2020 Field

The "electable" Joe Bidens second place finish was his best ever in the nomination process. In 3 runs he has 0 wins. Bernie has 3 wins in 3 chances just this time around. Unless Deleware is 100% of the vote Biden has no chance in any race.
 
cajunrevenge said:

This is why Bernie can win.
"
Click to expand...

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II
@RevDrBarber
·
18h
One definition of moderate is “middle ground.”

The other is “reasonable.” So I ask, what is the middle

ground we should look for when 30 mil ppl are w/out

health insurance, 250,000 die from poverty each year

& 62 mil work every day w/out living wages?
 
cajunrevenge said:
The "electable" Joe Bidens second place finish was his best ever in the nomination process. In 3 runs he has 0 wins. Bernie has 3 wins in 3 chances just this time around. Unless Deleware is 100% of the vote Biden has no chance in any race.
Click to expand...
looks like he is going to win SC....make sure to update your post when it happens
 
My prediction about Warren was based on her being Lisa Simpson and The Simpsons predicts just about everything. Bernie was always my pick this time around based on his pledge to legalize marijuana day one via executive order. And Prohibition Joe finds a way to bungle everything. A lot of Biden supporters second choice is Bernie. I think people want to vote for a winner.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
My prediction about Warren was based on her being Lisa Simpson and The Simpsons predicts just about everything. Bernie was always my pick this time around based on his pledge to legalize marijuana day one via executive order. And Prohibition Joe finds a way to bungle everything. A lot of Biden supporters second choice is Bernie. I think people want to vote for a winner.
Click to expand...


I disagree with your second to last sentence. Biden supporters and Bernie supporters are total opposites. Bernie and Warren are on one side of the party while the others are more or less on the other side
 
57Brave said:
Collecting revenue is something Congress has not been good at since the 1980's.

I am encouraged that you see a single payer system as something that is do able.
Click to expand...

It could be done in a fiscally responsible way, the question is whether there's the stomach for it. The idea that a single payer system will be instituted that wont require a massive tax increase on virtually every American is a fantasy. There will have to be a massive tax increase with payroll taxes being the easiest thing to target. However, that massive tax increase will be largely offset by not paying insurance premiums. There's no way to set up a system that doesn't convert current premiums into taxes. So if people think they'll start being able to keep the money they pay in premiums, they're just wrong.

Converting health insurance to a single payer system would save some money. Administrative costs could be cut and the bargaining power of a monopoly would reduce the costs of healthcare. This is actually why a lot of healthcare organizations oppose a single payer system. There will be less money flowing to providers.

However, the savings would be offset by the not insignificant number of people who don't have any insurance now but who would have it under a single payer system.

Where it gets difficult is when you start talking about deductibles, copays, and coinsurance. If the goal is people can go get healthcare and never have to pay for it (like happens in Europe), then you're going to have to come up with a lot of money. Right now, even those with health insurance shoulder a fair portion of their healthcare costs. Eliminating those would require a large appropriation. That money would need to come from somewhere. The question is whether Congress would have the stomach for tax increases to cover it.

So it something that could be done but it's something I will oppose strongly if it's not properly funded. Creating a massive entitlement and funding it with Leprechaun gold isn't tenable.
 
Brian Schatz

@brianschatz
·
44m


The Coronavirus is not contained. It will not fade in the spring. Trump cut CDC by 9 percent.

Trump eliminated the position at the global health security teams at NSC and DHS.

They don’t know what they are doing.

They are fixated on the politics and the stock market.

The question everyone must ask when there is a choice of this magnitude,
what kind of world do you want to live in.
 
striker42 said:
It could be done in a fiscally responsible way, the question is whether there's the stomach for it. The idea that a single payer system will be instituted that wont require a massive tax increase on virtually every American is a fantasy. There will have to be a massive tax increase with payroll taxes being the easiest thing to target. However, that massive tax increase will be largely offset by not paying insurance premiums. There's no way to set up a system that doesn't convert current premiums into taxes. So if people think they'll start being able to keep the money they pay in premiums, they're just wrong.

Converting health insurance to a single payer system would save some money. Administrative costs could be cut and the bargaining power of a monopoly would reduce the costs of healthcare. This is actually why a lot of healthcare organizations oppose a single payer system. There will be less money flowing to providers.

However, the savings would be offset by the not insignificant number of people who don't have any insurance now but who would have it under a single payer system.

Where it gets difficult is when you start talking about deductibles, copays, and coinsurance. If the goal is people can go get healthcare and never have to pay for it (like happens in Europe), then you're going to have to come up with a lot of money. Right now, even those with health insurance shoulder a fair portion of their healthcare costs. Eliminating those would require a large appropriation. That money would need to come from somewhere. The question is whether Congress would have the stomach for tax increases to cover it.

So it something that could be done but it's something I will oppose strongly if it's not properly funded. Creating a massive entitlement and funding it with Leprechaun gold isn't tenable.
Click to expand...

Respectfully. man, this is just not the case. The author of the thread below is a eminent scholar on the subject.


[tw]1232365361305202689[/tw]

I get what you’re saying about converting premiums into taxes on some level, but not nearly what you’re suggesting, based on my understanding.
 
Katrina vandenHeuvel Retweeted




TheSaltyProfessor

@SaltyProfessor
·

Why are Democratic candidates required to articulate—in painful detail

—how they will pay for their proposed policies, while Republicans NEVER

have to answer to trillions in deficits, war, or tax cuts for the rich?
 
nsacpi said:
looks like he is going to win SC....make sure to update your post when it happens
Click to expand...

He was a 20 point favorite not that long ago. Don't be surprised if Bernie makes it very close. Anything less than a decisive win for Biden is a blow to his electability claims as they're almost entire built around the Black vote claim and if he doesn't have that locked up, then he's not electable.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...lead-over-sanders-in-south-carolina-we-think/
 
nsacpi said:
Margin is something to keep an eye on in SC.
Click to expand...

Well the advantage Biden has in SC is that he was leading for so long that the Nevada wave of Sanders is less likely to wreck it. Polling in other states like Texas and North Carolina look bleak for Biden. He's well within Margin but if the south is supposed to be his strong hold on Bernie, that's not a great look to be hanging tight. Biden wants to win this he needs a decisive win in SC. Anything less than that and it's just a bump on the road to Sanders winning. If all Biden leaves is with 5 more delegates than Sanders (which is what 538 is projecting right now) that's a loss for him. All that really does is pass Buttigieg and open up a bigger gap between Bernie and second place. Biden still has a shot, as the field thins he has a better shot. But the reality is that if Bernie builds enough delegates the desire to vote for a winner will start taking over the concerns that he's not a moderate. When Super Tuesday is over, Bernie could have a number of more wins. As of right now he has a huge polling lead in California, he has an effective tie with Biden in Texas, North Carolina, he's second only to Klobachar in Minnesota (would make sense for her to win that, I'm assuming she's only being kept in the race by the funds of a PAC to keep Bernie from winning that State), he's not gonna win Oklahoma as Biden and Bloomburg have that one tied up seemingly, he's in an effective tie in Virginia, an effective tie in Massachusetts, comfy lead in Maine, no one will sniff him in Vermont, He's withing Margin of error in Arkansas, and he's clearing the field in Utah. These are all early and I think we'll see some more accurate polls next monday, but assuming most of this is true, Bernie is set to finish first or second in almost every Super Tuesday State. And is set to probably win the 2 biggest prizes that day, California, and keep delegates from Biden in Texas. Bloomberg is just an added spoiler to aid Bernie.
 
"how are we going to pay for that?!?!" as billionaires taxes are cut again.
as the military budget increases again.
these things are obviously far more important than healthcare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top