And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[71 dB]

I thought you knew the main focus of the GOP was on destroying Obamacare from the moment it was proposed?

There isn't a single thing that is progressive about Trump"s slogans or ideas. In fact his main appeal is to those voters who thought Hillary was too progressive.

Yes, the GOP wants full free market healthcare so that the poor/lower middle class just don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. A lot of Republican voters are not doing well economically and seem to be unaware of the reality. It's the corporate media to blame for this ignorance. Trump said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, so that part is clear for everyone, BUT he lied about bringing something GREAT in return. He doesn't have ANY healthcare system plan. There is no TrumpCare. Bernie Sanders has a Healthcare system plan. Pramila Jayapal has a similar plan to Bernie Sanders. All Trump has done so far is make ObamaCare worse so that millions of people have lost their healthcare.

Trump is perhaps the dumbest US president ever (making even George W. Bush look like an intellectual in comparison), but he has got some areas where he is plain genius. One of these is speaking from the both ends of his mouth. Trump has his "progressive/lefty" sounding slogans such as:

- we will bring well paying jobs back
- the forgotten men will never be forgotten again
- repeal it, replace it [ObamaCare], get something great!

Slogans like this were a reason for many to vote for Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.

[71 dB]

Sanders's programs bail out nobody.

I'd say canceling all student loan debt would bail out a lot of people. Those people would be able to participate in the economy much more greating a huge economical boost.

[JBS]

Yes, the GOP wants full free market healthcare so that the poor/lower middle class just don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. A lot of Republican voters are not doing well economically and seem to be unaware of the reality. It's the corporate media to blame for this ignorance. Trump said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, so that part is clear for everyone, BUT he lied about bringing something GREAT in return. He doesn't have ANY healthcare system plan. There is no TrumpCare. Bernie Sanders has a Healthcare system plan. Pramila Jayapal has a similar plan to Bernie Sanders. All Trump has done so far is make ObamaCare worse so that millions of people have lost their healthcare.

Trump is perhaps the dumbest US president ever (making even George W. Bush look like an intellectual in comparison), but he has got some areas where he is plain genius. One of these is speaking from the both ends of his mouth. Trump has his "progressive/lefty" sounding slogans such as:

- we will bring well paying jobs back
- the forgotten men will never be forgotten again
- repeal it, replace it [ObamaCare], get something great!

Slogans like this were a reason for many to vote for Trump rather than Hillary Clinton.

If you were better informed about American political history, you would recognize those slogans are rooted in right wing populism, not progressivism.  FDR made the "forgotten man" famous, but in doing so he totally redefined a phrase that was used to describe how right wing populists feel--that they are forced to suffer the burden (via taxes and other things) of government imposed progressive programs.

I'd say canceling all student loan debt would bail out a lot of people. Those people would be able to participate in the economy much more greating a huge economical boost.

There actually is a government debt forgiveness program in place that would solve the problem for people who actually can't pay those loans back.  Trump's Education Department is trying to make it impossible to use.  But all that is needed is to allow the program to be administered properly, which any Democrat would do. 

You also seem to be unaware of why tuition prices and the resulting debts are so high.  It's because government guaranteed loans were given out to almost everyone, which sparked tuition increases (schools wanted to cash in, of course), even in fields where one wouldn't expect it (cosmetology, for instance).  But the student debt problem is a direct result of a government program aimed at helping everyone.  Had the program not existed in the first place, tuition would be lowere for everyone and the debt problem would be far less of a problem.

[Madiel]

The student debt is also significantly caused by government farming out the management of student debt to private companies, who get paid based on the number of accounts they are managing.

Which gives them every incentive to make it as difficult as possible for people to get rid of the debt, and no incentive at all to help students repay.

And yes, that's the government's fault. Working out the correct performance indicators in any system is vital. Otherwise you get behaviour that runs counters to the goal of the system.

[greg]

You also seem to be unaware of why tuition prices and the resulting debts are so high.  It's because government guaranteed loans were given out to almost everyone, which sparked tuition increases (schools wanted to cash in, of course), even in fields where one wouldn't expect it (cosmetology, for instance).  But the student debt problem is a direct result of a government program aimed at helping everyone.  Had the program not existed in the first place, tuition would be lowere for everyone and the debt problem would be far less of a problem.

Wouldn't it be more related to the financial crises, since all of a sudden every non-poverty wage job required a bachelor's degree?

If government still gave the same aid and enrollment was cut in half, then as usual less demand would equal less expensive.

If I had gradiated in 1998 rather than 06 then I might not have needed to go to college.

[Todd]

From Comedy News Network: Cory Booker is poised to miss the next debate. He's vowing to fight on anyway.

Poor Spartacus.  (Of course, there might not be a next debate.)

Apparently, Big Gulp guy is currently spending $4.2 million a day on ads.  Can he buy the Dem nomination?

[Todd]

Pretty much every utterance from the studio indicated that there was insufficient evidence, and not a single House or Senate member was going to budge.

I don't believe you.  You would have to provide a link to the specific broadcast you saw as evidence.  I watch CBS from time to time, and your poorly written description is strikingly inaccurate, particularly regarding the insufficient evidence portion.  The bit about House and Senate votes is accurate reporting. 

Expect more Democrat than Republican defections in the full House vote, and acquittal in the Senate.  Maybe a handful of Republicans vote to remove, but only after McConnell and Thune procure the proper number of votes to ensure a Democrat defeat. 

[71 dB]

Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race. Stayer has spend about $80 million on TV adds. That's oligarchy, billionaires almost buying presidency.

To put this into perspective, Joe Biden has used little over $2 million, and Bernie Sanders less than $9 million on TV adds.

[Karl Henning]

Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race. Stayer has spend about $80 million on TV adds. That's oligarchy, billionaires almost buying presidency.

To put this into perspective, Joe Biden has used little over $2 million, and Bernie Sanders less than $9 million on TV adds.

I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.

[schnittkease]

I don't think the data point means what you think it means. I doubt Bloomberg will get much of anywhere.

That's not the point. Regardless of how far he gets, the fact that someone is able to do what he has done is a major problem.

[71 dB]

That's not the point. Regardless of how far he gets, the fact that someone is able to do what he has done is a major problem.

Karl's ability to understand these things is surprisingly weak for a person with Ph.D.

[Madiel]

Karl's ability to understand these things is surprisingly weak for a person with Ph.D.

Actually, the ability of the last 2 posts to read what Karl actually said is what's surprisingly weak.

You made a point. You're now trying to agree with schnittkease who DENIED YOUR POINT and claimed that something else was the point.

Either spending money to get results is right, or it's just about spending money regardless of results. It can't be both.

The fact that Bloomberg is spending lots of money is trite. The question is, is it buying him the election (you), is it not getting him far (Karl), or do we not care about the outcomes and just about the expenditure (schnittkease)?

[71 dB]

The fact that Bloomberg is spending lots of money is trite. The question is, is it buying him the election (you), is it not getting him far (Karl), or do we not care about the outcomes and just about the expenditure (schnittkease)?

I'm not saying this is buying him the election! Bloomberg HIMSELF thinks he has a chance because he is delusional and totally out of touch about what regular people think. People want medicare for all, not ban of sodas! So, I believe I think exactly the same schnittkease is thinking. Almost all of Bloomberg's support is thanks to the TV adds, not because he has something to offer.

[Madiel]

So when you said "it works", which is what Karl was responding to...

That wasn't actually your view. Right.

Maybe you shouldn't disparage someone's intelligence when they read what you wrote. Maybe you should disparage your own for writing things you don't actually mean.

Insulting Karl in that way does not commend you in any way to my somewhat left-leaning way of thinking. If you want to win an argument, you don't do it by making cheap jokes about PhDs when it's YOUR MISTAKE to say that Bloomberg's strategy is working and winning support. Karl said it wasn't really winning support. And now that is what YOU are saying.

[71 dB]

So when you said "it works", which is what Karl was responding to...

That wasn't actually your view. Right.

It works in getting high in the polls fast, but it won't work in getting the presidency, because the competition of too hard.

[Madiel]

It works in getting high in the polls fast, but it won't work in getting the presidency, because the competition of too hard.

See edit above. You're insulting Karl while agreeing with him. Stop being an arsehole.

[71 dB]

See edit above. You're insulting Karl while agreeing with him. Stop being an arsehole.

I said I believe I agree with schnittkease. If Karl thinks it is a problem for the democracy when billionaires can spend obscene amount of money on TV adds to increase their support whether it's enough to win elections or not then I agree with him also, but schnittkease doesn't seem to agree with Karl and I believe I agree with schnittkease so the logical conclusion is I don't agree with Karl... 

[Madiel]

Or you could try not being so binary.

Because then you might figure out that Karl said nothing one way or the other about whether billionaires ought to be able to spend money.

And then you might further figure out that schnittkease's disagreement with Karl consisted of denying that results were relevant. When it was you, not Karl, that had made results part of the conversation.

Bloomberg has spent $100+ million on TV adds. It works and Bloomberg has pretty solid support at this point despite of just jumping into the race.

Understand? There were 2 different angles to your argument - spending, and results. Karl talked about results, whereupon schnittkease said we only should talk about spending.

The logical conclusion is not that we're dealing with "A" and "not A". We're actually dealing with "A and B" and "not B" and "A regardless of B". If you're going to talk about logic, this is my response.

If you don't think it matters whether or not Bloomberg gets anywhere, and that as a matter of principle it's wrong for a candidate to spend that kind of money, then the second sentence I've quoted was superfluous.

I don't really mind what your argument is, and I don't care who you agree or disagree with, but I definitely do mind when someone rationally responds to that sentence and your comeback is to say how dumb they are to miss the point. You wrote the sentence. If the sentence didn't have a point, you shouldn't have written it. Readers are entitled to assume that you actually MEANT SOMETHING by it.

[JBS]

Two observations
1) Bloomberg, as the former mayor of the City of New York, and a prominent voice for gun control, starts off with a huge amount of name recognition, just like Biden and Sanders did.

2) I agree with Schnittkease's point about the amount of money, but it is highly relevant to point out the $100 million is (as I understand it) his own money.  He claims he won't be taking donations.  So there are no donors to buy him. (In fact, he's donating to other politicians, so he's "buying" them.)

I have seen the ad he's running in Florida. He touts himself as a fighter who can successfully fight Trump, but no mention of policies.

[dissily Mordentroge]

I have seen the ad he's running in Florida. He touts himself as a fighter who can successfully fight Trump, but no mention of policies.

Maybe he understands this election is to a frightening extent like some horror movie "Who Can Kill The Orange Monster?"