That's excellent.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
That's excellent.
This means nothing since it won't ever happen. Sanders does not have Senate and will very likely lose House, even if he himself somehow magically gets elected, so he won't be able to actually pass new healthcare bill or anything for that matter. All his "revolution" does is stab in the back democrats' chance for winning this election. None of his socialist ideas will ever materialize. He's Corbin redux, in its pure form.
You're all gonna come up with carefully calculated paths and then Trump's gonna somehow win Delaware with Sanders winning Alabama.
Trump had two "faithless electors" last time. In calculations like this, those should be counted as Trump's this time so that would leave him with 270, just enough to win.
This idea that the other, more moderate Democratic candidates are more electable than Sanders has taken a huge battering in recent weeks but apparently some people still cling to it.
Probably.You need to understand the difference between Democratic primary in 3 initial states and the general election.
There is no way in hell that Sanders is winning PA or MI in the general election and in reality he won't win the states that Hillary won either (e.g. VA). If Sanders is nominated, he will shit his pants in the general election, just like Corbin did in Britain. Which is why Trump and Internet trolls keep promoting him. He's GOP's wet dream for the general election and anybody who doesn't see it is doomed to repeat Britain's mistake.
1) It's always amusing when someone is so certain of the outcome of a race that most analysts consider too close to call.
2) Who are the candidates who, in your clearly expert opinion, can win these states? Bear in mind they need to be able to actually excite and energise the Democrat voters.
there's no secret formula to the general, no point endlessly discussing florida ot texas or whatever, the obvious path is through wisconsin, michigan, and penn, and that's it. his h2h polling in NC looks good but i doubt it'll work out.
Was down there for SB weekend... Can confirm. I was seeing a lot of Trump stickers in Ft Lauderdale... And it gets worse the further away you go north/west
If the appeal court ruling stands you'd hope all the ex-cons would roll with the party who's trying to give them voting rights but who knows.
Yeah maybe the Democratic presidential candidate will make a stop in those states this time.
(Shade thrown)
I've thought about this and you might be right, however America doesn't have an issue like Brexit and Sanders is more on issues. He's more charismatic than Corbyn also. I don't know if he'll be able to win but I think he stands a better chance than Corbyn did.
Context is also important for the facts to make sense. At this point in 2016 Republican primary, there were four remaining candidates with really only Trump and Ted Cruz having any viability. And in that race Trump was the only candidate in his lane (lets say anti-establishment lane) and others were purely establishment.
This Democratic primary there is a gradient of candidates with Bernie at one end all the way to Bloomberg at the other end. This itself distributes the votes. And there are still at least 5 major candidates remaining, again diluting the votes.
btw it seems Bernie is at 29% in RCP polling averages now.
Cubans tend to love Trump and the GOP so it’s almost pointless.
I know, why even try? Just let everything be as it is, right?
Didn't this happen in Veep?
I don't think he would lose the house, but even if he were to retain the house and win the Senate back by a seat or two, it would still make it very difficult to get any of the policies he is selling through Congress. The Dems are going to need a near supermajority in both houses to get something like M4A or Green New Deal, passed into law.
Was down there for SB weekend... Can confirm. I was seeing a lot of Trump stickers in Ft Lauderdale... And it gets worse the further away you go north/west
If the appeal court ruling stands you'd hope all the ex-cons would roll with the party who's trying to give them voting rights but who knows.
Florida is a polyp that needs excising.
Not if you get rid of the legislative filibuster.
You still need all Dems to support the policy, which currently doesn't exist. I believe only something like 15 Dem senators support M4A. Long way to go.
I think he will be much closer to Trump than Obama in how he will lead. He won’t be worrying about bipartisanship for a start, he will executive order the crap out of things to make sure his campaign pledges are enacted. Obviously Healthcare goes beyond that and needs Congressional funding but I can see him using his power to make things very uncomfortable for pharma companies to a point where they will be open to negotiating with Congress.
Yes, whipping them into line is a tough job in itself, but speaking purely from procedures you only need a majority to pass it.
Ultimately, what’s likely to happen is a public option. AOC has openly stated that and emphasize on the need to shift the Overton window.
Looking back, Obama dropped major balls in 2008. Revoking the 1929 Reapportionment Act for instance would give the Dems a natural +20 seats advantage in the House, which give a lot of cushion in off year elections.
i don't think even the biggest of "Bernie bros" expects Bernie to pass everything he's running on even with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate if they have even an iota of understanding of US politics. The biggest thing for Bernie and this movement is to start from a much higher point to start negotiations and compromise from. The win for Bernie would also give credence to the progressive movement which has been stomped on for decades now esp. with questions of viability and electability. This should provide a further push for more progressive candidates all around the country for all seats.
No. Every Democratic candidate has a plan to improve healthcare. It's just that they are more electable and their plans are more realistic. But masses love demagogues, especially when demagogue's voice is amplified by huge farms of foreign internet trolls trying to divide and radicalize United States.
James Carville
Charles Payne Blames Dow Plunge on Bernie Sanders Winning Nevada
Fox Business host Charles Payne attributed a plunge in the stock market on Monday to Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (I-VT) current momentum in the presidential campaign.
Charles Payne Blames Dow Plunge on Bernie Sanders Winning Nevada
Fox Business host Charles Payne attributed a plunge in the stock market on Monday to Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (I-VT) current momentum in the presidential campaign.
Exactly. Not to mention that some of the things he advocates for - he won't get support even from Democrats in the House or Senate for.
Not the whole state, just the panhandle. No panhandle, no Trump win and no DeSantis win.
It would also help if Tampa/SP weren't so conservative.
Considering how the caucuses and primaries so far + polls, that is a lie. Biden is tanking. Buttigieg is being found out and has no non white support. Warren is trending downward and changing with the wind and this being found out. Bloomberg is a Republican who will prevent any chance of turnout and guarantee a Trump victory. The fact you even refer to Bernie as a demagogue is laughable and shows you eat up the mainstream media narrative.
When’s the last time you been to St Pete? They’re the polar opposite of conservative. Now if you’re talking the whole Pinellas County, then yes they are conservative overall. But that’s due to all the olds who live outside of SP. Tampa is also solid blue and Hillsborough went to Gillum — the progressive.
yeah, sure.Here's the argument for M4All:
Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.
In a nutshell, it's likely to cost less and would save 68,000 lives.
What's the argument against it? We like our current plan? WTF?
Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.
In a nutshell, it's likely to cost less and would save 68,000 lives.
What's the argument against it? We like our current plan? WTF?
That's a good thing though right?
I think so, the President is supposed to serve his people after all and Sanders will use the full extent of his powers altruistically. It’s a bit different to Trump using it allow Oil Companies to poison water supplies for profit and ICE to separate mothers from babies.
Not to mention the beautiful contradiction: how the feck are the others more electable if the MASSES love the "demagogue"?
Hello, Bernie Bro.
Is this "mainstream media" moniker straight from GOP arsenal, or did y'all come up with it on your own? Not at all shocking how leftist demagogues are such split copies of rightist demagogues - discredit and curse on all sources that don't conform to their version of "reality".
..said the man of the centre, discrediting and cursing all to the right and left of him.
- Status