And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[drogulus]

     The idea of the public option was opposed for precisely the reason it was supported, that its superiority would doom the current version of private insurance, which would have to transform itself into a Medicare Advantage model. Private plans would exist for as long as people wanted them and insurance companies offered them. I have one. It's the highest rated in Massachusetts. You don't have to live in my state to get a plan like this, people all over the country have them. About a third of Medicare recipients have them, ~20 million people.

[JBS]

    We need bigness and planning and government. The scale is determined by the size of the tasks to be accomplished. The failure of a big government plan does not delegitimize bigness or planning or government. We have to do better and learn from mistakes, get back up and plan to be big again. There really isn't a choice in this. If "shrink to grow" economics could produce a path forward we'd know long before now.

     We get richer by spending enough money to solve problems big enough to justify the cost. The cost is itself part of the benefit as the economy gets the money for more than a one time use. That's how a money economy works, the money spent to fix a problem is spent on and that drives the economy

     The Green New Deal will happen, perhaps with a less scary name. It will be gigantic. Rather than "cost" the economy it will drive it towards a richer future. I saw some shrinky economic analysis about how much the GND would subtract from GDP! The biggest spending program of all time will use one time dollars apparently. Where they go? I'm a patient guy but sometimes I wonder.

You sometimes read like a parody of yourself.

The GND would be gigantic, and in the form AOC wants, wreck the economy by forcing people to buy stuff they don't want and banning them from buying stuff they do want. And have no useful impact on man made emissions.

I read today that Berkeley has banned any future home building from using natural gas in the name of controlling emissions. So they have decided that Berkeleyites will have no opportunity to decide for themselves what best lowers emissions (and obviously, they think natural gas technology will never produce less emissions than their preferred mode, electricity. I suppose they have not bothered to  examine the emission costs of electricity.)

[Muzio]

Koch brothers could do so much good with their money if they were normal human beings with empathy.

Koch Brothers will not be supporting Trump for 2020, as the KB agenda includes increased immigration, laxity on crime enforcement, etc.  Of course, Trump said (soon after winning the 2016 election) that he had not seen any of the Koch money during his run.  I have read that the KB team will be throwing their 2020 $ behind 'moderate Democrats.'

[JBS]

Koch Brothers will not be supporting Trump for 2020, as the KB agenda includes increased immigration, laxity on crime enforcement, etc.  Of course, Trump said (soon after winning the 2016 election) that he had not seen any of the Koch money during his run.  I have read that the KB team will be throwing their 2020 $ behind 'moderate Democrats.'

The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.
Trump is an authoritarian conservative, and therefore likes big government. He is actually much more like the Leftists he despises than he or any Trumpnik will ever admit.

[drogulus]

The GND would be gigantic, and in the form AOC wants, wreck the economy by forcing people to buy stuff they don't want and banning them from buying stuff they do want. And have no useful impact on man made emissions.

     Of course it will be gigantic. It's a gigantic problem. No ideology will make it small. If you're waiting for proof, it's here. The Repub plan is to deny the problem. How clever is that? What will that cost?

     Do I want to be forced to buy clean energy and pay my share of a carbon tax? Given the alternative the answer is an unequivocal yes. The alternative is far worse, and just as forced if we're dumb enough to slouch our way towards it. If you want to measure a devastating cost to GDP you have to look at what happens if we don't spend gigantic dollars, not if we do.

     No doubt we'll have to do lots of tacking back and forth on which measures make the most sense. My hope is nuclear power plays a significant part because that makes the odds a plan will be effective much higher. Early versions of the GND have included wish list items from Greenies stuck in "no nukes" nostalgia. Sorry, guys, hard choices have to be made, and this is one of them.

[JBS]

     Of course it will be gigantic. It's a gigantic problem. No ideology will make it small. If you're waiting for proof, it's here. The Repub plan is to deny the problem. How clever is that? What will that cost?

     Do I want to be forced to buy clean energy and pay my share of a carbon tax? Given the alternative the answer is an unequivocal yes. The alternative is far worse, and just as forced if we're dumb enough to slouch our way towards it. If you want to measure a devastating cost to GDP you have to look at what happens if we don't spend gigantic dollars, not if we do.

     No doubt we'll have to do lots of tacking back and forth on which measures make the most sense. My hope is nuclear power plays a significant part because that makes the odds a plan will be effective much higher. Early versions of the GND have included wish list items from Greenies stuck in "no nukes" nostalgia. Sorry, guys, hard choices have to be made, and this is one of them.

In that case I am sure you won't mind paying my carbon tax for me.

I do agree with on the desireability of nuclear power.

[drogulus]

The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.

    Not liking big government is highly overrated. Libertarianism is a cause for a fringe group that have no use for practicality. It's a jumped up thought experiment, self-limiting since people can't be harangued into thinking it's a good idea. In idea terms it falls into the category of "not even false".

In that case I am sure you won't mind paying my carbon tax for me.

I do agree with on the desireability of nuclear power.

     If you agree to forgo the benefits of the spending I'll pay the tax. Generally I favor big programs that send money into the economy, so it would be churlish of me to claim that somehow the tax on the increase robs me.  Big plans are behind big gains. The tax of some of that gain is a bargain. Yes, it's more expensive to get richer than to stay poor (in nominal terms, that is), but does that mean it's not worth it? I say tax me baby, tax me all night longgg!!

[Muzio]

The Kochs are libertarian conservatives who actually don't like big government.
Trump is an authoritarian conservative, and therefore likes big government. He is actually much more like the Leftists he despises than he or any Trumpnik will ever admit.

I think your assessments about the President are profoundly misguided.  But no useless argumentation from me.  

[schnittkease]

Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.

Sanders leads Trump in the vast majority of polls, just like in 2016. Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).

[Karl Henning]

Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).

Setting aside Trump's self-delusion. he doesn't rip anybody to anything like shreds, he just trolls, to throw red meat to the trumpkins.

[JBS]

Sanders leads Trump in the vast majority of polls, just like in 2016. Biden is a corporate centrist that will be ripped to shreds by Trump (that's why the President wants him to be the nominee).

Trump wants Biden because Trump knows that a lot of leftists won't vote for him because he's too much of a moderate. Just like they didn't vote for Hillary. But he'll be happy to run against any of the others and make use of their leftism.

[schnittkease]

I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders. In 2008 it was "Obama's Boys" and now it's "Bernie Bros." Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election alone. 9/10 Sanders supporters voted for Clinton, and even if she got all of them she wouldn't have won. The truth is that Hillary shot herself in the foot. First off, she rigged the primaries by buying the DNC out of a $2 million debt. There were the meaningless and vacuous platitudes utilized in countless speeches and ads. Labeling Trump supporters as sexist, racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc., wasn't a good idea, was it? She spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump campaigned there repeatedly; Wisconsin turned red. Three days before the election, Tim Kaine tweeted: "Thinking about my daughter right now. No little girl will ever again have to wonder whether she, too, can be president." Arrogance.

[71 dB]

Familiarize yourself with Bernie's preSenate career, and you will understand better.

But step back a moment.
You want Trump to be defeated in 2020. So do I.
To do that, you need a candidate whom people will vote for.
They won't vote for a progressive candidate. Progressive ideas are not popular, especially when mixed in with the social justice issues that so pre-occupies the Left today. Anyone who says otherwise is spouting bosh.
Whether you like them or not, the policies you label as corporatist [they are not in fact, for the most part] are the sort of policies that appeal to American voters. They will vote for a candidate who will let them get the public option health care if they want. [Biden!]  They will not vote for a candidate who wants them to only have the public option [anyone backing Medicare for all.]
And so on.
Think of it this way: any candidate who appeals to you is too far left, and will lose to Trump.

HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???

[71 dB]

I just can't take this anymore!!!!!! We see in time who wins who. I am TRIED. I do other things.

Now I get Harry: don't waste energy on trying to convince others.

[SimonNZ]

HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???

That is by no means a certainty.

[JBS]

I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders. In 2008 it was "Obama's Boys" and now it's "Bernie Bros." Sanders did 39 rallies for Clinton in 13 states over the final three months of the 2016 general election alone. 9/10 Sanders supporters voted for Clinton, and even if she got all of them she wouldn't have won. The truth is that Hillary shot herself in the foot. First off, she rigged the primaries by buying the DNC out of a $2 million debt. There were the meaningless and vacuous platitudes utilized in countless speeches and ads. Labeling Trump supporters as sexist, racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc., wasn't a good idea, was it? She spent literally no time in Wisconsin, whereas Trump campaigned there repeatedly; Wisconsin turned red. Three days before the election, Tim Kaine tweeted: "Thinking about my daughter right now. No little girl will ever again have to wonder whether she, too, can be president." Arrogance.

You forgot to mention that she is actually as corrupt as Trump.
I'm not saying Bernie voters did not vote for her. But there was a perceptible lack of enthusiasm. You mention Wisconsin. She actually lost that state by about 20, 000 votes....8/10 of 1 percent of the vote. About 30,000 people in Wisconsin voted for Jill Stein.  How many of those were Bernie backers?

FWIW, I voted for neither Clinton nor Trump. I have voted Libertarian in every Presidential race since 2004.

[JBS]

HILLARY LOST. BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND???

Highly debateable. He might have won states she lost, but would have lost states she won. And only against Trump. Another Republican would have gathered in dissatisfied Hillaryites and all the people who couldn't stand Trump but never vote Democratic.

Obama is the most leftward POTUS in American history. And he won in large part because blacks turned out in high numbers, a lot of whites thought it was high time a black became President, and--very importantly--he campaigned as much more moderate/ centrist than he really was.

[Karl Henning]

I'm tired of this false narrative that Hillary lost the election because of Sanders.

And who said this?

[Karl Henning]

That is by no means a certainty.

Indeed; that should not be too difficult to understand.

[JBS]

Speaking of Bernie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html