2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yang just needs to double his current support if he needs to qualify for the fall debates
Yep. She is basically back to square one of where she was before the first debate. She needs Biden to implode to have any chance of moving up since he currently has a majority of the black vote in his camp.
SO Biden as a clear favourite. Biden would lose all the way against Trump. Probably the worst candidate
He's doing best against Trump in the polls at the moment.
No, he wouldn’t. We’ve been over this y’all...
As long as i believe it is not y'all. He is the continuity of the likes as Hillary. American politics needs a change for the best, and Biden is the same old. So far, with trump it changed for the worst
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8/2/u_s_healthcare_medicare_medicaid_history
Ex-Health Insurance Exec: Industry Is Using Decades-Old Scare Tactics to Fight Medicare for All
Ex-Health Insurance Exec: Industry Is Using Decades-Old Scare Tactics to Fight Medicare for All
She immediately corrected herself. It happuns. Happens.
Also over the first hurdle concerning future debates.
Gabbard is an opportunistic, but can see her being VP choice for both Biden and Sanders. She adds diversity to the ticket, while her policies (especially the domestic ones) are almost identical to those of Sanders. And while she didn't have big name recognition, she is now on the spot after torching Kamala. Main problem is that she doesn't bring a state with her (Hawai are Dems anyway).
I don't think that she is the best choice, but wouldn't be surprised to see her being running mate of either of them. Much better than that twat O'rourke which has been mentioned many times.
I don't think that she is the best choice, but wouldn't be surprised to see her being running mate of either of them. Much better than that twat O'rourke which has been mentioned many times.
I could see that... And in doing so basically being an attack dog on Warren and Harris.... Big problem for her is I think Warren or Harris will win and she will have put herself in a sticky political position should either become president ... She strikes me as being ambitious and politically intelligent so she might be vary careful where she aligns herself this time in order to play a longer game for 2024/2028 (though Ivanka will win both of those anyway)
I think that Kamala is done, she never striked me as someone who can win the primaries. Hopefully, Liz gets some of her votes which would put her next to Biden as the main candidate.
I want Bernie to win, but I think that this is going to be between Warren and Biden.
I don't think that Bernie and Warren are going to attack each other.
We can see where this is going with Tulsi. She had a chance to take a shot at Biden the other night and conspicuously ducked it. She was also a Sanders straphanger in 16, so she is likely positioning herself for both sides should either win the nomination.
That's actually a very good comparison.
I think on most things Gabbard is way to the left of Patel.
You're forgetting one big factor - subconscious sexism.
Biden is very similar to Hillary's politics yet one thing Biden has always had is people like him. That's the main reason behind the electability argument. He makes them feel comfortable. Whereas Hillary has been hated from the moment Bill became President.
Very good Tulsi is in the September debates.
Only 3 candidates advocate Single payer and she is one of them.
Only 3 candidates advocate Single payer and she is one of them.
Last edited:
Indeed
https://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/
Hated seems a bit strong... She has had quite high favourability ratings at times.
Yeah I agree. She was liked a lot around her tenure as first lady, senator and secretary of state. The transition to dislike occurred after that... Why I'm not sure. Probably Benghazi?
She's been a target of the right wing ever since the Tammy Wynette and Baking Cookies comments in 92(ish), so for much of her public life she's been attacked from the right and more recently from the left as well.
She was also vocal on universal healthcare so insurance companies probably funded a lot of anti Hillary propaganda.
No doubt about it. She became increasingly despised among the right once Whitewater kicked off and Bill made her responsible for healthcare and she tried to go the Universal healthcare route.
Yes I should have implied the hate came from the Right. The idea that the Clintons were a Machiavellian, criminal partnership. She may be the first 1st Lady (and perhaps the only still) who has had her husband's personal actions projected onto her. She had a bruising primary with Obama in 2008 too.
She's a far better politician than Biden because she was able to hold off all those attacks and become a trailblazer as the first major female nominee. Biden still has to earn the nomination. But I think if he gets it, he appeals to the independents/undecided more than she does. Because he doesn't come across focus group driven. Because he is decent at retail politics. It's said Bill Clinton was frustrated that the Hillary campaign did not do enough of meeting those people in the swing states. That's one thing Biden will do.
Booker in tier two. Not sure what Silver is smoking.
Naw, she never supported a single payer like Europe, Canada and Australia and Hilarycare was just an early version of Obamacare that the insurance companies wanted. The for-profit insurance industry has always loved Hilary Clinton.
"Hillarycare used a managed competition strategy to achieve its purpose. The government would control the costs of doctor bills and insurance premiums. Health insurance companies would compete to provide the best and lowest cost packages to companies and individuals. This is different from Medicare in which the government contracts directly with doctors, hospitals, and other health providers. Medicare is known as a single-payer system.
Hillarycare would implement its objective using three features: universal coverage, regional health alliances, and a national health board.
Most people would get insurance plans from their employers because all employers were required to provide health insurance coverage to every employee. They could use Health Maintenance Organizations or offer Preferred Provider Organizations or a custom-designed benefit package. Health insurance companies would compete for their business.
People without jobs could purchase health insurance on their own from the regional health alliances. The Federal government would subsidize the costs for low-income people."
Had this passed into law in mid-90s it would have ended up with the same flaws of Obamacare - namely to avoid the provision of employees offering health insurance to full time employees we would have seen a rash of shifting of full-time employees to independent contractors so employers can avoid offering health insurance and many jobs would have offered atrociously designed HMOs that offer low quality care and still run risk of medical expenses too high (like all the employer insurance I've ever been offered).
Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated by small businesses seeking to avoid Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to estimates in a new working paper distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Altogether between 28,000 and 50,000 businesses appear to have reduced their number of full-time employees from 2014 to 2016 because of the mandate.
This is important on who opposed Hilarycare:
Why It Was Defeated
- Doctors worried about being forced into insurance-run HMOs. They feared they would completely lose control over pricing, care, and treatment. Instead, health insurance companies would further dictate what would be covered and who would receive care. That's believed to be the real reason the AAPS sued the Task Force for violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
------
The idea that the Clintons were only hated because of "right wing propaganda" is complete and total bullshit. Progressives never liked the corporate boot licking Clintons, but since the 90s many of us were systematically underrepresented (as I later learned often based solely on likely voter formulas).
And let's not forget how many women accusers of Slick Willy's sexual misadventures Hilary brutally attacked throughout the 90s. That's why she had zero leverage with pussy grabber against Trump because she spent 10 years attacking every women that dared to come forward to accuse her own pussy grabber.
Last edited:
Who would you define as a progressive in the early 90s ? The term didn't even become politically relevant until the mid 2000s.
The likes of Brown and Nader spring to mind. Not sure if I can't think of anyone else.
@oneniltothearsenal regardless, her healthcare ideas were still used as a stick to beat her with
bernie is cancelled
Its not about the term its about their beliefs.
Just like today the majority of the Did Not Vote segment were much more progressive than Clinton's Democrat Party. And about half of Perot supporters were essentially progressives (with the other half being libertarian). This is why that two axis political chart is far more useful than the meaningless political line. Perot's support was definitely clustered below the authoritarian midpoint from both the social left (more progressive than Clinton) and social right (more libertarian than Bush).
Not from the health insurance companies and that wasn't something progressives of the era supported her on either. She was never loved by the left and the "right wing propaganda" was never the cause of why a massive chunk of the population never liked her. That was always the whiny Clinton line - that people only didn't like them because "right wing conspiracies" which was misleading because a lot of people on the left never, ever liked the Clintons to begin with and others soured on them over 8 years because things like the damn War on Drugs a helluva lot more than any right wing influence.
BTW Clinton was the one who first gave a contract to a for-profit company to run detention camps for immigrants at the border (Wackenhutt).
Oh yeah and I remember some of Clinton supporters even calling me a "bleeding heart" back then, an insult that seems to have disappeared for more visceral terms these days. That was the whole Clinton USP in 92 - they weren't your mom's weak 'bleeding heart liberals', they were tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on welfare queens.
Last edited:
The Democratic Party needs to catch up with its voters, otherwise another defeat awaits them.
Perot was more of a personality driven juggernaut that imploded the moment he did and the vaunted Reform Party quickly collapsed into a clown show that courted the likes of Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, and Donald Trump. Proper Libertarians (however few may exist) vote Libertarian and Libertarian wannabes usually vote GOP.
My point was where the left who were disenfranchised from Clinton's tough on crime, tough on welfare, tough on drugs Democrat Party resided in the early and mid 1990s. The answer is they either voted Perot (along with libertarians disaffected by the corporate conservatives), Did Not Vote or they did vote Green and support Nader (to much insults from the Clinton and Gore people). Of course some people far to the left of Clinton personally also still voted Clinton so its also important to remember that casting a ballot for someone does not indicate liking someone.
In fact for those that believe in the lesser of two evils voting philosophy, they could literally hate Clinton's guts but still have hated Dole just a little more.
- Status