And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[drogulus]

The important thing is to understand that in macro-economic systems money doesn't dissappear when it's used. When you buy a car, from your perspective the money is "gone" forever, but in macro-economic systems money just circulates and never disappears. This is an oversimplification, but it's the main principle when dealing with macro-economics. In macro-economics the flow of money and how money flows are important things. Flow means activity. It means people have jobs and can consume. Depression is less flow. How money flows is also important. Do people use money on alcohol or education? Money used on eduction is more beneficial to the society while wild alcohol usage creates problems. Macro-economic system has multiplying effects: Using 1 dollar on alcohol may have a multiplying effect of 0.8 meaning 20 cents is gone from the system (the problems ate it up) while using 1 dollar on education may have a multiplying effect of 6 in the long run so that over the years 5 dollars are added to the system (education made it possible to be more productive).

     This is largely correct in all working economic understandings, and contrary to most economic rhetoric, where government spending is disappeared money and taxing means people have more. Adding too much money "crowds out" private sector use of it. Maybe it works that way in the Upside Down, but that's not where we live.

[SimonNZ]

Politico:

How Kamala Harris Went From 'Female Obama' to Fifth Place
She entered the 2020 presidential race with promise and charisma, but is now sliding perilously close to irrelevance. What went wrong? And is it too late for her to reverse course?

[Herman]

In the end someone has to pay for healthcare so costs must be forced to someone. To whom are costs forced on is a political choice of what kind of country the US is. Is it an oligarchy where healthcare is NOT a human right, but something the rich can profit on, or is it a social democracy where healthcare is a human right meaning those who have more money need to pay a larger share of the healthcare costs? This democratic primary is a test of what kind of country Americans want. If they want to keep the oligarchy, someone like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg will be the nominee. They won't do much to change the system so oligarchy can continue. If people want democracy, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren* will be the nominee.

I understand where you're coming from, and rationally it's all perfectly right. But it's not the way large numbers of Americans think. Warren's healthcare plans will cause her to lose the general, because it only appeals to a limited segment of the population, popularly called "the coastal elites"  -  who, hilariously, don't need healthcare for all. Also one can tell, by looking at online responses to just about anything about the elections, that there is a tremendous effort by trolls from the right to scare low info people that voting D will mean left wing 'dangerous' women like AOC c.s. will basically call the shots. This is complete nonsense but it is a very potent concept to make millions of people go to the voting booth come 2020 and vote Trump.

The USA are to a large extent an ideological state, rather than a republic guided by common sense, and gritty masculinity and self-reliance are some of its abiding myths. Very few people who adamantly believe in the self-reliance myth are really fully self-reliant, most red states are highly dependent on the blue states' revenue support, but that doesn't matter. Many households depend on workings moms, but people just don't want to know. They don't want a woman anywhere near the Oval Office. They want to hold on to their myths. And these are very easy to push by the Right and their online trolls. All you need to do is appeal to age-old stereotypes.

So, basically the Dems need a candidate who can speak to these feelings and tell the people outside the coastal elites that he or she is not going to take away their metaphorical guns. You can call that a 'corporate' candidate, but that's the way it is. Nominate Bernie or Warren and you'll get four more years of Trump which will do irreperable damage to America and the planet.

My dream candidate is Buttigieg. Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.

[milk]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html
Bloomberg?
Bloomberg/Abrams?

This would drive my ultra-lefty friends crazy as they already hate the Democrats worse than any republican.

[Herman]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html
Bloomberg?
Bloomberg/Abrams?

This would drive my ultra-lefty friends crazy as they already hate the Democrats worse than any republican.

Bloomberg is 77 years old or something? It's just crazy.

[Florestan]

Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.

Good point. 

[71 dB]

I understand where you're coming from, and rationally it's all perfectly right. But it's not the way large numbers of Americans think. Warren's healthcare plans will cause her to lose the general, because it only appeals to a limited segment of the population, popularly called "the coastal elites"  -  who, hilariously, don't need healthcare for all. Also one can tell, by looking at online responses to just about anything about the elections, that there is a tremendous effort by trolls from the right to scare low info people that voting D will mean left wing 'dangerous' women like AOC c.s. will basically call the shots. This is complete nonsense but it is a very potent concept to make millions of people go to the voting booth come 2020 and vote Trump.

The USA are to a large extent an ideological state, rather than a republic guided by common sense, and gritty masculinity and self-reliance are some of its abiding myths. Very few people who adamantly believe in the self-reliance myth are really fully self-reliant, most red states are highly dependent on the blue states' revenue support, but that doesn't matter. Many households depend on workings moms, but people just don't want to know. They don't want a woman anywhere near the Oval Office. They want to hold on to their myths. And these are very easy to push by the Right and their online trolls. All you need to do is appeal to age-old stereotypes.

So, basically the Dems need a candidate who can speak to these feelings and tell the people outside the coastal elites that he or she is not going to take away their metaphorical guns. You can call that a 'corporate' candidate, but that's the way it is. Nominate Bernie or Warren and you'll get four more years of Trump which will do irreperable damage to America and the planet.

My dream candidate is Buttigieg. Just the idea of all these 70+ candidates drives me crazy. Used to be a feature of the Soviet Union, a politburo filled with very very old men. Now it's become a feature of the USA government.

Majority of Americans suppoirt M4A. People just don't want to go bankrupt when they get ill or die because thet can't afford healthcare. It is a winning issue. In some polls even majority (52 %) of Republicans support it. All this despite of relentless smearing and fearmongering over M4A in the corporate media protecting the mafia, I mean the healthcare insurance companies and Big Pharma.

We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

Name one thing Pete Buttigieg is for. You may find that hard, but I help you: Buttigieg is for Buttigieg being the president. He is the insurance policy for the corporate dems in case Biden comes down (he will). That's why corporate media writes "Buttigieg is fourth in the polls, but STRONG fourth". Buttigieg is a good candidate for the rich: He won't change anything, at least much and he is gay. So, corporates can accuse you for being anti-gay if you don't support him. He being gay means nothing (I have voted for a gay candidate in Finnish presidential elections twice). Him being corrupt and his policies sucking means everything.

[Karl Henning]

Bloomberg is 77 years old or something? It's just crazy.

Per your observation of the gerontocracy.

[Karl Henning]

Majority of Americans suppoirt M4A. People just don't want to go bankrupt when they get ill or die because thet can't afford healthcare. It is a winning issue. In some polls even majority (52 %) of Republicans support it. All this despite of relentless smearing and fearmongering over M4A in the corporate media protecting the mafia, I mean the healthcare insurance companies and Big Pharma.

We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

Name one thing Pete Buttigieg is for. You may find that hard, but I help you: Buttigieg is for Buttigieg being the president. He is the insurance policy for the corporate dems in case Biden comes down (he will). That's why corporate media writes "Buttigieg is fourth in the polls, but STRONG fourth". Buttigieg is a good candidate for the rich: He won't change anything, at least much and he is gay. So, corporates can accuse you for being anti-gay if you don't support him. He being gay means nothing (I have voted for a gay candidate in Finnish presidential elections twice). Him being corrupt and his policies sucking means everything.

You should get out of your bubble more. And, yes, "at all" would be more.

[Herman]

We saw in 2016 what happens when you put a corporate dem against a (fake) populist: She lost. She didn't do well outside coastal elites. If you actually knew something about American politics you'd know Bernie's support in the rust belt where you have to be strong to beat Trump is very strong. But you don't know anything and you live in your bubble of corporate media BS. At least you repeat their silly talking points.

It's really unnecessary to put me down this way. (Or any other way.) Yeah, Hillary lost, and perhaps she wasn't the ideal candidate. She did win three million more votes than Trump, even after the FBI and the New York Times (that always hated her) put massive emphasis on the "what about the emails?"

Her big mistake was insufficient campaigning in the Belt du Rust.

It's true I could have more numbers on Bernie and how he's doing in flyover country, but it doesn't matter. There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled and who has yet to kiss his first baby (outside his own family) is going to win the general. Yes he has a lot of supporters, but likewise there are a lot of voters who just won't drive to the polls if he's the candidate.

His recent heart event won't help either. He's the oldest candidate. He's not going to complete his first term.

So basically you're voting for the VP. Same thing btw if you're voting Biden, or Trump 2020 (chances are Trump will pick another VP now that the Evangelicals are solidly in his corner: he doesn't need Pence any longer; why do you think Lindsay Graham is so in lurv with T? He's eyeing that job.).

I like Bloomberg (although last time I saw and heard him was four years ago), I like his manner and his humor. But like I said, a country larger than a million pop. should not rely on folks this age for government.

[71 dB]

It's really unnecessary to put me down this way. (Or any other way.) Yeah, Hillary lost, and perhaps she wasn't the ideal candidate. She did win three million more votes than Trump, even after the FBI and the New York Times (that always hated her) put massive emphasis on the "what about the emails?"

Sorry, I am just so tired of corporate talking points being parroted everywhere... ...Hillary indeed wasn't an ideal candidate. She did won the popular vote and should be the president, but the system is what it is and you need to collect your votes in correct places. Trump did that and is in the White House.

Her big mistake was insufficient campaigning in the Belt du Rust.

Yes, but it's hard to campaign in the rust belt when you are corporate. It's not easy to tell people you are bringing the jobs back when you are someone who has been bought by the donors to help outsourcing jobs. Trump did what he does best: He lied and people believed him because he was able to label himself as an outsider (of the hated establishment) and populist. Neither Trump nor Hillary are people who bring (well paying) jobs back, because both of them are bought by the big money donors to do the bidding of the top 1 %.

It's true I could have more numbers on Bernie and how he's doing in flyover country, but it doesn't matter. There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled and who has yet to kiss his first baby (outside his own family) is going to win the general. Yes he has a lot of supporters, but likewise there are a lot of voters who just won't drive to the polls if he's the candidate.

Bernie is doing pretty well. It will be challenging for him to win the Democratic primary, but if it is Bernie vs. Trump, Trump has no change. If you want to get rid of Trump, you should pray for Bernie to win this primary. Bernie dominates in the rust belt. He can campaign for jobs, because he actually believes in creating jobs, green jobs as a part of the New Green Deal. Bernie's presidency would mean real change toward Nordic social democracy which would help regular people so that American won't vote for incompetent clowns out of desperation in the future.

"There is just no way that a old man who is always yelling angrily and looking disgruntled" is an excellent example of people repeating corporate talking points. Bernie is angry to the system that is rigged for the top 1 % and screws over regular people. Everyone should be angry about that. Otherwise he is a kind human being who genuinely cares about other people.

IHis recent heart event won't help either. He's the oldest candidate. He's not going to complete his first term.

Yeah, it did not help, but he is feeling now better thanks to the operation. He is in very good shape for his age, has lots of energy and most importly his head is sharp, unlike Biden who clearly shows signs of mental decline.

[71 dB]

You should get out of your bubble more. And, yes, "at all" would be more.

We are always inside a bubble. It is about choosing the correct one. How to do that? You listen to the bubbles and use your head to decide which bubble makes most sense. That's how I chose my bubble. The day I find Alex Jones' bubble make more sense than Kyle Kulinski's bubble I will change my opinions and I start talking how Obama is a lizard human sent on Earth by Satan, but so far I find Kyle Kulinski making much more sense... ...so that's why I have my bubble.

[drogulus]

     What people want is subject to some "reflexivity". Soros uses the concept to track how markets diverge according to feedback. People are influenced and influence each other to only want what they can get, and as a consequence bend the getting trend down.

     I take the view that "nothing ever" changes are the the best. On the conventional view Social Security, Medicare and the 40 hour week are impossible objectives. Since they happen there should be a method combined with a window of opportunity. I judge that we don't know in advance if we are there. As Ed Fredkin might say, there's no faster way of solving the problem than what is happening.

[71 dB]

     What people want is subject to some "reflexivity". Soros uses the concept to track how markets diverge according to feedback. People are influenced and influence each other to only want what they can get, and as a consequence bend the getting trend down.

     I take the view that "nothing ever" changes are the the best. On the conventional view Social Security, Medicare and the 40 hour week are impossible objectives. Since they happen there should be a method combined with a window of opportunity. I judge that we don't know in advance if we are there. As Ed Fredkin might say, there's no faster way of solving the problem than what is happening.

Based on this fatalistic philosophy it doesn't matter who is elected in power. Things just happen and that's as fast as it can be...

[drogulus]

Based on this fatalistic philosophy it doesn't matter who is elected in power. Things just happen and that's as fast as it can be...

     It's not fatalistic. The future is open to how fast we can make things happen. We just don't know until we do it. I'm rejecting the pessimism concerning "nothing ever" changes, the big "impossible" ones like universal health care. I'm saying there's no reason to accept as literal truth that such changes can't happen. What we have done, we can do, even if only rarely when the planets are aligned. How do we know that by concerted action we won't align the planets a little bit in our favor?

[JBS]

We are always inside a bubble. It is about choosing the correct one. How to do that? You listen to the bubbles and use your head to decide which bubble makes most sense. That's how I chose my bubble. The day I find Alex Jones' bubble make more sense than Kyle Kulinski's bubble I will change my opinions and I start talking how Obama is a lizard human sent on Earth by Satan, but so far I find Kyle Kulinski making much more sense... ...so that's why I have my bubble.

You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.  If you shed that bias you'd find they are just as inaccurate as anyone else.

For instance, you keep mentioning medical bankruptcies. The main cause of most such bankruptcies is job loss related to illness. The can't work because of illness, and the bills get too high. This is not a failure of the health care system. It's a failure of the social welfare system, and an honest solution to it would have no relevance to medical care.

Most people are not concerned with losing their home because of medical bills. They are concerned with getting the best health care they can find. For anyone who is insured already Medicare for All would mean at best nothing better than what they now have, and for many people it would be worse.  We know it because that is what happens under actual Medicare and Obamacare. So MfA means the 70 percent who are insured would not get better care and might possibly get worse care for the sake of giving the 30 percent who are not insured care that is better only in the sense that some minimal care is better than none at all. And they would pay higher taxes and deductibles/copayments for it. (Deductibles and copayments would be a perennial feature of MfA like it is for Medicare and Obamacare now, any claims to the contrary being merely claims.)

Why would anyone support such a plan?

[Karl Henning]

You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.

Thus, his bubble. And he underscores my point, by riffing gibberish on "bubbles."

[71 dB]

You think the Young Turks make sense, but they sound like they make sense only because you share their opinions.  If you shed that bias you'd find they are just as inaccurate as anyone else.

I am not saying TYT always has every detail 100 % correct. They make mistakes just like anyone. Often they correct those mistakes. Maybe you could mention an major inaccuracy they have made and haven't corrected? The members of TYT don't always agree with each other. Cenk and Ana have disagreements sometimes. Cenk thinks Warren is better candidate than I think (I agree more with Kyle Kulinski). Everybody has bias. The difference is there lefty Youtubers tell you their bias so you know it, but they try to give you the facts as they are. The corporate media has their bias (protecting the 1 %), but they don't admit it. They say they are neutral (lie!) and they smear the facts.

For instance, you keep mentioning medical bankruptcies. The main cause of most such bankruptcies is job loss related to illness. The can't work because of illness, and the bills get too high. This is not a failure of the health care system. It's a failure of the social welfare system, and an honest solution to it would have no relevance to medical care.

Social welfare system is part of lefty politics. You can't have so good welfare to deal with the huge medical bills people have. It's useless to claim people in the US don't go bankrupt because of medical bills, because they do. Also, bankruptcies is only one reason to fix the system. So, this is a corporate talking point. The US needs single payer, end of story.

Most people are not concerned with losing their home because of medical bills. They are concerned with getting the best health care they can find. For anyone who is insured already Medicare for All would mean at best nothing better than what they now have, and for many people it would be worse.  We know it because that is what happens under actual Medicare and Obamacare. So MfA means the 70 percent who are insured would not get better care and might possibly get worse care for the sake of giving the 30 percent who are not insured care that is better only in the sense that some minimal care is better than none at all. And they would pay higher taxes and deductibles/copayments for it. (Deductibles and copayments would be a perennial feature of MfA like it is for Medicare and Obamacare now, any claims to the contrary being merely claims.)

Why would anyone support such a plan?

More corporate BS. Most people are not concerned??? Wow. In Finland NOBODY is concerned! Same with all other developped countries, exept the US and you ask me why anyone support such a plan? You get BETTER care fort LESS money that's why! I am so tired of educating you boneheads!

[71 dB]

MSNBC Host Offers Worst Election Analysis Of All Time

https://www.youtube.com/v/VTmQiFxuAEg

[JBS]

I am not saying TYT always has every detail 100 % correct. They make mistakes just like anyone. Often they correct those mistakes. Maybe you could mention an major inaccuracy they have made and haven't corrected? The members of TYT don't always agree with each other. Cenk and Ana have disagreements sometimes. Cenk thinks Warren is better candidate than I think (I agree more with Kyle Kulinski). Everybody has bias. The difference is there lefty Youtubers tell you their bias so you know it, but they try to give you the facts as they are. The corporate media has their bias (protecting the 1 %), but they don't admit it. They say they are neutral (lie!) and they smear the facts.
Social welfare system is part of lefty politics. You can't have so good welfare to deal with the huge medical bills people have. It's useless to claim people in the US don't go bankrupt because of medical bills, because they do. Also, bankruptcies is only one reason to fix the system. So, this is a corporate talking point. The US needs single payer, end of story.

More corporate BS. Most people are not concerned??? Wow. In Finland NOBODY is concerned! Same with all other developped countries, exept the US and you ask me why anyone support such a plan? You get BETTER care fort LESS money that's why! I am so tired of educating you boneheads!

I've given you examples before of how they don't present the facts. For instance, they avoid Big Pharma's abuse of the regulatory and patent processes. Which is the real source of Big Pharma's profits. So the Young Turks are actually propagandizing for Big Pharma! So at leasr sometimes they are lying, just like Fox and CNN.

Again, you think medical bankruptcies are tied to huge medical bills. They are not. They are tied to people not being able to work while sick. The amount of their medical bills has nothing to do with that. They can be fully insured and still go bankrupt. If the Young Turks say otherwise they are lying. I am sure in Finland people get sick, can't work, can't pay bills because of that.

I italicized one thing you said in your post because it's completely wrong. The Young Turks lie just as much as any other part of the American media. Until you accept that reality, your opinions on American politics will be garbage because they are based on garbage.