DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 2020 Dem Candidates pt.3

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.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspecti...lass/index.html




But that doesn’t make it not communist to have our taxes used on our behalf.
:rollseyes:

Here you go Pit.

Buttigieg surges ahead of Iowa caucuses

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.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470565-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-iowa-caucuses

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.

Not a fan of his religious views or healthcare views. But he's a better candidate than Biden IMHO.

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.

Didn't Obama just come out and say something like its not a good idea to run one of the far left wackos. Far left wackos are my words not O's.

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 need My Props, son.
Where MY props at, yo?

Pretty much how I feel.

Another election 'L' for Trump who campaigned for the loser at a thursday night rally. Trump is the kiss of death for the GOP. lmao

Lol fine

Kansas

Louisiana

Kentucky

All went blue for governor under trumps watch.

Trump casts Louisiana vote as impeachment referendum

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-casts-louisiana-vote-as-impeachment-referendum



Lmfao

The LA governor lost was so bad it sent trump to the hospital lololololol

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.

Bible Belt states are a bit slow when it comes to progress

I did tone down her wording a tad. So the progress is dwarfed more then one may think.

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.

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"

Thanks for not being able to show a single far left progressive to be elected in moderate swing state districts.

Thanks for not doing any enlightening whatsoever.

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.

Good lord are you that freaking arrogant?

You asked me a question, and my first response I stated I DONT KNOW, then asked you to tell me if any far left candidates ever ran in swing states.

I’m LITERALLY asking you for information, but all you can do is respond like this?

Screw you.

Sherrod Brown

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.

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.

You just said a whole lot of nothing.

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.

Kick rocks.

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?

Liz isn't a gray area.

Yes, the fence rider who repeatedly claims he’s gonna vote for whoever the dems put up, but then spends most of his time whining about it.

I was wondering where Vers went, but it’s clear he’s just using your account.

You are an arrogant sack. Why keep bringing my name up?

Swish is owning you, and yeah, you do you, change the subject.

Sad man, sad. To even invoke my name in this discussion shows how sad you are.

Swish is owning you. Hey, notice how I haven't posted here, until now?

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.

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.

Biden says he won't legalize marijuana because it may be a 'gateway drug'

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/47...-a-gateway-drug

Thank you for your service but hell no Joe! You gotta go!

If everybody was stoned 24/7 there would be no divides, there would be no wars, there would be only hunger... in the form of munchies.

Biden keeps making it easier not to support him.

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.”

Katie Glueck contributed reporting from New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/democrats-2020-moderates.html

There you go Pit, something to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Poor, poor arch. Victim card well played sir.

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.