663979010

---

Wait, I thought Tulsi was crying about not being in the debate
---

she was already qualified when she was complaining and talking about boyotting last week

but then yesterday "announced" she'll be attending anyways
---

Tulsi can't go more than a few days without changing her mind on something for attention
---

fuck your divisions tulsi
---

*claps the mic*

yang with the hand choreo training
---

What did Tulsi say? My advisor dropped into my office so I needed to stop watching for a second.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What did Tulsi say? My advisor dropped into my office so I needed to stop watching for a second.

She was very noncommital about impeachment and basically acted like the divide would deepen in our country after all is said and done.
---

yeah just pushing back against impeachment and refocusing it to be about Senate removal which won't happen despite

being weasley about her "turn-around" on impeachment when it got too unpopular
---

daily reminder sanders wrote the damn bill

---

god I hate Pete's "trust the american people" horseshit
---

really wish Warren would just say what Bernie did
---

I'm not making republican talking points YOU'RE making republic talking points!
---

This is a really tough question. Bernie's answer is pretty much political suicide because it gives a soundbite that the Republicans can use to trash him, since the American people are stupid and think "all taxes = bad". But Warren really comes across as disingenuous because she doesn't want to give that soundbite.
---

Inviso posted...

This is a really tough question. Bernie's answer is pretty much political suicide because it gives a soundbite that the Republicans can use to trash him, since the American people are stupid and think "all taxes = bad". But Warren really comes across as disingenuous because she doesn't want to give that soundbite.

Republicans will always come up with something. Bernie is honest, and we need to learn to appreciate that.
---

Inviso posted...

This is a really tough question. Bernie's answer is pretty much political suicide because it gives a soundbite that the Republicans can use to trash him, since the American people are stupid and think "all taxes = bad". But Warren really comes across as disingenuous because she doesn't want to give that soundbite.

No, Americans are fine with taxes if it's levied against the right people. The upper middle class.
---

that's a good fiery berning
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Inviso posted...

This is a really tough question. Bernie's answer is pretty much political suicide because it gives a soundbite that the Republicans can use to trash him, since the American people are stupid and think "all taxes = bad". But Warren really comes across as disingenuous because she doesn't want to give that soundbite.

Republicans will always come up with something. Bernie is honest, and we need to learn to appreciate that.

I appreciate it. I just also know that Americans, nay, human BEINGS, are fucking stupid and whiny assholes who hate any and all taxes, and Bernie just fucked himself on this issue, because of how awful human beings are.
---

Also, you guys are behind the times. Republicans don't care about socialism anymore. Now it's all about corruption and elitism and emails.
---

why haven't we talked about her emails in the debate yet
---

Since Harris brought it up, another potential issue with M4A (vs M4AWWI) is that unless the Hyde amendment is repealed no one would have abortion covered by their insurance. Even if Dems were able to do that while passing M4A there would always be danger of Republicans reinstating it when they get power.

---

It's completely obvious when Warren says 'costs' she's insinuating that that is factoring in taxes. Just makes Pete and klobacher look like disingenuous smucks.
---

People may be stupid, but nobody hears you if you condescend or treat them like you think they are stupid. Thats why people who hate socialism still like Bernie.

---