I am hoping some of the younger Dems like Cory Booker or maybe someone like Sally Yates will at least make a run for the nomination. I just think Biden and Bernie will be too old to start a first term in 2020.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Booker could be a player in the next cycle, although he needs to polish up his delivery a bit if he wants to do well on the national stage.
Sally Yates is very polished. I could see her doing well. Maybe Booker as her running mate.
Yeah she's great, although probably more in the mold of an AG candidate instead of a politician.
If Trump has taught us anything its think outside of the box when it comes to POTUS nominees. Sally is my girl and I will not rest until she is in the WH.
https://www.facebook.com/SALLYYATESFORPRES/
https://www.facebook.com/SALLYYATESFORPRES/
If Trump has taught us anything it's that "polish" means feck all.
And if you try and polish a turd you'll just end up elbow deep in shit.
This will remain the case as long as Pelosi and Schumer are leading the Dem caucus in congress. Weak, ineffective leaders. Pelosi in particular. She's been the Dem leader in the House for years now. It's high time for her to step down so that they can have fresh leadership. Loads of people have doubts about Tom Perez as well. Seems like DWS all over again.
The Dems will never be able to formulate good plans that appeal to the working classes and sell them to the rest of the party and then the country as long as "Chuck and Nancy" are in power.
Bernie needs to seriously modify his polices and hope some of the things he has said in the past don't come back to haunt him. Its all very well to whip up a crowd of Dems that have come to see you but too much talk of free stuff and socialist polices will not go down well in a POTUS campaign.
It needs to be done in baby steps, and it needs to be framed as an economy booster. For instance on education start with addressing the student loan interest rates, and maybe talk about grants for areas of need like nursing and IT. Offer universities incentives to increase the number of places in areas of need. Its going to be hard to change ideals and shift polices 180 degree so start slowly.
It needs to be done in baby steps, and it needs to be framed as an economy booster. For instance on education start with addressing the student loan interest rates, and maybe talk about grants for areas of need like nursing and IT. Offer universities incentives to increase the number of places in areas of need. Its going to be hard to change ideals and shift polices 180 degree so start slowly.
Tim Ryan would seem to be a good Pelosi replacement. He is also apparently considering a 2020 run.
Last edited:
Incrementalism doesn't work any more. Look at how almost every achievement of Obama was wiped out in less than a year. Bernie's policies are popular and resonate with the disaffected rust belt states where Hillary failed to hold together the Obama coalition.
The problem is the vast majority of Americans are not socialists at heart. They know things need to change in terms of wealth distribution, healthcare and education etc but they are not ready for Bernie's policies right now IMO. Just because he whipped up good support on the Democrat trail and he is currently polling OK does not mean those poll numbers will hold up when the Super Pacs put his feet to the fire. I have had this discussion with my work colleges who all Democrats, and all despise Trump. Some of Bernie's more radical polices on tax and such do not resonate with everyone. That will be especially true if things remain positive on the economy.
This is more or less correct. We haven't had a good debate about what direction to go in regarding healthcare and Bernie's plan, which is imo the correct one, still needs to be sold to the broader public since it represents a massive redistribution of wealth and power from the private wealthy individuals to the public sector, all the while placing various restrictions on healthcare companies. So the effect on the economy has to be fully evaluated to get the broader public on board. Otherwise you will have another Obamacare type situation where something passes but is then gradually undone during future congresses and Presidential administrations. The time for Dems to sell this is now before the campaign starts so at a minimum, a vast majority of Dems are on board with it prior to selling it to independents.
"Insert gif of Steve Carell yelling NO NO NO"
I respectfully disagree. If Congress actually wanted to fix the healthcare crisis in America, they would expand Medicare/Medicaid and have the cost covered by taxes. They prefer to help Exxon drill 5more holes for oil than to help their 300+ million citizens not go broke if they happen to get a serious illness. It's all about priorities!! It's why single payer is working in many developed countries...it's not perfect but it's far better than the American Kool-Aid being fed by Congress: Free Market affordable heatlhcare. You can have Medicare to help parents vaccinate their kids, simple checkups, doctor visits, have a filling done,etc. The problem is that Congress is trying to hookwink Americans into thinking that their own taxes shouldn't pay for these things...which is simply not true. Healthcare is complicated but to suggest implementing a single payer system is a massive redistribution along with restricting healthcare companies (whatever that means) is just throwing out silly talking points. America is the so called greatest nation on earth and for some strange reason, they've managed to believe that their healthcare system is the best on the planet, when all evidence points to the contrary.
well thats one interpratation
there are 23 donations of $5000 - each of the people you mentioned donated $5,000
AS Did
Sheet Metal Workers of America
SEIU COPE (SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION)
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE
As did a number of Pac's and Dell and Microsoft... lets be honest you could pick three of any of those and imply 4 different agendas
I suspect (or at least hope) he is a combination of moral enough or at least rich enough that 5K in political funding isn't going to corrupt him to a cause
The US healthcare system is awash with cash. Unfortunately admin costs and profiteering skim a huge amount off the top. If the US could convert the current spend per capita into an NHS type system it would probably would be the best healthcare system in the world.
It would certainly be a massive redistribution in the Bernie Sanders model, as he's routinely cited raising income tax rates to has high as 52%, raising capital gains and dividends rates, and limiting tax deductions for the wealthy (among several other things) to pay for it. These are obviously all things that would redistribute money from one side to another.
The bigger problem for single payer is that there hasn't yet been a healthy debate in society to form a consensus about how to proceed, that is independent from advocating for single payer during a political campaign. There are still a lot of Dem politicians (probably the majority) who aren't yet on board with single payer and that's not even counting Independents and Republicans.
To make such a comprehensive change in the system, you have to first reach a degree of consensus where the majority of people want it, so that you can then proceed with political candidates who can operationalize the will of the people. What happened in 2016 was the polar opposite of that, where you had one compartmentalized subsection of the Democratic party pushing for single payer before having a broad debate to get a majority of the country on board. If single payer is going to happen, it will be because there is overwhelming support for it, not because one prominent candidate wants it.
eventually possibly - I think the transistion period for getting an organisation that big to work would be pretty tough - especially if ultimatley its being driven by political ideology rather than healthcare professionals - I mean top down reorganizations of our own healtcare system cause enough issues - i can only imagine the issues here could be signigantly more as it would also mean driving through cultural change within the businesses and anybody who has had to manage that will tell you it takes time and typically much more time than you think it will
I agree with that but let's be honest here. The narrative being pushed and played over and over is that single payer is socialism. If they really wanted to implement it, Congress would embark on a massive campaign to educate everyone about the pros and cons of the system and then allow people to make up their minds. This unfortunately isn't happening. You can't have a consensus and honest debate when one side or a bunch of people are hell bent on misleading everyone and spending tons of money to corrupt the debate.
I can never understand why their are so many U.S citizens against single payer healthcare, as for the politicians they are so deep in the pockets of special interests it is laughable at this stage.
That's why we need a healthy debate to bring stakeholders from all sides into the mix and gradually debunk and eliminate the nonsensical arguments. What you will then be left with is a fairly popular and logical proposal that a majority of the population see great value in implementing. We haven't had that debate yet and it needs to happen before the next Presidential campaign so that when candidates supports or doesn't support it, the public will be well informed on how to proceed.
Deep distrust in all things government, especially federal government. The perception is government run entities are inefficient. Kind of ironic when most socialized healthcare systems spend 10% or less on admin and the US spends over 40%.
Plus for most people the healthcare is pretty damned good over here IF you have insurance.
Its largely down to misinformation (ie "socialism") and the fact that wealthy interests would have to give up a lot of money if it were to proceed, and in the current system where politicians have their political campaigns bankrolled by wealthy benefactors, that is obviously going to result in many politicians rejecting single payer.
What about those with long term conditions/genetic conditions. I imagine it would be nigh on impossible to get insurance with it?
As long as Fox News is around, there would be zero healthy debates about this.
The irony about that is they're Congressmen and women saying these things when they in fact...ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
They are a subsection of the government who are driven by constituencies who are distrustful of government and want their politicians to keep all things governance as small as possible. Therefore you have to change the minds of constituencies by having a proper debate that transcends one news channel and gets all stakeholders into the equation.
Last edited:
Yes you can. There would always be people who are costly in the system, you can't get away from that. But to suggest that this is the norm and they're in the majority is a ridiculous argument. A single payer system administered well would negate these costs over the long term, as long as you start using the money to focus on preventative healthcare and healthy lifestyle choices when people are young. If you focus on healthcare and not sickcare, over the span of say 10 to 20 years you'd see a drastic reduction in public health spending as people would be healthier. It's always cheaper to pay for a woman to check her breasts at 25 than to treat her cancer at age 40. It's always cheaper pay for dental check ups at 20 than to pay for expensive dental work at age 45.
Educated people don't talk like that. I'm not referring to you obviously but there seems to be a correlation between people who talk like that and their level of education.
And yet everyone's vote counts the same, so ultimately you have to gain as large a consensus as possible when implementing a new policy that affects everyone.
What determines power and privilege in this world? Wealth, and typically more specifically inherited wealth. The solution to this is fiscal.
Only if you consider men and women (as an example) to be two distinct groups. It's ironically discriminatory to do so.
No, it is a de facto exclusion of some of the non-diverse group who'd otherwise have earned their place.
It's discriminatory to men, some of which may not come from wealthy backgrounds; because, let's face it, if anyone's going to lose out amongst men it will be the unprivileged. Once again, wealth/class would be a far greater target.
If you enact practices that are discriminatory in your favour then either you are privileged already (rule makers) or you are gaining power without demanding a damned thing (rule takers). The current wave of feminism is hardly revolutionary. You might even say it's incrementalist.
Even if you're right - and I'm unconvinced - it's still a lesser evil. It's at least passively discriminatory rather than actively. A bad alternative is still bad.
We needn't band together, you needn't even consider me an ally, but you should not consider me an enemy. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? It's like two commanders with differing views on tactical strategy in a war fighting to the death over whose plan to proceed with whilst the real enemy advances towards the gates.
I know plenty of very intelligent people that think exactly like that. It is basically a mantra of the GOP hardcore.
single payer is non negotiable for any democratic hopeful in 2020
That is fecking tragic. We seriously need to get to some form of single payer.
As I mentioned yesterday. Big Pharma, Insurance corporations, their GOP puppets and Fox News would spend a shit load of money to muddy the single payer debate, spread misinformation and and get a lot of folks to suddenly believe that the current system is working great!
- Status