Yes, go Warren. Far and soon. I think every man sees a little of their Mother-in Law in ol Liz.
I've been married for three years. Dated my wife for six years before that.
I love my mother-in-law. I'm good to her and she's good to me.
So, if that's how it is with Elizabeth, i'm in.
No matter what, i will not vote for our commander-in-chief.
Among numerous other issues (and there's tons), my newborn daughter is hispanic. She'll probably have a darker complextion than most caucasians and will probably be noticeably hispanic. I will not be voting for anyone telling someone born in the US to go back to "where they came from".
Trump is the reason i left the Republican Party (before that tweet). Or maybe, Trump is the reason the Republican Party left me. They went from the party of family values, to the party i'm ashamed of
ikr, but Trump can sack and pillage all the norms and institutions. Trump wipes his ass with a part of the constitution at 3 AM dailey, but that's all good.
Well, it can either be the 2nd amendment or the Republicans can fund a fake dossier, give it to the FISA court, and say that the Democrats got help from a foreign power to win the election. We can make something up just like the Mueller thing.
No, because she doesn't support the 2nd amendment and goes against the constitution.
On that logic Trump doesn't support the 1st amendment as he has blocked media journalists from his pressers. And, anybody who hates on Kapernick for his protests during the National Anthem also doesn't support the 1st amendment, which "goes against the constitution".
But hey, you do you and I will swap you the 2nd amendment any day for the 1st amendment.
I'm glad you see him that way now GM. So tell me, you going to vote dem no matter who it is or is there still no line he can cross that will let you vote for somebody that supports a woman's choice?
I'm glad you see him that way now GM. So tell me, you going to vote dem no matter who it is or is there still no line he can cross that will let you vote for somebody that supports a woman's choice?
I have always seen him that way. Many folks just assume that I love him because I voted for him. I voted him because I believe Hillary was even worse. Now s far as the next election. I already said I liked Tim Ryan if he made it that far in the election process. (Which unless their is a miracle he won't) So I am still taking a wait and see approach as to who I will vote for this time. I will pick a horse to support once it is a two or three horse race.
Honestly stop playing BS games. A couple weeks ago you already pulled that nonsense saying you don’t see any dem you cansupoort that’s a current front runner.
If Warren were to somehow get elected, I'd want an impeachment inquiry on day 1.
Well as long as the Democrats assign a Democratic special prosecutor first. You know, like Rosenstein did with Mueller. You keep blaming Mueller on the democrats when it was a Trump appointee who named him special prosecutor to begin with and Mueller too is a Republican.
Somebody needs to write the book, "The Mueller Investigation For Dummmies".
Well, it can either be the 2nd amendment or the Republicans can fund a fake dossier, give it to the FISA court, and say that the Democrats got help from a foreign power to win the election. We can make something up just like the Mueller thing.
The constitution has been amended 27 times. Stop acting like it can't happen again. There is no sacred cow.
Once again, Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by Rosenstein who is also a Republican and was appointed to his job by Trump. Get it right for a change.
As opposed to voting for a bigger and more deplorable POS.
I'm pretty sure that Trump is not only larger than Hillary, but weighs more too. I mean if we're actually going to compare which POS is "bigger".
There's only one actual matter at the time. Trump is president and Hillary isn't. Trump will be jidged by what he's done. Saying, "Hillary this" and "Obama that" isn't going to change that.
Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees he’s ready to “go to the mat and ... fight” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other politicians who have called for big tech companies to be broken up, and predicted the social media giant will prevail even if Warren wins the presidency in 2020.
“There might be a political movement where people are angry at the tech companies or are worried about concentration or worried about different issues and worried that they’re not being handled well,” Zuckerberg told Facebook employees in Q&A sessions in July, according to leaked audio recordings published by The Verge on Tuesday. “That doesn’t mean that, even if there’s anger and that you have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies. I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge.”
He continued:
Does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. I mean, that’s not the position that you want to be in … It’s like, we care about our country and want to work with our government and do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.
Warren responded to the disclosure by reiterating her plan to break up tech giants, tweeting Tuesday: “What would really ‘suck’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy.”
Elizabeth Warren ✔ @ewarren What would really “suck” is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy. https://twitter.com/JimPethokoukis/status/1179008259367284741 …
40K 9:20 AM - Oct 1, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 10.2K people are talking about this Facebook has repeatedly come under fire for privacy concerns, potential antitrust violations, its role in election interference and the dissemination of hate speech, online abuse and disinformation.
Warren has called for big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon to be broken up, warning of their threats to competition, privacy and free speech.
“Today’s big tech companies have too much power ― too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,” Warren wrote in March. “We need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.”
Several other Democratic candidates have taken similar positions, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has said she would “seriously take a look at” breaking up Facebook, calling it “essentially a utility that has gone unregulated.”
Part of Warren’s plan would involve more regulation of “anti-competitive mergers,” like Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram.
“Unwinding these mergers will promote healthy competition in the market ― which will put pressure on big tech companies to be more responsive to user concerns, including about privacy,” Warren said in March.
According to the leaked audio, Zuckerberg reassured employees that “the rule of law” is on Facebook’s side. He said “the case is not particularly strong” against the company, arguing that election interference and the spread of hate speech could be “more likely” if social media giants were “more fragmented.”
i agree. i know she might be too left for you man but you gotta understand from my point of view, she makes so much sense and is way better than Bernie. She's a capitalist who believes in having real oversight to make sure corporations are acting legally and ethically, but she isn't bernie, who thinks we shouldnt have billionairs at all.
and i love her infrastructure plan, especially with green tech, that will invest into the people for a change, not foreign countries that want nothing to do with us.
One thing I realize during every election cycle. What a candidate wants to get done and what they can actually get done are two different things. I too like some of her plans but I think her math is a little fuzzy.
I don't believe that a lot of her ideas will pass in their current form.
After some compromise, yes. But there are a lot of democrats in districts that are purple. If they go too far liberal they'll lose their political careers. And one thing we know, politicians care most about power.
If I were actually convinced she could just cram everything she wants through, I would be worried. I'm not.
Breaking: sanders hospitalized after blockage found in arteries.
________
sorry OCD, but we have legitimate concerns on bernie's physical fitness. i understand that it could be minor but...its not good. i am hoping that he is healthy and remains so, but i have to be honest and say its another knock on his ability to hold office.
You know I love Bernie, but I think this race would be better if he through his support behind Liz, and now would be a good time/reason to do it. He should go live his life, he's not going to beat Liz anyway. Plus Liz will take that 'want a woman POTUS' vote too.
Breaking: sanders hospitalized after blockage found in arteries.
________
sorry OCD, but we have legitimate concerns on bernie's physical fitness. i understand that it could be minor but...its not good. i am hoping that he is healthy and remains so, but i have to be honest and say its another knock on his ability to hold office.
Hope he is ok. I don't wish harm on any candidate.
Breaking: sanders hospitalized after blockage found in arteries.
________
sorry OCD, but we have legitimate concerns on bernie's physical fitness. i understand that it could be minor but...its not good. i am hoping that he is healthy and remains so, but i have to be honest and say its another knock on his ability to hold office.
I would agree with that.
While it's obviously a bad thing for Bernie the person, it might be a good thing for it to have happened now rather than later in campaign - for the democratic party.
Let me explain that more before any one jumps down my throat: Imagine he won the democratic nomination.........and THEN it happened. I do feel it may very well have swayed some middle voters.
Regardless, he's a person just like me, you, and everyone else. He'll get the best care, and time will determine where this leads.
This is why I don't condone anyone in their mid 70's being elected president. People wish to claim that's age discrimination. But it's actually a point of common sense.
From life expectancy to health issues, it's something that should be of great concern to us all.
j/c
I certainly wish the best for Bernie, his family and everyone else concerned. He brought a lot of critical issues to the forefront before it was anywhere close to accepted or popular. That's how you know a man puts his beliefs ahead of his political career. Whether you agree with his policies or not, at least he's always been a man who stands behind his convictions.
Breaking: sanders hospitalized after blockage found in arteries.
________
sorry OCD, but we have legitimate concerns on bernie's physical fitness. i understand that it could be minor but...its not good. i am hoping that he is healthy and remains so, but i have to be honest and say its another knock on his ability to hold office.
I would agree with that.
While it's obviously a bad thing for Bernie the person, it might be a good thing for it to have happened now rather than later in campaign - for the democratic party.
Let me explain that more before any one jumps down my throat: Imagine he won the democratic nomination.........and THEN it happened. I do feel it may very well have swayed some middle voters.
Regardless, he's a person just like me, you, and everyone else. He'll get the best care, and time will determine where this leads.
IF Bernie manages to win the nomination his VP choice will be HUGE. I would expect a Sanders/Warren ticket. BUT, I don't think Sanders wins the nom.
I voted for anybody but Hillary. The same way I won't vote for the Emu Pocahonas, The Old guy with the bad heart or the older guy thats a little senial.
I’ll take the democratic field. I’m officially throwing my hat in the ring, for a younger cat that emphasizes climate change.
Believe it or not, the majority of Americans did not want trump to represent us. Believe it or not, climate change has been at the forefront of most industrialized nations mindset, for quite sometime, we are just playing catch-up.
Anyone that disagrees today, will learn. I’ve failed you as a fellow Browns fan, if I haven’t taught you already, that’s on me.
I voted for anybody but Hillary. The same way I won't vote for the Emu Pocahonas, The Old guy with the bad heart or the older guy thats a little senial.
Now you’re just trolling. You voted for a pos potus and you’ll do it again. Admitting that is the first step to political sobriety pal.
Democratic donors are increasingly expressing frustration with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, saying he’s failed to make a clear rational for why he’s running for the White House.
Donors complain that a string of verbal gaffes and inconsistent debate performances have contributed to a sense of worry about the strength of his candidacy.
There is also some dissatisfaction with how the Biden camp has responded to a new series of attacks from President Trump, who has seen his own calls for Ukraine to investigate the former vice president turn into the impetus for an impeachment inquiry in the House.
“Look, let’s be honest. He’s a weak frontrunner,” one major donor said.
Biden had a disappointing third-quarter fundraising showing, raising just $15.2 million compared to $24.6 million for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), $25.3 million for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and $19.1 million for South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
The dismal numbers have added to a sense that the former vice president’s campaign is on the decline, while Warren’s, in particular, is on the rise.
“A lot of us are really concerned,” another Democratic bundler said. “We think Biden is the strongest out of the lot but he hasn’t exactly shown that he can play the part yet.”
Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said Biden’s poor numbers suggest donors lack confidence in his campaign.
“The type of big donors that might give to Joe Biden only invest in sure things,” he said. “Biden’s nomination looked like a sure thing back in the spring when he got into the race with a 25 percent lead so he raised a lot of money. Now his nomination is a crapshoot after flubs on the campaign trail, poor debate performances and the big surge by Elizabeth Warren.
“Big money people who might favor Biden are investors; not gamblers or zealots so the money is drying up,” Bannon concluded.
Warren and Sanders have both gobbled up small-dollar donors at a rate the Biden camp hasn’t been able to contend with, putting more pressure on the former vice president’s campaign to win support from big donors.
“A candidate like Sanders can lag in the polls and still raise a lot of money because he has a large number of fervent and committed followers who will keep on giving hell and high water,” Bannon said. “Biden doesn’t have that kind of donor base.”
Biden has sought to bolster his campaign, partly by using the attacks from Trump as an argument for people to support his campaign.
“The real story of the attacks on Joe Biden is that every Democrat is going to be victimized the same way,” said Robert Zimmerman, a longtime Democratic donor who said he will be sending Biden a donation in response to the Trump attacks.
“I, for one, will be sending a donation out of respect for him personally because we cannot let any of our candidates be slandered this way,” Zimmerman said.
One longtime Democratic bundler —who has not committed to a campaign— agreed that there was concern about Biden’s campaign particularly with Warren gaining momentum in recent weeks and overtaking him in polls. But the bundler also said Biden’s recent numbers are good enough to keep him competitive.
“He has never been viewed as a prolific fundraiser and hasn’t raised [money] in over a decade, unlike most of the candidates who have had an election,” the bundler said, adding that in general Biden has had “strong” back-to-back quarters.
“Five million keeps you going for this quarter, 10 million allows you to get ready for Iowa and New Hampshire and over 15 [million] allows you to start playing in Super Tuesday [states],” the bundler said.
But other donors aren’t entirely convinced.
“They’re just not where they should be,” the first donor said.
Biden’s campaign met with top fundraisers and donors over the weekend to brief them on strategy over PowerPoint presentations that “plotted the path forward for the former vice president,” according to The New York Times.
Denise Bauer, a donor and the former ambassador to Belgium, said it was a pivotal moment. “We need him to get the nomination because he’s the one who can win,” Bauer told the Times. “We are all going to try to raise every single dollar we can.”
One donor told The Hill that some are holding off giving to Biden because they need to see reason to have more confidence in his campaign.
“I think that’s why so many people are still in wait-and-see mode,” the donor said.
There are a lot of moderate black voters. So I don't see how you can project your views on moderates as a whole. Sure there will be people who would say Liz or Bernie would be a no go because they are too progressive. I guess if one of them wins the nomination we'll have to see how that all goes. Else we will never know.
black americans make up 15% of the country, and even less of the voting block.
when Pit says the majority of moderate voters, he means...well, the other demographics.
which all the moderate voters pretty much stayed home, btw. and i already see them making their built in excuse for sitting on their asses again in 2020.
On a personal note, I'm an "anybody but Trump" voter. I'm tired of seeing a $#!+show running this country.
But not everyone who has similar political views as myself is going to go that route.
And if you actually think people standing on their principals is making up, "built in excuses", I truly feel sorry for you. Just because they don't see it the way you do doesn't make their views and beliefs any less valid. Some people aren't going to sell their beliefs and principals down the river to vote for some far left progressive candidate.
That’s fine, but I don’t want to hear those same people whine about trump for the next 4 years like they’ve been doing since 2016.
I don’t want to hear crap about how bad trump is if people aren’t willing to replace him.
People who don’t vote but complain absolutely have built in excuses. If someone is so outraged over something, but aren’t willing to do anything about it, then the problem isn’t the politician.
And that’s a fact. I told my boy the same thing. He constantly whining about mike deWine being governor, yet didn’t show up to vote for someone else. The problem is no longer deWine.
Then someone has to come along and nominate a candidate they see as worthy of being president.
I see it as many Democrats have decided they feel it's fine to try to cram a progressive down the throats of America. "And if they don't like it they're part of the damned problem!!!"
Why not? Conservatives crammed trump down America’s throats, and not only did he get elected, hey got their Supreme Court judges on top of it.
Sorry Pit but it’s like you’re trying to tell me to ignore the clear evidence that says that Strategy works. The people who didn’t give two craps about moderate voters got their president, yet somehow you think you can convince me that it won’t happen for progressives if we rally up?
Well your explanation is fine if you're trying to say that Democrats should act just like the Republicans did in 2016. I mean that is pretty much what you said.
I certainly hope you're right. But Trump used hate and fear to win in 2016. That was the only strategy they had.
I didn’t say anything about the behavior of republicans. Remember they didn’t want trump at all on the ticket. And please don’t conflate trump with the republicans in 2016. Because even though Hillary won the popular vote, the American people made it very clear they wanted a republican controlled congress at the time.
Republicans straight up won control of congress in 2016. I have no issues with that.
But warren has started energizing the progressive base much like trump did with the tea party base.
The big difference is warren has no where near the character flaws of trump. And that right there might actually swing mods to her.
And I simply think it will be way more than what you’re giving credit to, right now. Just my opinion though.
Another theory on why stocks are under pressure lately: The ‘Warren correction’
-“Warren correction” is what Oppenheimer’s Chris Kotowski is calling the recent slowdown in bank stocks.
-Wall Street analysts are saying that as Senator Warren rises in the polls, industries that she’s vowed to challenge – including financial institutions – are taking a hit.
Jefferies biotech analyst Michael Yee wrote that “Elizabeth Warren continues to add uncertainty through the big November 2020 election,” and when it comes to energy, Mizuho’s Paul Sankey believes that “a new overhang has developed for this maligned sector, namely Elizabeth Warren.”
The character issue is certainly what is causing me to support the "anyone but Trump" movement. The question really becomes, is the "progressive base" large enough to win a national election?
That seems to be a question that will only be answered in 2020. Because the fact is, Bernie isn't going to be a huge factor this time around. And once he's gone, his supporters will certainly turn to Warren. That seems to almost make her a shoe in as the Democratic nominee.
Barclays health care services analyst Steve Valiquette noted that his sector has seen “political uncertainty associated with Elizabeth Warren’s steady rise in the Democratic polls,” and MoffettNathanson said that a “Warren presidency would heighten regulatory risks” for telecom names, before adding “but a Warren presidency would heighten regulatory risks for lots of industries.”
Wall Street titans like Omega Advisors’ Leon Cooperman are also speaking about the possible negative market effects from a surging Warren. At CNBC’s annual “Delivering Alpha” conference in September, he told Scott Wapner that if Warren or Sanders become “credible” opponents to President Donald Trump, the “market will not be higher.”
“I think it would be a bear market and they go on for a year and go down 25%...I would say that basically her policies are counterproductive. They’re negative for capitalism,” he said specifically of Warren’s policies.
I think if you just look at policies, no, we aren’t big enough. The reality is that this country as a whole is still slightly conservative leaning.
I mean even American progressives are still considered moderates in Europe, for example.
I think the character thing will draw in a % of mods.
I also think there might be a chance to bring in more moderates for warren, because she does a a good job of explaining why things are the way they are, for the most part. She Atleast has plans that people can criticize or support, while other candidates are still talking in vague terms.
So that’s one reason I like her. Everybody pretty much agrees on WHAT the issues are, Atleast with liberal leaning and conservatives leaning mods. She, however, is also trying to come up with plans that actually fixes those issues, without screwing conservative leaning people over. That has always been the challenge with progressive policies.
Not so much the policies, but explaining how they won’t screw a big chunk of people over. It’s always about messaging. I think people gave it a good shot with conservative policies in 2016, but then saw those republicans completely botch everything they got handed, which is why the voters responded by handing the Dems he house in 2018:
I DONT want this to happen, but if we end up in a recession next year, then never mind a shoe in as the nominee. She might be a shoe in for the oval.
Because look how trump is acting now, and it’s turning the voters off. Imagine how much worse it actually can get if our economy is in the tanks. He’s already a low character person to a slight majority of the country. How he acts in cases of adversity will only make that number higher.
When Obama "gave loans" to the auto industry, it was some kind of crime to them.
It's funny, any time anything is brought up to help the common man, they label it socialism. But you never hear a peep from them when it comes to subsidies, "socialism" for big business. Which includes but is not limited to subsidies for big pharma and fossil fuels. They embrace "their socialism".
You and others here, embracing Socialism, is unbecoming of a true American.
You telling others who have lived here for generations and who have fought and served this country that they should bow to your definition of what makes a person a "true American"... is unbecoming of a true American.
You and others here, embracing Socialism, is unbecoming of a true American.
You telling others who have lived here for generations and who have fought and served this country that they should bow to your definition of what makes a person a "true American"... is unbecoming of a true American.
Those who have lived here for generations, who have fought and served this country, should know better than to become what they fought against for generations.
You and others here, embracing Socialism, is unbecoming of a true American.
You telling others who have lived here for generations and who have fought and served this country that they should bow to your definition of what makes a person a "true American"... is unbecoming of a true American.
Those who have lived here for generations, who have fought and served this country, should know better than to become what they fought against for generations.
You mean like fascist supporting a Trump dictatorship?
You and others here, embracing Socialism, is unbecoming of a true American.
You telling others who have lived here for generations and who have fought and served this country that they should bow to your definition of what makes a person a "true American"... is unbecoming of a true American.
Those who have lived here for generations, who have fought and served this country, should know better than to become what they fought against for generations.
You mean like fascist supporting a Trump dictatorship?
yo, hypothetically, if its Warren VS Pence, who yall got?
I would never vote for Trump or Pence, so the question for me is whether I will vote for a Libertarian candidate or Warren, or whoever the Dem candidate is, this time around. I despise both major parties, so I rarely see much of a difference between the two.
This time, I have to do something I hate. I have to throw my support to a party that does not deserve my vote, but the alternative is something I can’t live with at all. So, it’s Warren, in that scenario.
I hate saying this and I hate it even more that I feel this way...........but, right now.........I am not sure I want to vote. I simply can not get behind any of the candidates.
I'm going to vote and not for Trump. But the only part of it that makes me happy is that I'm trying to do my part to help remove him from The White House.
I am not committed to anybody yet. I want to wait till it comes down to 2 or 3 to chose from before I make up my mind. But like I said before I don't like Trump.
There isn't a single one of the top 5 Democrats in the race that wouldn't be better. Not good per say, but better. I'm never going to vote for some blow hard who is embarrassing my country the way he has to continue doing so.
If you can't see what this man is doing and how corrupt he is, there's no use discussing it at this point.
I am not committed to anybody yet. I want to wait till it comes down to 2 or 3 to chose from before I make up my mind. But like I said before I don't like Trump.
I would not vote for Trump either if I had a better choice. The Dems are a bunch of freaks whose platform is free stuff for everybody, take their guns, drag old people out of their cars, higher taxes, reparations., hate the Military and Cops, run business out of the country.If they ever come up with a true American i'll consider them. What ever happened to the JFK Democrats?
There are three Republicans running against Trump. You have options. But Trump won't even hold republican primaries for fear of losing. You might hate the left, but voting for Trump proves you hate the country more.
So they are worse than a habitual liar who games the system to use government employees to work with foreign governments to interfere in our elections?
Better than a man who brags about groping women? Better than a man who has cheated on all three of his wives? Who has paid off a porn star and a playboy bunny? A man who refuses to let anyone testify before congress by ignoring subpeonas?
Even Hillary testified when called.
It's funny how this works. You're all afraid of trans bathrooms because you worry about females getting groped. Then you support a man who brags about groping women.
Watched Real Time with Bill Maher this weekend and listened to him talk to Klobuchar. Bill wants a centrist, which the bland vanilla Klobuchar embodies. Now I understand that she is a dem candidate and is considered a dem across the board; but she sounds republican-light to me.
Not really. Pete is not bad. And there are some that are less progressive that I don't see that way. But when you are a democrat using GOPer verbal attacks on progressive dems, like you just did; then you are republican light. That's all Amy K. has. She's like rice cakes in every other way.
This particular attack on healthcare for all enrages me for it's stupidity; "I can't back an insurance plan that's going to take 140 million people's insurance that they have now away" while not acknowledging the gouging going on in that system and it's complete failure to control costs or provide adequate coverage or even mention that it's not sustainable! Nope, no factual argument at all, just the same damn fear tactics that the GOPers use.
No, you can't tell Americans they have "no choice" in their healthcare. You can't say, "We're going to take away your current healthcare and force you to take what we tell you to take". That's just a stupid thing to do.
It seems you dislike anyone who doesn't go along with your political agenda hook, line and sinker. It's why I keep saying the Republicans are trying to hand you the election and you'll still blow it.
And before the rhetoric starts about how, "If everyone isn't on it, it won't work." They already do it with the military and it's not nearly as many people as would be on medicare for all "that want it" would be.
Trying to cram things down the throats of Americans is a losing strategy.
Look at you pointing at me with those three fingers pointing back at you... You are absolutely guilty of just that. Some 80+ percent want medicare for all, but the 'save the insurance middlemen' crowd want to muddy the water with this rhetoric. Fact is, nothing changes except who pays and the insurance middlemen get cut out. You can go to ANY Doctor/Hospital you want with better coverage than you have now and spend less money doing it... how is that remotely scary?
I'm not a "save the insurance middleman" person. I'm a save Americans the right to choose person. I'm not like some who waffle. I believe the same way on abortion as I do healthcare. The right to choose.
A president that is not giving away the store to the military, tax cuts or offering crazy new healthcare, and free college for everyone sounds more reasonable.
I'm not a "save the insurance middleman" person. I'm a save Americans the right to choose person. I'm not like some who waffle. I believe the same way on abortion as I do healthcare. The right to choose.
Your right to choose the antiquated failed system over one that covers everybody should never take priority over everybody being covered. JMHO. If you agree to that, then I support your right to choose.
Unlike you viewing healthcare for all as a freebie, I view it as the decent thing to do. Nobody should die because they can't afford healthcare or because profit is more important to some asshat.
Your right to choose the antiquated failed system over one that covers everybody should never take priority over everybody being covered. JMHO. If you agree to that, then I support your right to choose.
Unlike you viewing healthcare for all as a freebie, I view it as the decent thing to do. Nobody should die because they can't afford healthcare or because profit is more important to some asshat.
This is pure rhetoric with zero substance.
So let me get this straight. Medicare (for all who want it). According to your own post, about 80% of the people want it.
According to you, it will be cheaper, with better coverage and lower, if not zero deductibles.
Things you refuse to address. The military already has socialized medicine. They have a very small percentage of the population enrolled. Yet they have managed to negotiate prescription drug costs significantly.
The largest healthcare insurance company in America is United Healthcare Group. They only control about 13% of the market. Next comes Anthem at less that 10%. Then comes Humana at around 8%. There are several more on the list.
See, we are both after the same thing just with different ways to go about it. If 80% of America wants Medicare for all, private insurance companies simply can't compete with what's left of the remaining health insurance market. If it's cheaper and has better coverage, soon people will switch over to Medicare for all because it just makes sense.
The end results will be the same. The only real difference is you wish to use a hammer to accomplish it.
It seems you and OCD actually have something in common. You both agree that people shouldn't have a choice. You just disagree on which issues they should have no choice in.
It seems you and OCD actually have something in common. You both agree that people shouldn't have a choice. You just disagree on which issues they should have no choice in.
BULLS*
Typical centrist rhetoric. You're the only one that has a legit idea. So tell me smart guy, what is your grand right to choose the failed system going to do to bring down cost and make sure everyone that needs medical help gets it? NOTHING. You and the trogs just don't want things to change so much that you might have to learn something new or be pushed out of your comfort zone.
Your right to choose the antiquated failed system over one that covers everybody should never take priority over everybody being covered. JMHO. If you agree to that, then I support your right to choose.
Unlike you viewing healthcare for all as a freebie, I view it as the decent thing to do. Nobody should die because they can't afford healthcare or because profit is more important to some asshat.
This is pure rhetoric with zero substance.
So let me get this straight. Medicare (for all who want it). According to your own post, about 80% of the people want it.
According to you, it will be cheaper, with better coverage and lower, if not zero deductibles.
Things you refuse to address. The military already has socialized medicine. They have a very small percentage of the population enrolled. Yet they have managed to negotiate prescription drug costs significantly.
The largest healthcare insurance company in America is United Healthcare Group. They only control about 13% of the market. Next comes Anthem at less that 10%. Then comes Humana at around 8%. There are several more on the list.
See, we are both after the same thing just with different ways to go about it. If 80% of America wants Medicare for all, private insurance companies simply can't compete with what's left of the remaining health insurance market. If it's cheaper and has better coverage, soon people will switch over to Medicare for all because it just makes sense.
The end results will be the same. The only real difference is you wish to use a hammer to accomplish it.
I'm very familiar with the VA system, and it's much better than 90% of the insurances I've seen in my life. And my problem, the need to use a hammer, has less to do with choice and more to do with loopholes that will be applied by political opponents; have you seen Obamacare? GMAB
You know, I've brought up statistics, asked you questions and addressed some of your point. In return all you have brought to the table is a bunch of rhetoric.
How can private insurance ever survive with only having atotal of 20% of the market share?
How can they compete against better, cheaper coverage with better benifits?
Answer? They can't. But in the mean time, rather than let nature take its course you want to force people into something they don't want.
Try staying on topic and bringing something of substance to the table instead of trying to continue to alienate the very same people that have more in common with your ideas than against them.
I'm tired of your juvenile name calling and socialist rants.
You know, I've brought up statistics, asked you questions and addressed some of your point. In return all you have brought to the table is a bunch of rhetoric.
How can private insurance ever survive with only having atotal of 20% of the market share?
Then what's the point of a fake choice? Tear off the damn band aid already.
How can they compete against better, cheaper coverage with better benifits?
Then what's the point of a fake choice? Tear off the damn band aid already.
Answer? They can't. But in the mean time, rather than let nature take its course you want to force people into something they don't want.
So you prefer the long way around to that same outcome. That's your conservative side clinging to failed policies like trickle down... People are dying because we fail to fix this. That trumps you being comfortable, IMHO.
Try staying on topic and bringing something of substance to the table instead of trying to continue to alienate the very same people that have more in common with your ideas than against them.
OR when we clash, you should know I'm going to say what's on my mind. I absolutely believe the only, ONLY, way to fix healthcare is single payer/medicare for all. And yes I support it with a fire in my belly.
I'm tired of your juvenile name calling and socialist rants.
Juvenile and socialist... and I'm the one name calling. Bro do you ever even read your own post? You attack the things I say as much as any GOPer on the board and I rarely lash out at you BECAUSE we are aligned in beliefs on the other 80%. And trust me when I say, your centrist crap gets on my damn nerves too. But I still like you.
I still like you too. But are you trying to say calling someone a "trog" isn't a juvenile response? Come on man.
And why is it a "fake choice"? I mean we agree that for profit healthcare would surely fail, but why is it you feel so insistent that people not to be permitted to figure that out on their own accord?
That's really our only disagreement here.
The biggest and most accurate description those who oppose mandated national healthcare is the socialist label. My ideas takes away that label and the biggest weapon the opposition has. I mean if you can't see that as a very positive thing to still arrive at the goal we want to see happen, then I can't really make a point here.
Taking away your opponents biggest weapon is a huge advantage. We both end up with what we feel needs to be accomplished.
So let me get this straight. Medicare (for all who want it). According to your own post, about 80% of the people want it.
According to you, it will be cheaper, with better coverage and lower, if not zero deductibles.
A pure single payer/medicare for all will have ZERO deductibles and ZERO premiums, along with ZERO out of pocket expense for anything covered; including but not limited to prescriptions. Your entire investment in healthcare will be in the tax you pay.
Things you refuse to address. The military already has socialized medicine. They have a very small percentage of the population enrolled. Yet they have managed to negotiate prescription drug costs significantly.
Yes the military has negotiated lower prices. But there are laws on the books that inhibit doing this for private insurance, medicare, and medicaid. We also pay for the R&D on most of these drugs, while giving private companies patents. These laws need to be addressed in health care reform.
The largest healthcare insurance company in America is United Healthcare Group. They only control about 13% of the market. Next comes Anthem at less that 10%. Then comes Humana at around 8%. There are several more on the list.
See, we are both after the same thing just with different ways to go about it. If 80% of America wants Medicare for all, private insurance companies simply can't compete with what's left of the remaining health insurance market. If it's cheaper and has better coverage, soon people will switch over to Medicare for all because it just makes sense.
The end results will be the same. The only real difference is you wish to use a hammer to accomplish it.
I fully agree with your point that traditional insurance will not be able to compete. Do you honestly think they will not spend billions in lobbying to make sure they can compete? Do you really think they will just slowly and QUIETLY shrivel like grapes on the vine? Come on bro, you know better.
We have to demand medicare for all/single payer; then we have to do what is needed to make sure it works. Or we can just leave it alone and watch the greedy continue to profit wildly while people die as a result of their greed. Insulin cost $5 a vile to produce and is being sold for $500 a vile. You already know the deal with epipens and how they got jacked up in price. In what scenario that doesn't completely outlaw the greed and price gouging do you see the greedy trillion dollar lobbies not putting in the fix for the greedy taking a hit?
I still like you too. But are you trying to say calling someone a "trog" isn't a juvenile response? Come on man.
I didn't call you a trog bro. That's my pet name for conservatives that resist any real changes at all cost. And yes I threw it in there to stir your emotions.
And why is it a "fake choice"? I mean we agree that for profit healthcare would surely fail, but why is it you feel so insistent that people not to be permitted to figure that out on their own accord?
The problem is not with the slow adapters, but the big money interest who will use those slow adapters to do to medicare for all what they did to Obamacare. Obama wanted single payer, but caved to political pressure disguised as slow change. He cut a deal thinking he could do the same over time. Look how that worked out.
You simply can't deal with these kinds of power brokers with kid gloves. They will take advantage of every weakness in a legislation, every loophole, every possible opening they can to maintain their power and feed their greed. That's why we are where we're at. Think about it.
That's really our only disagreement here.
The biggest and most accurate description those who oppose mandated national healthcare is the socialist label. My ideas takes away that label and the biggest weapon the opposition has. I mean if you can't see that as a very positive thing to still arrive at the goal we want to see happen, then I can't really make a point here.
Taking away your opponents biggest weapon is a huge advantage. We both end up with what we feel needs to be accomplished.
GOPers looking to protect their corporate masters will do plenty of that. And the socialist label is a dig at progressives/far left. They use that to scare the middle (independents and centrists leaning both right and left) more than anything else. When I see that used, I have to attack it every time.
Keeping people trapped in an arcane system that keeps them worried sick or dying over healthcare costs, hungry over food costs, homeless over housing costs, or stupid/uneducated over education costs, and enslaved by debt is despotic. I'll happily take the socialists options over that life everyday all day.
I don't see how they really could. The medicare rebuild bill would stand on its own whether mandated or not. I do agree that they will try to throw all their weight in stopping it.
But the only difference in the bill would be the mandate. You favor the bill with a mandate. I favor the bill without a mandate. Now maybe I haven't been clear here. I do agree with a mandate that everyone have healthcare.
But as with the car verses the horse and carriage, everyone will end up on Medicare instead of private healthcare. Accept maybe the Amish.
But the medicare bill would be exactly the same except that single clause. At that point private healthcare companies would hold no power.
Now if you feel they will be consistently be trying to tear down the bill line by line moving forward after it's passed, I would agree with that. But if you feel that it's the mandate itself they will be targeting I think it would go much deeper and much further than that.
No they wouldn't be the same at all bro. There won't really be a mandate, because in a true single payer system medicare for all ANY other health insurance as we know it would be illegal. There may be some coverage for cosmetic surgeries like fake boobs and facelifts that have no underlying medical need but that's about it. The rest would cease to legally exist leaving them nothing to fight for, manipulate, or slowly erode when GOPers take power like they did with Obamacare.
This debate between us is moot anyway, because unless this is done in a bipartisan way with general consensus it will be challenged to hell and back anyway. But the left's starting point for this negotiation should definitely be closer to my stance than yours for obvious reasons.
Warren has an opportunity to take firm control of the race tonight. candidates are definitely gonna hit Warren over her support for medicare for all, which she needs to have a solid rebuttal for.
hopefully we get some cleared up answers on that LBGT policy stuff *cough* Beto *cough* because that LBGT equality townhall was scary and potentially a huge disaster for some.
i just have to say that Beto is really a nutjob. I mean think about it; we got two front runners who have socialist attached to their names, but its the crazy, young, "woke", white texan guy with the pitch fork and torches rhetoric.
he straight up said he's coming for your guns, and now he straight up said he wants to tax churches who don't conduct gay weddings. lol thank god he is low in polls and the majority of us dont take him seriously. i really need him to say something stupid tonight so he can go away.
Quick side note: I think and have always thought that Churches should be taxed like businesses. They are selling faith. Not much different than insurance IMHO.
Tulsi gabbard just proved why no matter how much she whines, the majority just doesn’t want her representing us. Mayor Pete schooled her on our betrayal of the Kurds.
She barely made the cut this debate, she probably won’t be making it again.
Foreign policy is suppose to be her strong suit, and yet she’s not even good at that.
Blabbering on about Trump is useless until they face Trump. I want to hear about their stance on issues. Its a given that they all hate Trump. Tell us things we dont know.
The clear reality emerging at the end of the long debate was that these are desperate times for a Democratic Party suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The clear reality emerging at the end of the long debate was that these are desperate times for a Democratic Party suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Never give up little buddy! lmao
I didn't watch the debate but elite leftie media says everybody won. I guess klobuchar even showed some gusto, spicy rice cakes. She wanted to be next in line for that centrist/moderate voter after Biden falls in the polls. But I also heard that Pete took that spot first.
I did see them all lined up in a group pic and wondered if Gabbard got the memo about not wearing white after labor day... She's now a trend setter proving that is false...
I hear Klobuchar used the 'right wing' attacks on Liz, asking her how she plans to pay for things while pretending that spending and deficits matter to anyone. This isn't your grandpa's America Amy, nobody gives a damn about that anymore. They all just want to know what is in it for them. How big a slice of pie will I get?
Freebies for all! What a joke the GOPers have there. Anything that helps regular people is a freebie or a handout or welfare that we have to justify by showing how we'll pay for it... Meanwhile we can spend unlimited resources on wars, business welfare/handouts, and propping up the rich. smh
Trump is off the rails delusional today, going on and on with his typical word salad about how dems are unfit, unfair, and unAmerican. He and his minions live in dementia wonderland where President Poopy Pants smells rosey. The traitorous POTUS thinks that he is more fit to run this country than any Dem and the dems have no chance of winning. But the driving factor behind this rhetoric is the fact that he fears being impeached before election day.
This country, the poor, the young, the old, the working class, the majority of decent hard working folk deserve a President like Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren to drag us kicking and screaming back to true center and make America's government work for all of us not just the money in the shadows.
Why don't the Dems tell us how they would improve on this?
The national unemployment rate of 3.5 percent is at a 50-year low and the unemployment rates for women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs have been created on President Trump’s watch – including 500,000 manufacturing jobs.
Why don't the Dems tell us how they would improve on this?
The national unemployment rate of 3.5 percent is at a 50-year low and the unemployment rates for women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs have been created on President Trump’s watch – including 500,000 manufacturing jobs.
Why don't the Dems tell us how they would improve on this?
The national unemployment rate of 3.5 percent is at a 50-year low and the unemployment rates for women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans are at historic lows. Over 6 million jobs have been created on President Trump’s watch – including 500,000 manufacturing jobs.
Thanks Obama.
Maybe we should be thanking George Washington, and Abe Lincoln
Last night's debate was boring. It was the same ole, same ole. The field needs to be narrowed as the top 3-5 spoke most of the time anyway and said nothing new. I also didn't like how CNN cut them off and quickly changed topics when the conversation and dialogue was good. Clearly, they also felt they had to attack Warren (just as they did Biden in debate 1 & Harris in debate 2) because she was getting most of the attention.
Tulsi most likely won't make it to the next debate so she was a waste of time, as were some of the other fringe candidates like Castro, the billionaire and Yang. Beto dug his grave with his gun comments last debate, Cory had a decent night yesterday, but he isn't polling nearly enough to make it and despite her great first debate, Kamala hasn't been able to regain traction. She is lagging behind. I thought Pete B. had probably his best debate last night, but not sure if it was enough...maybe. Certainly to remain in the top 5/6. He may even overtake Harris after last night.
Klobucher? Whatever. I 100% agree with OCD...Republican Lite. Canned variety rather than bottled, as well.
I was completely shocked by this. I didn't know he was sick at all. At least I didn't know he was anywhere near this kind of shape. This is just a shame, he deserved to see the country rid of the stain in the oval.
Hillary Clinton floats conspiracy that Tulsi Gabbard is being 'groomed' by Russians
Hillary Clinton in a new interview appeared to float a conspiracy theory that the Russians are “grooming” Hawaii congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard to be a third-party candidate in 2020, while claiming 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein is "also a Russian asset."
Clinton – appearing on former Obama aide David Plouffe’s “Campaign HQ” podcast – did not mention Gabbard specifically by name, though Plouffe ended the podcast by noting Clinton’s “belief that Tulsi Gabbard is going to be a third party candidate propped up by Trump and the Russians.”
It's not so much of a conspiracy theory as Hillary using her platform and influence to discredit the one moderate non-lunatic lefty in the group and sway the primary in the direction she wants it to go, much like she did to Bernie when she was running..
Well, that and planning her "they cheated" excuse in the event that the dems don't win the election...
I'm still not sure how that's anything new. Trump claimed that the only reason he lost the popular vote was due to illegals and dead people voting. He even used government money to investigate it. He has used it yet again on this election cycle as late as at a rally in September 9th of this year. His claim was the Democratic states allowed this to happen and even promoted it. He accused Google of it recently as well.
I'm not saying it isn't disgusting and I've certainly never been a fan of Hillary. But for such a staunch supporter of Trump as 40 is to try and make an issue out of it when the person he supports is famous for it is quite hypocritical.
And that's nowhere close to reality. There at at least three more I can think of who are very moderate candidates. You could easily add Biden, Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar to the list.
And that's nowhere close to reality. There at at least three more I can think of who are very moderate candidates. You could easily add Biden, Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar to the list.
Hillary Clinton floats conspiracy that Tulsi Gabbard is being 'groomed' by Russians
Hillary Clinton in a new interview appeared to float a conspiracy theory that the Russians are “grooming” Hawaii congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard to be a third-party candidate in 2020, while claiming 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein is "also a Russian asset."
Clinton – appearing on former Obama aide David Plouffe’s “Campaign HQ” podcast – did not mention Gabbard specifically by name, though Plouffe ended the podcast by noting Clinton’s “belief that Tulsi Gabbard is going to be a third party candidate propped up by Trump and the Russians.”
Gabbard, in defiant video, links Clinton 'smears' to her previous Sanders endorsement
Speaking directly to the camera in a video message posted on social media on Sunday, 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard suggested that Hillary Clinton recently "smeared" her as a "Russian asset" as payback for Gabbard's defiance of the party establishment in 2016.
"If they can falsely portray me as a traitor, then they can do it to anyone -- and in fact, that's exactly the message they want to get across to you," Gabbard, a Democrat, said in the video.
"If you stand up to Hillary and the party power brokers -- if you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message. But, here is the truth: They will not intimidate us. They will not silence us."
The post ratcheted up an already escalating feud that has rocked the presidential primary. Several candidates, including Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson, have criticized Clinton's unfounded suggestion that Russians have been "grooming" Gabbard to be a third-party spoiler in the race.
If they want a third party spoiler all they have to do is have a centrist republican run. All the moderate center dems would flock to them when Liz or Bernie wins the nomination.
A great description of Hilary and the Democrat party by Tulsi:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton,” Gabbard tweeted. “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”
It's so nice to see some of you Right wingers supporting a Democrat and trying to make a point that someone who is no longer even an elected official, Hillary, actually means something.
Hillary lives in all of your heads rent free and it's hilarious.
I know you are stuck in the center left with Biden, but you need to accept that both parties have moved away from center. You are so used to the GOPers moving right and dragging the dems with them that you can't see the need for a political correction of true center.
I see myself as someone who stands on the principals I see as best for my country. I believe you do the same. I don't allow trends in politics to change who I am. I don't allow the flavor of the month club to change me.
As an American, I think we should all stand behind the principals we believe in. I don't begrudge you your beliefs but don't try and convince me that politics should be some one way giveaway program.
What I said was in NO WAY derogatory toward you. What I said is the center has moved slowly right for the last 40 years. Now with the Trump alt-right pull on the GOP to the far far far far right, instead of go-along-to-get-along dems trying to be moderate, we need to swing the pendulum the other way to move the center back to a true center.
The country is more liberal than Clinton Dems now, not as far left as Bernie but somewhere more like Pete. Pete is actually a good center candidate because he's more liberal than the corporatist dems but not considered far left at all. A Clinton moderate dem is just an 80-90's republican.
Your innuendo sure isn't positive. Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own posts?
" stuck in the center left with Biden, you can't see the need for a political correction of true center, go-along-to-get-along dems trying to be moderate."
Those are accusations that I should change my beliefs because of some movement within a political party. That I'm somehow "stuck". That "I can't see". That somehow my views are "go-along-to-get-along".
Nah, nothing about that sounds derogatory.
I don't place my values or views on any party. I don't set my views on "trying to get along". And I can see just fine thank you.
I see both parties going to far extremes. None of which I'm a fan of. You can stop putting labels and passive aggressive twists on that any time now.
Yes, go Warren. Far and soon. I think every man sees a little of their Mother-in Law in ol Liz.
I've been married for three years. Dated my wife for six years before that.
I love my mother-in-law. I'm good to her and she's good to me.
So, if that's how it is with Elizabeth, i'm in.
No matter what, i will not vote for our commander-in-chief.
Among numerous other issues (and there's tons), my newborn daughter is hispanic. She'll probably have a darker complextion than most caucasians and will probably be noticeably hispanic. I will not be voting for anyone telling someone born in the US to go back to "where they came from".
Trump is the reason i left the Republican Party (before that tweet). Or maybe, Trump is the reason the Republican Party left me. They went from the party of family values, to the party i'm ashamed of
I don't know Bro? I think you guys listen to the Liberal Media and people like Pelosi, Schiff,AOC. Are you mad at Trump because he wants people to come into the country legally? Got millions of people off Welfare and Food Stamps.Trump doesn't like Kaep. I don't either. Swish and OCD can tell me all day that Kaep didn't insult America and the Vets but most people know thats BS. I'm a White guy and I don't know anybody that would a problem with your Daughter
This is the view from where I live Mr. President. Empty parking lot. Used to be thousands of jobs. All on your watch. You said not to sell our houses. Same with FoxComm, Carrier. You don’t care about us. Put your phone down & start doing some work for someone other than yourself. https://t.co/6f9AIJLFVG pic.twitter.com/17h8IXaSFS — Tim Ryan (@TimRyan) October 25, 2019
I think you guys listen to the Liberal Media and people like Pelosi, Schiff,AOC.
Nope. Don't particularly care for any of them.. Especially Schiff he's a slimeball. AOC it's still kind of early but I don't think she's this brilliantly insightful person that her supporters seem to think she is.
Quote:
Are you mad at Trump because he wants people to come into the country legally?
No, almost everybody I know on both sides of the aisle want that.. and they want some kind of reasonable system put in place that allows it to happen. I don't like Trump primarily because he makes broad sweeping hateful generalizations about entire groups of people that he knows almost nothing about. I don't like him because his sycophants eat it up and become equally hateful to those people, thinking they are doing the legwork of the President.
Quote:
Got millions of people off Welfare and Food Stamps.
the changes have been largely a result of the economy, not Trump.. and changing the way inflation and poverty are calculated.. which happened before Trump but it's making the situation look a lot better than it really is.
Quote:
Trump doesn't like Kaep.
I could not care less what Trump thinks about that.
My biggest problem, Trump is a lying buffoon.. he's not a disruptor shaking up the system and making the old guard political insiders uncomfortable (like a lot of reasonable people had hoped he would be), he's a tornado, indiscriminately knocking things down with reckless abandon and no conscience about the destruction he is leaving in his wake. He is a total narcissist who thinks first and foremost about himself, secondly about those like himself who are rich and I believe he views as virtuous and worthy of government protection, thirdly he tries to say the right things that will endear him to those who aren't in his financial circle but will garner their support and votes whether he actually helps them or not... everybody else, anybody who can't help him in one way or another either financially or by voting for him.... to hell with them. The fact that some of them have seen a rise in their own standard of living is more by accident than by plan to Donald Trump.. it's the rising tides lifts all shifts approach, whether you cared if they were lifted or not..
We are heading for a recession, it's coming.... nobody knows yet how long or how deep it will go but nearly every financial indicator points to it... we can keep avoiding it by pumping money into the system but that's like living on a credit card.. eventually the bill comes due. Now I don't happen to believe that every turn in the economy (good or bad) is singularly the responsibility of the President, but when you have gone as far out of your way as he has to make sure everybody points the credit at you when something good happens, then I have no choice but to turn to you when something bad happens... I doubt if he's really a praying man.. but if he is he damn sure better be praying that we get through the election before the economy turns down.. because a good economy is the ONLY thing that he has going for him.
I feel this is an accurate article, and the first graph shows why: Going back to 1929, and forward until 2009, you can see that the AVERAGE time until the next recession has been 4 years and 2 months..........regardless of what party was in power.
The AVERAGE length of a recession has been 9 months.
Pit, the latest polls show Pete gaining ground. He's 3rd in Iowa with 17% ahead of Biden now. Following Liz at 22% and Bernie at 18%. Biden at 15% and Klobuchar 5th at 4%.
At this point anything Warren says is null and void. Anything she wants costs trillions of dollars a year. That is a BIG non starter. She should just pack it in, its not looking good for her.
At this point anything Warren says is null and void. Anything she wants costs trillions of dollars a year. That is a BIG non starter. She should just pack it in, its not looking good for her.
At this point anything Warren says is null and void. Anything she wants costs trillions of dollars a year. That is a BIG non starter. She should just pack it in, its not looking good for her.
I think the problem is that she is still very popular to the very left ultra liberal democrats and unfortunately those are people that end up deciding who ultimately ends up being their candidate. But her and Bernie's ideas won't play well in the general elction
At this point anything Warren says is null and void. Anything she wants costs trillions of dollars a year. That is a BIG non starter. She should just pack it in, its not looking good for her.
I think the problem is that she is still very popular to the very left ultra liberal democrats and unfortunately those are people that end up deciding who ultimately ends up being their candidate. But her and Bernie's ideas won't play well in the general elction
That is for sure. 2020 will be a Trump landslide win against either Warren or Sanders.
And I'm interested most in KY. McConnell might have to distance himself from Trump to have any chance of surviving this... That makes impeachment a real thing.
It puts him an a tight little trap. If he veers from POTUS, he risks losing the TrumpBase vote; if he plays Trump close, he could get voted out for that, as well.
However, I just don't get some voters. Consider this:
Quote:
According to a RealClearPolitics polling average, McConnell’s approval rating currently sits at 24.3 percent, and Morning Consult poll conducted over the summer also found that he is America’s most unpopular senator with voters in their own state.
link to source (please do the entire article- it relates)
Now, also consider this: his approval rating has never been much higher than that since taking office, yet they keep voting him back in.
So yeah-you can feel hopeful if yawanna. I'll believe it when I see it.
Wanna know how he does it? Get your answer here ...in 5 installments.
Open page, scroll 2/3 down, look for 'Mitch Part One: Win This Thing.' Work your way back up the page for subsequent episodes. Fascinating stuff.
Mississippi Voters Promote GOP Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves to Governor
Beth Baumann |
| Posted: Nov 06, 2019 12:12 AM
Mississippi Voters Promote GOP Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves to Governor
Mississippi's Republican Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves won the state's gubernatorial race on Tuesday night, defeating Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood. He won with 53 percent of the vote, compared to Hood's 46 percent.
Mississippi Voters Promote GOP Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves to Governor
Beth Baumann |
| Posted: Nov 06, 2019 12:12 AM
Mississippi Voters Promote GOP Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves to Governor
Mississippi's Republican Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves won the state's gubernatorial race on Tuesday night, defeating Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood. He won with 53 percent of the vote, compared to Hood's 46 percent.
"In other news: rain fell yesterday in the Amazon forest. It was wet."
Disbarred Lawyer, Convicted Sex Offender Democrat Joe Morrissey Wins Virginia Senate Seat
Penny Starr
7 Nov 2019
Joe Morrissey, a Democrat who was jailed for having sex with his 17-year-old secretary and lost his law license for “episodes of unethical, contumacious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has won a Senate seat in Virginia.
The Daily Wire reported:
The court ruled in that cast that Morrissey had a “15-year history of contempt citations, reprimands, fines, suspensions, and even incarcerations arising from unprofessional conduct mostly involving an uncontrollable temper, inappropriate responses to stress and dishonesty.
On Tuesday Morrissey was elected to a state senate seat winning close to 64 percent of the vote. Waylin Ross, an Independent, got 36 percent of the vote. No Republican was on the ballot.
The Daily Wire reported on Morrissey’s nefarious resumé in and outside of government:
Morrissey, now 61, was in his 50’s when he was accused of having sex with his 17-year-old secretary, to whom he is now married. He claimed he did nothing wrong, but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2015 while admitting there was enough evidence to convict him. (This often happens to innocent and guilty defendants alike, they plead to a lesser crime to avoid worse consequences in front of a jury for a larger crime.) The girl and her mother also denied anything untoward was happening between the two, though he was initially indicted on charges of possessing and distributing child pornography (he had, according to prosecutors, a nude photograph of the girl and had sent it to a friend) and the electronic solicitation of a minor.
Morrissey had resigned as a legislator but won it back in a special election. He sailed to victory in a primary for state Senate earlier this year, defeating incumbent state Sen. Rosalyn Dance by 14 points.
Morrissey also ran a failed bid for Richmond mayor in 2016, according to the Daily Wire.
In 2015 Style Weekly interviewed Morrissey, who brought his girlfriend, at the time Myrna Warren, with him. She was pregnant with their second child after having their first child at 19.
The couple are now married and have three children.
Style Weekly reported on his legal problems and the relationship that led to some of them:
Warren, who then went by Myrna Pride, was a receptionist at Morrissey’s law firm when she was 17. Morrissey was accused of having sex with her when she was underage, a charge both of them deny.
In December, Morrissey entered an Alford plea in the case, denying guilt but acknowledging evidence against him. He received a six-month sentence that was reduced to a three-month work-release term. He served it while holding the 74th District seat in the House of Delegates, to which he was re-elected in January.
Morrissey seems carefree about his health in declaring that he and Warren eventually want to have four children together. He also has three daughters from other relationships, ages 3, 28 and 29.
WJLA reported that Morrissey will represent residents in “parts of Richmond, Chesterfield County, Petersburg, Hopewell, Prince George County, and Dinwiddie County.”
Gov. Ralph Northam confirms Virginia already 'working on' gun confiscation now that Democrats are in control
Elections do, indeed, have consequences.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) of blackface fame boasted this week that his party is ready to implement an array of gun control measures in the commonwealth now that Democrats control all three branches of government, and his administration is already "working on" a plan for confiscating so-called "assault weapons" from law-abiding gun owners.
What are the details?
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Northam wants to bring back eight "common-sense" gun control measures that Republicans shot down during a special session in July, prioritizing "universal background checks, banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, restoring the law that limits purchases to one gun a month, and a red flag law that would empower a court to temporarily remove a gun from a person deemed to be a risk to himself or others."
When asked directly about whether he is supportive of confiscating "assault weapons from gun owners" Northam replied, "That's something I'm working [on] with our secretary of public safety. I'll work with the gun violence activists, and we'll work [on] that. I don't have a definitely plan today."
On Tuesday, Virginia voters handed Democrats total control of the commonwealth's General Assembly — flipping both the Senate and the House of Delegates from red to blue majorities. The Democratic Party now controls not only Virginia's legislature, but holds the governorship, lieutenant governorship, attorney general, and both U.S. Senate seats.
Northam believes the results from Tuesday's election shows Virginia is now a solid Democratic stronghold. When a reporter referred to the commonwealth as "a pretty purple state" during a cabinet meeting Wednesday, the governor pushed back, according to The Post.
"The is a blue state," Northam said. "I made that announcement last night...So Virginia's blue. I want everybody to know that." Anything else?
CNBC reported that Everytown for Gun Safety — a gun control-advocacy group largely bankrolled by billionaire Michael Bloomberg — "spent $2.5 million this year to influence voters in Virginia versus approximately $300,000 by the NRA, which has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia."
Does the 2nd amendment cover ALL kinds of guns, or just grants the right to own one?
Cause if Virginia isn’t banning pistols, shotguns, rifles, or anything else except military style weapons like the A.R. 15, then......all conservatives can do is be mad.
Also, while I personally think limiting magazine capacities is dumb, it’s also not unconstitutional either.
So other than being mad, what legal argument do conservatives have in Virginia?
According to some, the founding fathers could see into the future that there would be semi automatic weapons that could hold 100 rounds magazines and having the ability to do that, means they meant all guns invented since that time.
And not only that, they claim it's for the purpose of having the ability to stand up to a corrupt government. You know, the same government that has armored tanks, missiles, anti aircraft systems, 50 cal. machine guns and a host of weapons none of the guns they fight to retain could possibly stand up against.
Ah, so it's not confiscating guns from everyone. Just dangerous people.
"working on" a plan for confiscating so-called "assault weapons" from law-abiding gun owners.
So if you own an AR-15 or a so-called assault weapon you consider that "dangerous people"?
Women should rise up and take y'alls guns the way y'all want to take their reproductive rights away. Guess what gun they'd be after?
Women should just rise up and buy guns so they could mercifully shoot the baby after it's born if they decide they don't want it the way y'all want to go.
Women should rise up and take y'alls guns the way y'all want to take their reproductive rights away. Guess what gun they'd be after?
Wait are you talking about mens or womans reproductive rights??? Cause they stripped men of their reproductive rights many years ago yet you don't say crap about that. You cry about the woman but you don't care if the men get bent over and have it shoved up there.
Gov. Ralph Northam confirms Virginia already 'working on' gun confiscation now that Democrats are in control
Elections do, indeed, have consequences.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) of blackface fame boasted this week that his party is ready to implement an array of gun control measures in the commonwealth now that Democrats control all three branches of government, and his administration is already "working on" a plan for confiscating so-called "assault weapons" from law-abiding gun owners.
What are the details?
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Northam wants to bring back eight "common-sense" gun control measures that Republicans shot down during a special session in July, prioritizing "universal background checks, banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, restoring the law that limits purchases to one gun a month, and a red flag law that would empower a court to temporarily remove a gun from a person deemed to be a risk to himself or others."
When asked directly about whether he is supportive of confiscating "assault weapons from gun owners" Northam replied, "That's something I'm working [on] with our secretary of public safety. I'll work with the gun violence activists, and we'll work [on] that. I don't have a definitely plan today."
On Tuesday, Virginia voters handed Democrats total control of the commonwealth's General Assembly — flipping both the Senate and the House of Delegates from red to blue majorities. The Democratic Party now controls not only Virginia's legislature, but holds the governorship, lieutenant governorship, attorney general, and both U.S. Senate seats.
Northam believes the results from Tuesday's election shows Virginia is now a solid Democratic stronghold. When a reporter referred to the commonwealth as "a pretty purple state" during a cabinet meeting Wednesday, the governor pushed back, according to The Post.
"The is a blue state," Northam said. "I made that announcement last night...So Virginia's blue. I want everybody to know that." Anything else?
CNBC reported that Everytown for Gun Safety — a gun control-advocacy group largely bankrolled by billionaire Michael Bloomberg — "spent $2.5 million this year to influence voters in Virginia versus approximately $300,000 by the NRA, which has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia."
It pains me to say this...the day they send someone to confiscate my weapons is the day I die, after shooting the poor guy they first send to take them.
I believe in my rights and I don't give them up like some punk.
Sorry bro, after fish posted an earlier article from Breitbart, then this one from The Blaze, my wackadoodle triggered my nonsensical resulting in that post. Felt completely rational at the time considering the quality of the information I was countering.
Good for Bernie for being right on this one.. it is confiscation. Unless the seller is WILLING to sell something to you, you aren't buying it, you are taking it... the fact that you give them a couple bucks doesn't mean you bought it.
-Michael Bloomberg's potential White House run has the Left outraged after many of the 2020 Democratic candidates had harsh words for the billionaire over the weekend.
"Twelve months ago, triumphant Democrats had retaken the House...now they're at each other's throats. It's an ideological split. It is a strategy split. And neither is going away."
How is it a split? The majority of us on the left want nothing to do with a billionaire.
Y’all and these fake narratives. Let me know how that war on thanksgiving and Christmas is going too.
MSNBC's liberal weekend host Joy Reid diminished Thanksgiving as a "food holiday" with a "problematic" history and also mocked Trump supporters whom her viewers may encounter at the dinner table in the coming weeks.
"We are just over two weeks away from one of the most beloved American food holidays. Thanksgiving, where problematic actual history meets delicious cuisine," Reid started the segment on Saturday morning, "and many will be heading home to spend time with family and friends, eat a little too much and perhaps engage in a dreaded, contentious political debate with your cranky Uncle Roscoe when he starts yelling, 'read the transcript!' at the dinner table between bites of turkey and pumpkin pie."
I think you better be worrying about your own camp. How many GOPers in congress are going to tow the party line when faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt on Trump's corruption? I'd say America is pretty tired of Trump's BS and it has shown in 2018 and 2019 elections. Don't fool yourself into thinking GOPers in congress don't see that. Sure they are putting up a consolidated front now, but the heat isn't on yet.
Kanye West encourages black Americans not to vote for Democrats: 'That's not the power'
West advised black voters: “Own your power. Your power is not to just vote Democrat for the rest of our lives. That’s not the power.” “The power is when I talk to my lawyer … I put on my trench coat and said, ‘We’re moving these factories to America, and that’s how it’s going to be’ — and it’s lovely.”
“We moved the headquarters to Cody, Wyo...Our goal is to bring the manufacturing back to America — South America, North America — bring it back Stateside and to present jobs for people back here.”
"When I run for president in 2024, we would've created so many jobs that, in fact, I'm going to walk."
That's not what you told Native Americans when you took their country from them.
Maybe that's why you think that feeding immigrants means they will steal your country from you.
Except, that's not what 40 said. At all. Bernie said it. 40 posted it.
Oh, by the way, YOU live in this country that was 'stolen' as well.
Bernie said to treat immigrants the way we do? I don't think so. And yes, I do live here. The difference is I don't support laying oil pipelines across their sacred grounds that has been spilling out and polluting their sacred grounds.
You will do anything to avoid and distract from what was said. But try to stay on topic for once here arch since I'm the one you addressed.
Native Americans kept the pilgrims from starving during that first winter. They gave their friendship and support to them. In return over time their nation was taken from them. Atrocities like the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee were unleashed on them.
In turn, we not only have treated them like stray dogs, but many other immigrants who have come to our shores. Maybe the fear of immigrants evolved from our own actions. The evidence of what we did can not be disputed.
Republicans fear 'suburban revolt' against Trump in 2020
Secret recording of Texas House speaker and influential conservative indicates worries about waning support in suburbs
Some Republicans are sounding the alarm over Donald Trump’s devastating effect on their support among suburban voters.
The latest evidence of panic came in a secret audio recording of a conversation between Dennis Bonnen, speaker of the Texas house of representatives, and an influential conservative activist.
According to the Washington Post, Bonnen can be heard saying: “I just think we’ve got to get through 2020, guarantee if we try and hold this majority – which, with all due respect to Trump, who I love by the way – he’s killing us in the urban-suburban districts.”
The hour-long recording was made public on Tuesday by Michael Quinn Sullivan, chief executive of far-right pressure group Empower Texans, hours before a court hearing where a judge would be asked to order its release.
In the conversation, Bonnen can reportedly be heard asking Sullivan to target certain Republicans ahead of the party’s primary elections next year, while also using profane language to describe Democrats.
A “suburban revolt” against Trump’s vulgarity and inertia on issues such as gun violence could make or break his presidency and wider Republican hopes in November 2020. Democrats swept to victory in last year’s midterm elections partly based on suburban voters, taking back the House of Representatives, where an impeachment inquiry against Trump is now under way.
Democratic wins in the suburbs included a district in South Carolina they had not won for 40 years, the one-time Ronald Reagan stronghold of Orange county, California, and parts of Texas itself. Although Democrat Beto O’Rourke fell short against Republican Ted Cruz in a Texas Senate race, his surge fuelled hopes that Democrats can even turn the Lone Star state blue.
In the aftermath of the midterms, Eric Cantor, the former Republican House majority leader, wrote in the New York Times: “There is no doubt that some of the loss in support this year from college-educated women, for example, is a result of the negative opinion these voters have of President Trump.
“But it is also true that Republicans have not had much to offer suburban voters on what they consistently say are their top issues, including health care, child care, education, the environment and transportation.”
Economist: Warren is right. Her Medicare for All plan won't raise taxes on the middle class
EDITORS NOTE: Mark Zandi is chief economist of Moody's Analytics. He was an advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families.
The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments.
There has been some handwringing that this would be regressive. That is, lower-paid workers would suffer, since businesses would pay more for lower-paid workers' health insurance as a percent of their pay than for higher-paid workers. But companies' current premiums generally vary by the type of insurance plan and family size, and not by employee income. Warren's Medicare for All plan effectively preserves this. And by replacing trillions of dollars in individual spending on health care with new taxes on large corporations and the rich, her plan overall is clearly progressive.
Warren's Medicare for All plan is also paid for in part by the taxes generated from the increase in take-home pay that workers will enjoy as they no longer pay toward private health insurance. The typical worker shells out several thousand dollars a year, untaxed, to insure their family. Under Medicare for All, that worker would receive that money as wages, which would be subject under existing law to income and payroll taxes.
Large too-big-to-fail banks, financial firms and large multinational corporations would also pay more to fund Warren's M4A. While the merits of these tax increases are debatable, there is little debate regarding the revenues they will generate. This is based on past work done by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the non-partisan government organizations that assess the budgetary costs of government spending and tax policies.
Perhaps the most controversial of Warren's proposed methods to finance Medicare for All is to increase taxes on the super-rich. This includes significantly upping her wealth tax on the nation's 600-plus billionaires. Some critics believe Warren's taxes on the wealthy would be unfairly confiscatory, substantially cutting into their wealth. Perhaps. But over the past two generations, the top 0.1% of Americans has seen its share of the nation's wealth more than double to 20%. This trend is not consistent with a well-functioning market economy and democracy like ours'.
Criticism that Warren is overestimating the revenue she can hope to generate from the wealth tax is overblown. She addresses these concerns by saying she will empower and appropriately fund the Internal Revenue Service to go after those who willfully avoid paying their taxes. Enforcing our tax laws and best practices on tax compliance can generate significant revenue. Closing America's tax gap — the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid —would help Warren get the revenue she needs.
To be sure, these aren't the only taxes on the wealthy that Warren has proposed. In addition to the wealth tax, which she also uses to pay for her child care, college affordability and K-12 education plans, she wants a larger estate tax to pay for her housing plan, higher payroll and net investment income taxes would go toward her Social Security reforms, and she supports repealing Trump's tax cuts for high-income households to generate even more revenue for her plans. With this combination of tax changes, there is a reasonable concern that the wealthy will work overtime to avoid paying.
But once we start to consider the broader consequences of the totality of Warren's plans, it's incumbent we do so with regard to both her tax proposals but also the investments those taxes will fund. Based on my own analyses, Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes. Criticism that Senator Warren's Medicare for All plan can't be paid for, at least not without putting a greater financial burden on lower- and middle-income Americans, is wrong.
Of course, Warren's Medicare for All plan isn't the only way to provide health insurance to all Americans, rein in growing health care costs and improve health care outcomes. A more tractable approach in my view is to allow those who like their private health insurance to keep it and to build on Obamacare by giving everyone else an option to get Medicare.
I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system, but I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That's the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.
Economist: Warren is right. Her Medicare for All plan won't raise taxes on the middle class
EDITORS NOTE: Mark Zandi is chief economist of Moody's Analytics. He was an advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families.
The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments.
There has been some handwringing that this would be regressive. That is, lower-paid workers would suffer, since businesses would pay more for lower-paid workers' health insurance as a percent of their pay than for higher-paid workers. But companies' current premiums generally vary by the type of insurance plan and family size, and not by employee income. Warren's Medicare for All plan effectively preserves this. And by replacing trillions of dollars in individual spending on health care with new taxes on large corporations and the rich, her plan overall is clearly progressive.
Warren's Medicare for All plan is also paid for in part by the taxes generated from the increase in take-home pay that workers will enjoy as they no longer pay toward private health insurance. The typical worker shells out several thousand dollars a year, untaxed, to insure their family. Under Medicare for All, that worker would receive that money as wages, which would be subject under existing law to income and payroll taxes.
Large too-big-to-fail banks, financial firms and large multinational corporations would also pay more to fund Warren's M4A. While the merits of these tax increases are debatable, there is little debate regarding the revenues they will generate. This is based on past work done by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the non-partisan government organizations that assess the budgetary costs of government spending and tax policies.
Perhaps the most controversial of Warren's proposed methods to finance Medicare for All is to increase taxes on the super-rich. This includes significantly upping her wealth tax on the nation's 600-plus billionaires. Some critics believe Warren's taxes on the wealthy would be unfairly confiscatory, substantially cutting into their wealth. Perhaps. But over the past two generations, the top 0.1% of Americans has seen its share of the nation's wealth more than double to 20%. This trend is not consistent with a well-functioning market economy and democracy like ours'.
Criticism that Warren is overestimating the revenue she can hope to generate from the wealth tax is overblown. She addresses these concerns by saying she will empower and appropriately fund the Internal Revenue Service to go after those who willfully avoid paying their taxes. Enforcing our tax laws and best practices on tax compliance can generate significant revenue. Closing America's tax gap — the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid —would help Warren get the revenue she needs.
To be sure, these aren't the only taxes on the wealthy that Warren has proposed. In addition to the wealth tax, which she also uses to pay for her child care, college affordability and K-12 education plans, she wants a larger estate tax to pay for her housing plan, higher payroll and net investment income taxes would go toward her Social Security reforms, and she supports repealing Trump's tax cuts for high-income households to generate even more revenue for her plans. With this combination of tax changes, there is a reasonable concern that the wealthy will work overtime to avoid paying.
But once we start to consider the broader consequences of the totality of Warren's plans, it's incumbent we do so with regard to both her tax proposals but also the investments those taxes will fund. Based on my own analyses, Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes. Criticism that Senator Warren's Medicare for All plan can't be paid for, at least not without putting a greater financial burden on lower- and middle-income Americans, is wrong.
Of course, Warren's Medicare for All plan isn't the only way to provide health insurance to all Americans, rein in growing health care costs and improve health care outcomes. A more tractable approach in my view is to allow those who like their private health insurance to keep it and to build on Obamacare by giving everyone else an option to get Medicare.
I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system, but I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That's the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.
Pete Buttigieg is surging in the 2020 primary, capitalizing on a Democratic Party wrestling with its political identity.
In a year when Democrats are struggling to choose between a string of septuagenarian candidates, strategists say the 37-year-old South Bend, Ind., mayor has become an alternative choice, tapping into a desire for a fresh face in Washington.
Democrats are also battling over how far left to go in the primary, but Buttigieg may be a candidate who appeals to centrists without turning off liberals.
Political observers and strategists say this appeal is one of the main reasons Buttigieg, who is a veteran and also gay, has been surging toward the top of polls.
“He’s trying to be the Goldilocks ‘just right’ candidate in between everyone,” said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale.
When Buttigieg announced his candidacy, the chance of him winning the nomination seemed like a long shot.
Voters didn’t know much about him and couldn’t pronounce his name. He had a staff of four, including an intern. Some news organizations wouldn’t add him to their primary graphics.
Less than a year later, Buttigieg has a staff of 469 people, what pundits call a commanding presence at town halls and a rash of good headlines.
“I think one of the biggest factors not getting enough attention is they're doing a really good job campaigning,” said Vale. “They’re doing lots of events [and] interviews.”
It’s “definitely possible” Buttigieg could win the nomination, Vale said, because “his rise is coming from a good foundation, not just a viral moment.”
Buttigieg has emerged as an alternative to Joe Biden and most political observers see the Indianan as pulling votes from the former vice president. But he also appears to be winning over supporters from other candidates, including some to his left.
“As far as I can tell, he's taken a little away from everyone,” said Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo.
A Monmouth University poll in Iowa released this week found Buttigieg winning 22 percent of likely caucusgoers compared with 19 percent for Biden, 18 percent for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and 13 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Buttigieg has gained 14 points since August, the last time Monmouth surveyed caucusgoers. Biden lost 7 points while Warren lost 2 points in the survey and Sanders gained 5 points.
“There’s no doubt about it — as the primary cycle continues, Mayor Pete’s appeal is only growing,” said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. “The latest poll certainly puts the wind at his back heading into Iowa.”
Buttigieg’s fundraising has propelled his campaign. He raised more than $19 million in the third quarter, beating some of his competitors and becoming the candidate Hollywood A-listers have most supported with their checkbooks.
Buttigieg does face some hurdles — particularly his low support among black voters. It is difficult to imagine he will win the nomination unless he can improve his standing with African Americans.
In South Carolina, where Biden performs particularly well because of his strong support among black voters, Buttigieg ranks sixth, according to an average of polls in South Carolina conducted by RealClearPolitics.
Aware of his weakness with black voters, the Buttigieg campaign made a $2 million ad buy in the state Thursday, hoping to build support. In the first radio ad, Buttigieg highlights his time as a naval intelligence officer in Afghanistan contrasting it with President Trump's reality television career.
In the spot, he also pledges "to do something about gun violence, to tackle systemic racism wherever we find it until your race in this country has no bearing on your health, or your wealth, your life expectancy or your relationship with law enforcement."
Buttigieg's age and lack of experience could also weigh him down, Democrats say, particularly in a campaign season where the party’s voters are locked in on finding the candidate who can defeat Trump.
“If Donald Trump wasn’t a factor, he would easily be the front-runner. He’s young, very smart and dynamic,” the Democratic strategist said.
Some voters might not feel comfortable nominating a candidate who is only 37 years old.
The youngest president ever elected to the office was John Kennedy, who was 43 when he took the oath of office.
Former President Obama was one of the younger presidents elected in the United States. But he was about a decade older when he took office than Buttigieg is now.
“I don’t know if I feel comfortable voting for someone younger than me. I think that's a confusing dilemma for me,” Trujillo said, adding that other voters may feel the same way.
Trujillo said Buttigieg also hasn’t been scrutinized the way other candidates have so far.
“He has the appeal because he really hasn’t been under the microscope,” Trujillo added. “Once the bright lights are on you, things get a little bumpier.
But more than anything, Buttigieg will have to prove his electability against Trump.
“I like what he stands for a lot, but I have my doubts about whether he can beat him,” one major Democratic donor said. “I don’t see how the mayor of South Bend Indiana ends up winning.”
its funny cause im the main one who was pimping mayor pete from the jump. now all the fence riders hoping on the bandwagon, even though pete is still progressive and not center left.
its funny cause im the main one who was pimping mayor pete from the jump. now all the fence riders hoping on the bandwagon, even though pete is still progressive and not center left.
You weren't alone. And I have never been opposed to someone with some progressive views. Just not extreme progressive views. Pete doesn't want to "force" everyone into government healthcare. He uses his head.
There will be millions upon millions enrolled without forcing them. It will be a system that is not based on profits. That makes it so that the benefits, prescription drug costs and deductibles will be much better than private insurance. Those who don't have it to begin with will flock to it for the savings and better coverage. So in the end we all want and achieve the exact same goal. The only difference is how we go about it to make it a winning strategy.
That's a common sense approach. You can't tell Americans you are going to "force them to give up something they don't want to give up" and that become a popular idea in moderate swing states.
Free college for all is not a part of his plan either. Yes, for those with incomes under 100k it would be free. Even then it wouldn't apply to high priced, private universities. Then a sliding scale for those who make more. In exchange for receiving federal dollars states would guarantee to invest in their public higher education systems and constrain tuition increases.
Are those progressive ideas? They certainly are. What they aren't are extremist mantras that can be used as weapons against him an campaigns. There's a difference between walking along the edge of a cliff and jumping off of it.
pete has plenty of flaws that can be weaponized during a campaign, especially come general election time.
you're trading one problem for another and calling that better.
besides, you were the one way back in 2016 who told me that most candidates are trying to secure their parties bid, and like to ease up more to the center come general election.
i feel it with bernie, you acting like somehow your own words way back when doesnt apply to Warren is something i wont agree with, especially seeing as how she can easily be convinced to roll with a private option.
the only candidate on stage acting like they wont budge on the private option is Bernie. there's a reason he's continuing on in a downward trend while everyone else, even biden, is pushing forward.
She's putting out a lot of political fodder for the right to use against her to once again win those swing states.
You all can do what ever you like. But I will ask you the same thing I asked OCD.
Can you show me all of the times a very liberal progressive has done well in a state wide election in any of the swing states?
That's all I'm asking for. If it will work for a candidate like Liz or Bernie, surely you guys can show me several examples of how it's worked in districts Trump won in these swing states.
I mean that's the actual goal here, right? To win in those swing state districts?
That’s such a ridiculous trap question, seeing as this is the first time we ever had solid leftist candidates running for the main ticket.
I mean you might as well be asking me if warren can survive going through a black hole in the center of our galaxy.
How would I know? No one has ever tried! Atleast not that I’m aware of.
I don’t live in Iowa, so how would I know how any far left candidate did? I don’t live in Michigan or Wisconsin, so how would I know?
But you speak as if you DO know the answer. So plz, oh wise one, how many far leftist candidates have tried and failed in swing states? Enlighten OCD and myself seeing as you’re implying that you know the answer.
Because going off of conservatives comments about Obama being a commie and far left politician, such as dawg duty, 40, fish, and day, then I can say Obama was a solid leftist candidate who not only won, but TWICE.
But of course guys like you and DC will tell me Obama wasn’t a solid left candidate, which brings us right back to square one, and highlights a bigger issue in all of this:
No one of you centrist or conservatives on this board can seem to adequately describe/compare what a leftist or far leftist candidate/ideology is.
Hell, half of y’all can’t even describe what a conservative is anymore. It’s a different standard depending on who you’re talking to, Because conservatives have said mayor Pete is a gay leftist SJW, which then blows a hole into your own reasoning as to why you support Pete, if we use their logic.
But again, you seem to know the answer. So enlighten us.
its funny cause im the main one who was pimping mayor pete from the jump. now all the fence riders hoping on the bandwagon, even though pete is still progressive and not center left.
Nobody was on Pete's jock before me. You and I were close: within the same week, as I recall. But, b# please.... give Clemmy tha props he's due: the same props he now gives up to you.
Maya PETE was rocking badass Street/Civic/Christian/Military cred and firm debate skillz from Day One.
Truth be told: I'm starting to see him as 2020's version of 2007's Barack Hussein. He's following the profile/trajectory, yo.
In other words, he's currently in the same position that Obama was in during the run-ups to the 2007-8 nominations: unknown dark horse representing an undercurrent majority mindset.
Brothaman is surging. I called it 12 months ago.
Dawg: You weren't The First. You were one of the first.
I was 'Team Pete' before anyone else at this address knew what a Pete was.
I spent a lot of time in Louisiana, New Orleans area. A lot more liberal than I expected.
Then I talked to a junior high school teacher at a dinner one day and she said their black students where better behaved and smarter than all the other black students in Louisiana. Eww boy ... just when I was getting some hope for the Deep South.
So since you can't find a far left progressive liberal from any district that represents suburban areas in those swing states, that's my fault?
All I asked was you show me examples of candidates with such platforms being elected in those areas and you feel flat on your face. So now you try to use a bait and switch con game and change things up.
It's so simple a child of five could follow along. NO candidate that represents the views and platform a candidate like Warren does has been elected in the places needed to change the votes in these swing states.
You can't provide them because it didn't happen. Now you suddenly think the voters in these states are going to do a 180 in the type of candidate they support. In defense of that you attack the person who has you cornered because you have nothing else.
You sound like Jim Jordon.
The funniest part in all of this is that we both endorse the same candidate. Mayor Pete.
I think it's pretty obvious that we both believe he is the best candidate and while he is progressive, he's not of the same vein as a Bernie or Warren.
We are both after the same goal. It would be easier to elect a candidate like Mayor Pete in those swing states and I think we both know that. So I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to argue here.
??? You’re the one who brought it up. You’re the one speaking as if you follow along every states races and what platforms the run on.
I ask you to enlighten the board on the names and you respond with this. Sad.
You’re right, we like the same candidate. The difference is I don’t have to pretend like Pete is some moderate candidate that can win in swing states. I support the guy because I just support the guy, not whether or not he can convince people in swing states to vote for him.
I mean I literally asked you to name some candidates who simply ran in swing states since I clearly stated that I DONT KNOW, and yet all you can do is manage to act like an absolute [censored] without dropping any knowledge whatsoever.
Like honestly that’s jerk behavior. That’s like somebody asking me a question about the military, just for me to turn around and act like a know it all without actually answering the question.
So I ask you a question and you in turn ask me the same question rather than answer it? And that's my fault because I'm supposed to answer the question I gave you?
You guys keep trying to sell some half baked theory that a candidate like Liz can win in these swing states. Yet you have zero to base that on other than polls that had Hillary winning the same states. We all know how that turned out.
Yet when someone asks you to point out how that has worked in the past, you know, some actual evidence showing that has worked in the past, you either can't or won't show me examples of it working in the past and try to blame me because you can't answer the question.
Look man, you know I like you. But some of you expect people to believe some theory based on zero evidence. If you would like to present some feel free. But stop putting the blame on me when you can't provide it.
I know it would actually take a little time on google to try and support your theory of how it would work. And of course we can't have that now can we?
I already do most of arch's homework, I'm not doing yours too.
You're either willing to see if your theory holds any merit or you're not. From the looks of things you're not.
It's not my theory to prove. Swing states can go either way. That gives every indication these are moderate voters. That side of the evidence is obvious.
That dictates that it would be counterintuitive to suggest the furthest left candidate stands a good chance of winning those states. This isn't complicated. All I've heard thus far is noize to suggest otherwise.
So at this point I'm only left with one conclusion. The only evidence that has been shown thus far is that these states are moderate. That by running the most far left presidential candidate in any of our lifetime's makes no sense if you plan to try and win those states.
I'm more than happy to consider concrete evidence to the contrary that shows any trend or direction of officials in such moderate districts you will need to win the election that remotely are as far left as someone like Liz.
None of us "know" answers we are unwilling to look for. But here's what I can tell you. If there hasn't been far left candidates run in these districts, there's a reason for that. People tend to run on a platform they think they can win with. If far left candidates had an even average chance of winning in such districts, they would have been running there.
Thanks for not being able to show a single far left progressive to be elected in moderate swing state districts.
Sherrod Brown
Ah, in a big city district. Once again, the Dems already have that part of the state. It's not a "gain". The problem with the swing states is you will have to win districts you lost in 2016. Not the ones you already had. Sherod Brown was in office in 2016 and Trump still won Ohio.
I clearly stated I dont know. You’re clearly implying you do. But instead of just explaining it to us, you’re acting like it’s some top secret intel that only the privileged can know.
The only thing you’ve accomplished is further alienating me from whatever point you refuse to make. Sad. Nothing else to discuss.
And then you further make whatever useless point you have even more confusing simply because you’re acting like just because YOU don’t know if any that one means it CANT be possible. Like there’s no such thing as a first time for everything.
So it’s funny that the fence rider is now acting like there’s zero gray area for a leftist candidate to possibly win in swing states in the general election. All of a sudden it’s black and white with you.
You mean the fence rider who is endorsing the same candidate you are? That fence rider?
I made my point. Their vote has proven they are moderate voters. That running a far left candidate would be a huge gamble.
And yes there is a first time for everything. But what people really should be asking themselves is, should the 2020 presidential election be the time to take such a huge gamble?
Thanks for not being able to show a single far left progressive to be elected in moderate swing state districts.
Sherrod Brown
Ah, in a big city district. Once again, the Dems already have that part of the state. It's not a "gain". The problem with the swing states is you will have to win districts you lost in 2016. Not the ones you already had. Sherod Brown was in office in 2016 and Trump still won Ohio.
I answered what you asked. Stop trying to move the goal post to fit your agenda. We all know you think the nominee has to be or move to center. We just disagree, that's all.
How Moderates Are Seizing the Moment in the Democratic Primary
New entrants into the race. A nod from Barack Obama. Centrist victories in governor’s contests. Moderates sense a favorable shift.
LAS VEGAS — After spending months in anxious passivity, staking their hopes on Joseph R. Biden Jr. and little else, moderate Democrats appear suddenly determined to fight for control of their party in the 2020 elections.
The shift in attitude has come in fits and starts over the last few weeks, seemingly more as an organic turn in the political season than as a product of coordinated action by party leaders. But each assertive act has seemed to build on the one before, starting with a debate-stage clash last month over “Medicare for all” and culminating in recent days with the entry of two new moderate candidates into the primary, Michael R. Bloomberg and Deval Patrick, and a gentle warning from former President Barack Obama that Democrats should not overestimate voters’ appetite for drastic change.
Most convincing to some Democrats may be the off-year elections this month in Kentucky and Louisiana, where moderate-to-conservative Democrats prevailed in governors’ races that President Trump worked strenuously to win for his party. The victories bolstered the argument, advanced by some leading Democrats, that the party could peel away some of Mr. Trump’s supporters in 2020 by avoiding “litmus test” battles and courting the political middle.
“Clearly, factually, people who voted for Trump voted for our Democratic gubernatorial candidates,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, a moderate who leads the Democratic Governors Association. She said Democrats could win those voters in 2020 with a “message of unity” and pragmatic promises on issues like health care and student debt.
For months the Democratic race was defined in terms of which candidate could promise the most daring policy reforms — a contest in which Mr. Biden, the former vice president, was struggling to keep pace with Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As the most liberal candidates set the agenda, many in the party establishment squirmed, anxious about alienating moderate voters.
Now the primary has become an increasingly jumbled contest, shaped by Democrats’ competing appetites for visionary ideas, tactical realism and sheer political novelty. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., appears to be harnessing those tensions to his advantage, at least in Iowa, where for the first time he emerged as a clear front-runner in a CNN/Des Moines Register poll this weekend.
In Nevada, where more than a dozen candidates were gathered for the state party’s “First in the West” dinner, Representative Dina Titus was holding up the Democrats’ off-year victories as a reason for optimism heading into 2020. But Ms. Titus, who has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race, urged the presidential field to be mindful of the “moderate Democrats in suburban districts” who flipped control of the House last year.
“We have just got to make sure that we appeal across the board,” said Ms. Titus, who introduced both Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders at events this weekend. “We are a big-tent party.”
That proved to be true this month, at least in Louisiana and Kentucky. The Democratic victors in both states, Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana and Andy Beshear, the governor-elect of Kentucky, ran on expanding health care coverage at the state level and largely avoided national issues, like impeachment. Mr. Edwards in particular positioned himself well to the right of the national Democratic Party, opposing abortion rights and new efforts to regulate firearms.
No Democratic leaders believe either state will be in play at the presidential level in 2020, and few would argue that the party should shift as far to the right as Mr. Edwards in order to compete.
But Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, a leading supporter of Mr. Biden, said on Sunday that Democrats should take the election in his state as a sign that “the country is not as far to the left as people would have us believe.”
“If you look at Kentucky, if you look at Louisiana, it shows 2020 could be a very good year for Democrats,” Mr. Richmond said, “but we have to read the tea leaves right, learn the real lesson of what these races are saying.”
Many Democratic voters still appear determined to find a Goldilocks-like option in the race — a candidate who both generates excitement and soothes concern about the general election, someone who promises sweeping change but appears capable of winning Republican votes. Ms. Warren climbed in the polls for months on the strength of her reform message and a mastery of policy that conveyed reassuring competence, but her poll numbers have slipped recently amid intensive scrutiny of her health care plans.
Ms. Warren has attempted to allay voters’ reservations on that front in recent weeks by pledging not to raise middle-class taxes to pay for her plans. She also described how she would prioritize improvements to the Affordable Care Act, including the creation of an optional government health-insurance plan, before attempting to create a single-payer system.
Both Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders remain among the best-positioned candidates in the primary election, with distinctive appeal to young people and other voters seeking a large-scale redraw of the political system — an overlapping agenda that drew roars of approval at the “First in the West” dinner.
At the dinner, both expressed disdain for incremental politics, with Mr. Sanders saying that “tinkering around the edges just won’t do what needs to be done” and Ms. Warren dismissing more modest policies as “a nibble here and a nibble there.” Both are polling at or near the top of the pack in three of the four early primary states, including Nevada.
And both are actively working to persuade voters that their approach is the better bet in a general election, including by appealing to voters who feel alienated from the political system. “If the best that Democrats can offer is business as usual after Donald Trump, then Democrats will lose,” Ms. Warren said at a campaign stop here on Sunday afternoon. “We win when we have solutions for the problems in people’s lives.”
Andrea Griffin, an elementary school nurse in Las Vegas, said she had been wary of Ms. Warren as a general-election candidate but came away feeling more confident after watching her on Sunday.
“I was a little skeptical about a plan for everything, but she has a pretty good grasp on what the major issues are and I kind of think that she might be able to get it done,” said Ms. Griffin, 56, a former independent voter who said she registered as a Democrat two weeks ago.
Ms. Griffin said she was also curious about Mr. Buttigieg, but had essentially ruled out Mr. Biden, explaining, “I think America is not ready to go back to business as usual.”
While he is consistently leading national polls, Mr. Biden’s vulnerability in the primary appears to come, at least in part, from his seeming inability to inspire Democratic voters. He is seen as a sensible and safe option, and a conventionally steady hand for the presidency.
At the Nevada Democrats’ dinner on Sunday evening, Mr. Biden urged primary voters to think cautiously: “We’d better be real careful about who we nominate,” he warned, “because the risk of nominating someone who wouldn’t beat Trump is a nation and a world that our children and our grandkids won’t want to live in.”
For a good number of primary voters, that appeal is persuasive enough: At Mr. Biden’s town hall-style event in Las Vegas the night before, Phyllis Lind, a retired health care worker who is becoming a substitute teacher, explained her thinking about the race in terms that conveyed her party’s conflicting impulses. She said she was drawn to Ms. Warren because she was “for the common person,” and to Mr. Buttigieg because he had personal charisma “like Obama.” But at the moment, Ms. Lind, 73, said she was firmly supporting Mr. Biden.
“We need to have a candidate that is going to also get the moderate Republicans,” Ms. Lind said.
At the moment, Mr. Buttigieg seems to be claiming an inchoate space that lies between Mr. Sanders’s ideological movement and Mr. Biden’s unapologetically tactical approach to the election. But his rise in the polls has been chiefly confined to the earliest primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has not generated interest among African-American and Latino voters, cornerstones of the Democratic coalition.
At the dinner in Nevada, Mr. Buttigieg repeatedly struck the theme of unity, pledging to “bring together an American majority” for Democratic policies.
His prepared remarks also included a rebuke seemingly aimed at Ms. Warren: the text circulated to reporters had Mr. Buttigieg saying that no one should be “written out of a particular political party” because of a policy disagreement — an apparent allusion to Ms. Warren’s recent barb suggesting Mr. Biden might be running in the wrong party’s primary because of his attacks on the idea of single-payer health care.
But Mr. Buttigieg did not deliver the line, instead saying he wanted support from people “whether you are a progressive or a moderate or what I like to call a future former Republican.”
Mayor John Cranley of Cincinnati, a moderate Democrat who supports Mr. Buttigieg, said he saw the shift toward Mr. Buttigieg as a function of voters’ intense concern about defeating Mr. Trump.
“I think that it’s clear Democrats are focused on winning,” Mr. Cranley said.
Pointing to neighboring Kentucky, the northern bulge of which houses the suburban bedroom communities of his own city, Mr. Cranley argued that Mr. Beshear’s victory with right-leaning voters there could be a case study for the national party.
To win there, Mr. Cranley said, “You can’t have somebody who is to the far left on some of these issues.”
If we put up a far left candidate, you ALREADY claimed you vote for him or her anyway.
Which really makes this convo pointless. Cause we can put up whoever, and all you can do is be mad.
But you’ll still vote for it. Oh well.
Nobody is mad. What I'm saying is I would like for the Dems to run the candidate with the best possible chance to beat Trump. In those swing states, the ones needed to win the election, a far left progressive is not that candidate.
You all can clamor about that all you want. It's just a fact. states with a heavily moderate base aren't big fans of far let progressive candidates.
It's just common sense. It seems the people who want Trump out of the White House want to try and accomplish it in the most difficult and nonsensical way od going about it.
Hillary is a centrist. Obama ran as a progressive but was more centrist in office. John Kerry is a centrist. When was the last time a true progressive was the nominee? How far back do we have to go? Sometimes I think you talk just to see your mouth move because the words coming out of your mouth hold little fact based value... Show me the last 'far left progressive' that lost an election and I'll show you a half dozen centrist candidates that lost too. Simple fact is the far left rarely gets past the centrist in the party to get a nominee.
hell, as much as i didnt like Bernie, something tells me even you would agree that he probably would've done better than hillary against trump, seeing as how he actually campaigned and showed up to swing states.
and that moron is a card carrying socialist.
but now 2020 is different. everything is wide open right now. hell, we dont even know if trump will be president by then, which means the dynamics of the election could change overnight.
you see how im not talking in absolutes? yea, i learned my lesson from 2016, you clearly haven't.
In case you missed it, my mouth doesn't move when I type. Better luck next time. You may wish to work on that.
Hillary had a target put on her back for years by Republicans. Anyone who thinks she lost because she was a centrist has lost their ever loving mind.
According to what you are calling progressives, Obama was a very middle of the road centrist from the very beginning.
Kerry couldn't excite a rattlesnake into biting him.
You guys are right. You're going to get a bunch of moderates who have proven they will swing either way with their votes, to back the most far left candidate in someone like warren they have ever seen in their lifetime. Makes perfect sense. lmao
Swish, I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm talking in terms of odds. The odds of getting swing states to vote for a moderate candidate, and I'm not talking a centrist per say. I'm talking about Mayor Pete, is much better than a far left candidate.
You said it yourself that Pete is a progressive candidate. So it's not like I'm promoting Biden here.
I'm speaking in terms of electability and hoping for the best chance to win. Surely you understand that people who are notorious for being moderate voters would have an easier time supporting someone they feel they may have to bend a little to support rather feeling they have to bend over backwards to support.
You guys are right. You're going to get a bunch of moderates who have proven they will swing either way with their votes, to back the most far left candidate in someone like warren they have ever seen in their lifetime. Makes perfect sense. lmao
ummm......doesnt this describe you to a T, though?
No it really doesn't. The difference is I think that anyone, well almost anyone but Trump would be a better option.
Just like you, I follow the news, I follow the impeachment hearings and the evidence. I follow what the man says and his lack of honesty and integrity.
Let's face it man, most people don't keep up with things the way we do. So for people like us it's a no brainer. For most voters it isn't.
Again, come November 2020, I'm voting Blue no matter who. I hope you do the same. I think Bernie is making a comeback and expect him to pass Liz up in the coming months. AOC is helping him somewhat because young people love her, but he is also the most popular among progressives IMHO.
And I like Pete enough to support him wholeheartedly. Super smart, well spoken, and doesn't seem to be easily shaken. He's about 30% progressive. But I do struggle with his religious convictions not seeming to match up with some of his campaign points. And He flipped positions on medicare for all, which tells me he's pandering to the center.
There you go Pit, something to make you feel warm and fuzzy.
Gives me a decent feeling.. I can vote for a moderate dem. I hope they maintain their moderate positions and don't succumb to the bullying of the national democratic party and go full on radical if they want to continue their career at the national level.
I also have to ask you since you are worried about center moderates not voting for far left candidates. Do you think Pete's homosexuality will be a factor in those swing states? Do you think those moderates are ready for that?
I have no issues with it whatsoever, but I think many in the center will.
You are the exact type of voter I had in mind. Of course I had no way of knowing how you as an individual felt about it, but I could see people similar to yourself feeling that way.
That was also the party of "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
Current progressives are in the party of "give me free stuff"
At least the dems have moved to a position of more intellectual honesty. They want massive expansion of government power and control in your life. But it's ok, trust them, nothing bad will happen.
As if republicans don't. They just want to help the rich and corporations where dems want to help working class and poor people. There are no conservatives once they are in power, republicans have proved that time and time again. Deregulation under the guise of freeing businesses from undue burdens is nothing more than giving them the right to pollute and otherwise act bad. Bad actors are the reason we had the need for the regs to begin with in most cases.
I also have to ask you since you are worried about center moderates not voting for far left candidates. Do you think Pete's homosexuality will be a factor in those swing states? Do you think those moderates are ready for that?
I have no issues with it whatsoever, but I think many in the center will.
No I don't.
I think most of those who would be concerned about this are already Trump loyalists. The hard line evangelicals. Those who are so insecure in their own manhood that they think being a bully or looking up to a bully is an attribute.
Let's face it, most people by far know someone who is gay, have a close friend or relative who is gay. The stigma isn't what I used to be.
As Swish said before, people said Obama couldn't be elected because he was black. And once again those who refused to vote due to race are pretty much the all people staunchly standing in Trump's corner now. The Steven Miller's of the world have already chosen a side.
I also have to ask you since you are worried about center moderates not voting for far left candidates. Do you think Pete's homosexuality will be a factor in those swing states? Do you think those moderates are ready for that?
I have no issues with it whatsoever, but I think many in the center will.
I would say that centrist 40 and under would not have as big an issue, where centrist 40 and over would.
Taking out evangelicals, I think its more an of an age issue than left and right.
As Swish said before, people said Obama couldn't be elected because he was black. And once again those who refused to vote due to race are pretty much the all people staunchly standing in Trump's corner now. The Steven Miller's of the world have already chosen a side.
So you're saying that they didn't vote for Obama because of race? Is that to mean that those in Trumps corner now might have voted for John Edwards or Joe Biden or Hillary or anybody else who was in that Primary? I mean, since it was about race....
I think that both race and sexuality play a part in it. Many see voting Democrat as being nothing more than a hand out to blacks and illegals. They think Democrats are "against white people".
And I do believe the racists of the world have taken a side. Same with homophobes.
That's not to try to say all Republicans are racists and homophobes. It just so happens that's the side they align themselves with.
So yes, I think a lot of votes coming from the right are based on those things. Like I said, they've already chosen a side and you won't get their votes.
Running a man who is gay won't make a difference because they weren't voting Democrat anyway.
That's not to try to say all Republicans are racists and homophobes. It just so happens that's the side they align themselves with.
Bam....Now that my friends is truth. And there is no denying that.
I agree. Making it pretty much impossible for me to consider myself a republican until they do some serious work to try to distance themselves from that group.
Colorado elected a gay governor. National media went bonkers with it when he won. Leading up to the election, I don't recall it being much of an issue or mentioned all that much.
I agree. Making it pretty much impossible for me to consider myself a republican until they do some serious work to try to distance themselves from that group.
You may never get that chance, given the trajectory and velocity with which this has become the face of that party. Those from whom you'd keep distance are firmly ensconced; they will not go quietly or willingly, now that they have the bully pulpit. In very short order, I believe they will constitute the majority mind set of the GOP, at which time, it completely ceases being the brand you always knew.
In the past 2-3 years, there has been a mass exodus of conventional GOP officials, dozens upon dozens of whom are retiring outright or returning to the private sector. These folks were your brand of GOP. A good number of those who are lining up to fill the vacancies are not.
It would take a civil war within the ranks of the GOP, and I'm not sure the old guard has the stomach these days. In some ways, they seem more fatigued and beaten down than their dem counterparts. I'd be surprised to see them 'spine up' at this late date to fight for the soul/direction/ideals of the party.
Splinter party, perhaps? They'll never seek a home with donks, but they certainly aren't comfy with how things stand at present.
It would seem that everyone who is like you.... is doing the same thing as you. That's how a man like Trump can hijack an age-old traditional party and turn it into something that you don't recognize- and can't stand.
You may never get your party back from these jackals. But then again, how well does one think a leaderless pack of jackals will fare, once their alpha is gone? At that point, is there anything left that you would even want back?
Your article doesn't do that, not one bit. In fact, the mere need to have an article saying "hey - old people are voting for him" shows that older people probably not predisposed to vote for him.
If your trying to say that older people are more inclined to accept a gay man than younger people, you can post all the articles you want, that's just not the case.
You mean the closed minded one's that are already loyal to Trump? If so then I agree.
We are talking about moderate centrist, in a dem candidate thread. Why are you brining up Trump or trump supporters? I really do think you have a complex.
You mean the closed minded one's that are already loyal to Trump? If so then I agree.
This is exactly why the left will not run away with this election in 20.
By all accounts, they absolutely should. They literally short of digging up Epstein and running him on the ticket, it shouldn't even be close the way people hate trump.
Yet, when someone like myself, who is absolutely open to vote Dem or even just sit out, makes a comment that is complete unbiased - you try to turn it into something about Trump...smh
Congrats - you have run yet another person out of the discussion which could have the potential to be a 2 vote swing.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released on Friday, shows Buttigieg only behind Biden when it comes to support from Iowa voters 65 and older.
Quote:
Schmidt, who has been teaching at Iowa State University for 50 years, also said these voters tend to be more moderate, which is the lane Buttigieg seems to be driving in.
"They are worried about sort of off-the-chart candidates who just seem too explosive," he said. "When he talks about policy he talks about incrementalism and not blowing up the system. I think that appeals to a lot of those voters, many of them -- I would say -- have health insurance and, in some cases, are pretty happy with what they have."
I guess you haven't been following the thread. Which doesn't surprise me.
The fact is, most people in today's society have a child, close relative or friend who is gay. Those who find that some type of macho, you know, "try to kick me in the balls!", kind of person has already made their mind up about who they're voting for. They think being a bully or supporting a bully makes them tough. They aren't moderate or going to vote for anyone but Trump. That's why he was brought up.
Open minded moderates will vote for a gay man just like they voted for a black man. Then you have those on the other side who would vote for neither.
The Democrats are desperate because the Democrats can't field an electable candidate so they are desperate because they know with the field the way it is now, Trump rolls to another victory EASILY
That being said, Obama himself has warned the Democratic Party that they have completely lost their way.
"“I don’t think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven’t heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately that’s going to activate them" - Barrack Obama
“This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. They like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that.” - Barrak Obama
"“My point is that even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including Democratic voters and certainlypersuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party,”" - Barrack Obama
People just don't get it, the Majority of America is NOT in favor of:
The Democrats radical positions on immigration (Obama doesn't support them, he flat out), healthcare, and other areas are NOT what the majority of the common working American voter wants.
The News media has tried to normalize the absolute bonkers radicalization of people like AOC and the Squad, and most Americans have universally rejected their idea of a "perfect America"
Will the Democrats be smart enough to listen to Obama? Will they get back to being the party of the middle class working American, that supported industry, construction, and labor reforms and healthcare in this country? Or are they going to continue down this radical road of liberal extremism that to be frank is incompatible with our Republic and Constitution.
the Repubs only keep getting the votes they get because the Dems give people no other option. Not a single candidate the Dems have up right now is electable, it wouldn't matter if Barney the Purple Dinosaur was running against those people, Barney would win.
Yet, here we are today on the Twitter verse with the Dems calling out Obama telling him he turned his back on "Hope and Change", and that he is "liberal enough" and all other sorts of troll comments.
If Obama was running for President today, he would have to run as a Republican, The Dems no longer support his platform.
Obama never wanted free healthcare, he wanted affordable healthcare. Whats affordable or not is up for debate, but he never wanted it to be free, folks were going to have to pay a fair share on their own. Obama was also very pro-secure borders. He deported more illegals than any President in history. Obama made numerous statements on tv on how he would continue to hunt these people down and bring them to justice and he did. the fact he deported more than any President in hisory proves it. Obama was a blood hound for illegals, and he absolutely was against open borders and all this other radical far left immigration idealogy you see out of the Democrats today.
The funny thing is, except for the border wall, all the increased security and stuff aorund the border was Obama ideas! Trump left Obama executive orders in place for dealing with people at the border, and Trump was just following them! It was Obama that urged Trump to ramp up border security artound Mexico during his transition from office.
If the Democrats don't make a huge platform shift, and soon, they will end up as a 3rd party. They gotta get people like the Squad out of there and not let their ideas poison the party, they are destroying the Democratic Party, they are a far worse cancer than the Tea Party was to the Republicans, and the Republican Party barely survived the Tea Party...
Will the Dems listen to Obama? So far it doesn't look like it...
We'll see. I agree with Obama. Some seem to think they can win without listening to him.
They have candidates who can win. The question is will they nominate one of them.
The problem the dems are facing at the moment is that the republicans have rolled up the wackiest things each dem have said and attributed it to "the dem party".... eventually one person will come out of this and will have to stand alone and the wacky ideas of the others will be gone from the discussion...
Right now you have Beto and his gestapo-style comments about bringing force to your home to take your guns...
Bernie suggesting that Bill Gates with his $106 billion in net worth could pay $100 billion in taxes...
Kamala Harris saying kids should go to school from 8 am to 6 pm to mirror the typical parents work schedule to make it easier on the parents...
Biden, the one issue that over 65% of American agree on, which is legalizing marijuana, comes out AGAINST it.. <smdh>
Warren just wants everything to be free.. healthcare, childcare, housing, college, student debt... "Republicans said $940 billion over 10 years for the Affordable Care Act was too expensive — but that’s a rounding error compared with Warren’s agenda." and that's from the freaking Washington Post...
Pete Buttigieg wants to completely dismantle the supreme court and remake it into a 15 judge panel...
At some point some of these will fall by the wayside and one of them will have to stand alone and defend themselves and only THEIR ideas... then we will see what happens... because for now, you roll them all up.. yea, they look like one giant conglomerated lunatic.
So DC, you stoop so low as to use this as a smear on Bernie when it's obvious he is just making a point using a made up example with Gates? smh
If Bernie could take $100 billion of Gates money... he would.
The more ironic part of that entire tweet is this...
Quote:
Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion.
We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country.
Bill would still be a multibillionaire.
The federal government takes in TRILLIONS of dollars a year and they have for a long time and they haven't come close to ending homelessness or providing safe drinking water to some parts of the country.. and Bernie is going to solve it all with just this $100 billion..
The federal government has taken in over $20 trillion in the 5 years since the Flint, MI crisis happened under Obama, the state of MI has taken in significant money as well... still not completely fixed. Better, but not fixed.
Bernie will NEVER have enough of our money... ever.
