And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Ron Placone made a great tweet: https://twitter.com/RonPlacone/status/1248124647041724416

The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.

[71 dB]

Progressivism needs to convince those who are not already acolytes.

Exactly and believe me progressives are trying hard, but it's very difficult when the mainstream media is all corporate and smearing progressives non-stop. Reading the posts of American members here has made me understand how hopeless this task is for the progressives. People like Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman are able to convert even conservatives/Trumpists into supporters of social democracy, but is frustratingly slow process...

[71 dB]

The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.

Unrealistic only in corporate mind, reality elsewhere in the world. Biden is ready to lower the eligibility of medicare to 60 (Hillary Clinton proposed 55, so Biden's propotion is even worse than Hillary's) so for a 30 years old voter healthcare is "only" 30 years away. What if he/she gets cancer in 25 years? Hopefully by that time the US has had it's first progressive president and has single payer healthcare implemented... ...that's why for many Biden is more of an enemy than a friend.

[Karl Henning]

The folly of progressivism. Not only do they reject the good in favor of an unrealistic  perfect, but they mistake it for an enemy.

Add to that scorched-earth arrogance, and ....

[71 dB]

CNBC/Change Research poll April 2-3, 2020, error marginal 2.5 % pts.

Presidential head-to-head match-up

Bernie Sanders 46 % - Trump 44 %

Trump 45 % - Joe Biden 43 %

[Karl Henning]

Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president: 'We need you in the White House' – live

[Karl Henning]

I always mean well. I want better lives for Americans and I think there is so much potential to make that happen. I believe progressive policies are good for 99 % of Americans and if you are among the top 1 % you'll be fine no matter what. So, yes, I am never wilfully malicious, but I am as you say insistent  as hell (  ) and also quite frustrated of the situation (establishment/corporatism always wins).

Now, if you could simply consider that you might be mistaken . . .

[T. D.]

Sanders just endorsed Biden. (I originally misposted this in the Orange Swindler thread, sorry.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-13/bernie-sanders-endorses-joe-biden-s-presidential-campaign

[Karl Henning]

Sanders just endorsed Biden. (I originally misposted this in the Orange Swindler thread, sorry.)

(* chortle *)

[JBS]

Unrealistic only in corporate mind, reality elsewhere in the world. Biden is ready to lower the eligibility of medicare to 60 (Hillary Clinton proposed 55, so Biden's propotion is even worse than Hillary's) so for a 30 years old voter healthcare is "only" 30 years away. What if he/she gets cancer in 25 years? Hopefully by that time the US has had it's first progressive president and has single payer healthcare implemented... ...that's why for many Biden is more of an enemy than a friend.

I meant realistic in terms of politics.

But remember that there is more than health care to Biden's agenda (and to that of progressives, too).  And Biden's plan is actually a better way to get everyone better care, unlike the mediocre care Medicare for All would give them.

A few things on the progressive list require changes to the law on both federal and state level, and those changes can't get done with GOP cooperation. Meaning they won't get done.

There are also some things that are under control of the states and for which the President can be at best cheer from the sidelines.

At least one thing--violates the Constitution, which explicitly bans what we call wealth taxes by the federal government (states can do it). That could be gotten around--maybe--with some creative lawyering and a co-operative Supreme Court. The latter won't exist until a non-conservative majority returns to the Court, which will take at least a couple of years.

The rest is in general stuff that Biden also promises, albeit usually in somewhat different format. His housing program is very similar to Bernie's, but with a crucial difference: almost all of it is programs which the state and local governments would implement, with incentives and help from the federal government. He doesn't concentrate all decision making in DC the way Bernie would.

IOW, Biden is far more progressive than you think.

[71 dB]

I meant realistic in terms of politics.

So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

But remember that there is more than health care to Biden's agenda (and to that of progressives, too).  And Biden's plan is actually a better way to get everyone better care, unlike the mediocre care Medicare for All would give them.

It's not like medicare for all makes current hospital, nurses and doctors disappear for worse alternatives. Medicare for all care would be provided by the same hospitals, nurses and doctors. The difference is the doctors wouldn't need to fight with insurance companies so they'd have more time doing what they are supposed to do. Potentially that means better quality care if anything. The problems of medicare are due to inadequate funding. Medicare would be properly funded so it would be free of those problems related to underfunding.

I would believe you if the quality of healthcare was lower in single payer countries, but it's not. The US is for example the only developped country where maternal mortality is rising. Elsewhere it's lowering. Weird, if single payer means worse care! Sorry, the facts are on my side.

IOW, Biden is far more progressive than you think.

Hard to believe given his political record. Also, how am we expected to think he is progressive when mainly corporate money financed his campaign? He is bought by the rich and we can expect him to serve the rich. Forget progressiveness.

[71 dB]

Now, if you could simply consider that you might be mistaken . . .

Anyone of us might be mistaken . . .

[JBS]

So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

It's not like medicare for all makes current hospital, nurses and doctors disappear for worse alternatives. Medicare for all care would be provided by the same hospitals, nurses and doctors. The difference is the doctors wouldn't need to fight with insurance companies so they'd have more time doing what they are supposed to do. Potentially that means better quality care if anything. The problems of medicare are due to inadequate funding. Medicare would be properly funded so it would be free of those problems related to underfunding.

I would believe you if the quality of healthcare was lower in single payer countries, but it's not. The US is for example the only developped country where maternal mortality is rising. Elsewhere it's lowering. Weird, if single payer means worse care! Sorry, the facts are on my side.

Hard to believe given his political record. Also, how am we expected to think he is progressive when mainly corporate money financed his campaign? He is bought by the rich and we can expect him to serve the rich. Forget progressiveness.

The "problem" is, that we are a democracy, and up to 80% of us aren't progressives. The "problem" is they have as much a say in this as anyone else, and they think you are wrong. (Usually for things that have nothing to with health care.)

You talk about quality of health care.  You don't take into account that we have several parallel systems at work: private insurance, Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid and other government programs for lower incomes. I've never found any comparison which breaks down results among the three.  But the bad results seem most often to come with Medicaid and Medicare, not the private health insurance.

And as I said before, your idea how MfA would work here has no resemblance to what it would actually be like: a heavily bureaucratized, seriously underfunded system just like Medicare for Seniors now is.

[71 dB]

Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden for president: 'We need you in the White House' – live

Cenk Uygur: Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden! Why?!

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

[T. D.]

So you agree the problem isn't the political agenda, but political system? The conclusion is the system must be changed. Bernie Sanders would have given that, but as we know the top 1 % managed to stop him.

....

I'm left-leaning, but politics IMO is about making deals and accomplishing things gradually.
Have you examined what legislation Mr. Sanders has sponsored in his long Washington tenure?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357 *
Seven bills that wound up enacted, the majority pertaining to innocuous things like renaming Vermont post offices. Rather underwhelming.
What makes you think he could get his transformational pie-in-the-sky proposed legislation passed in the face of likely GOP House opposition?

* Interesting: in the scattergram given on the linked page, Sanders is on the extreme left of "ideology" (OK) but near the bottom of "leadership" (again underwhelming and not inspiring confidence).

[71 dB]

The "problem" is, that we are a democracy, and up to 80% of us aren't progressives. The "problem" is they have as much a say in this as anyone else, and they think you are wrong. (Usually for things that have nothing to with health care.)

80 % of people may not call themselves progressives, but that's because people are bad with labels. About 80 % of Americans support raising the minimum wage. That is a progressive agenda. If only 20 % of Americans call themselves progressives, but 80 % support progressive agenda of raising minimum wage it tells people aren't good at labels. Corporate media of courses uses this confusion to advance their right-wing narratives. Pretty much all progressives policies are very popular (over 50 %) on poles, even when framed in ways to get as low support as possible. As Kyle Kulinski says: "People are not stupid. They are misinformed."

You talk about quality of health care.  You don't take into account that we have several parallel systems at work: private insurance, Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid and other government programs for lower incomes. I've never found any comparison which breaks down results among the three.  But the bad results seem most often to come with Medicaid and Medicare, not the private health insurance.

I am totally aware of the parallel systems. In the medicare for all system all of those would be combined to provide the care. Single payer is not about how care is provided. It's about how it's paid for. That's what it means, the money comes from single payer, the government instead of many sources including insurance companies and the government.

Comparing healthcare results is difficult and often happens with anecdotes which doesn't give good overall picture. I have heard that Medicare and Medicaid are popular programs in the US. That of course doesn't mean they are free of problems. Trump has taken funding away for example. When the US healthcare system is compared to healthcare systems of other countries the results are not flattering. The US spends about twice as much per capita on healthcare than European countries in average and has average results to show for it. Also, the US remains the ONLY developped country in the world not to quarantee healthcare as a right. Now that millions of people have lost their job-tied healthcare because of coronavirus epidemic, the number of Americans not insured or underinsured must be close to 100 million (was 87 million before the epidemic)!

Medicare for all is not only about healthcare, but about personal freedom and financial security. When your healthcare is not tied to your job, you are free to leave it (if you don't like it) for something else, for example starting your own business. Employers don't have healthcare as their leverage to screw you over. Going on strike doesn't meand losing your healthcare. So, medicare for all gives regular people power and that's good in democratic society (and also why the top 1 % now having all the power doesn't like medicare for all). It's about not worrying about healthcare bills and if they drive your family on the street while bank takes your house. 

[71 dB]

I'm left-leaning, but politics IMO is about making deals and accomplishing things gradually.

Someone having cancer doesn't have time to wait for 100 years. The Dems have been about incrementalism, but they are losing elections. Why? People are not patient enough.

Have you examined what legislation Mr. Sanders has sponsored in his long Washington tenure?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357 *
Seven bills that wound up enacted, the majority pertaining to innocuous things like renaming Vermont post offices. Rather underwhelming.
What makes you think he could get his transformational pie-in-the-sky proposed legislation passed in the face of likely GOP House opposition?

* Interesting: in the scattergram given on the linked page, Sanders is on the extreme left of "ideology" (OK) but near the bottom of "leadership" (again underwhelming and not inspiring confidence).

Bernie is amendment king. He has made tons of amendments. Corporate media doesn't talk about that to keep up the narrative of Bernie not getting anything done.

[71 dB]

Damn!
I have been writing too much here.
I was supposed to stay away!
I go to watch music theory videos!

[SimonNZ]

Bernie is amendment king. He has made tons of amendments. Corporate media doesn't talk about that to keep up the narrative of Bernie not getting anything done.

The Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-bernie-sanders-really-got-done-in-his-29-years-in-congress

[...]"Sanders was so prolific at filing amendments that he was dubbed by some colleagues the "amendment king." Often he'd find someone across the party aisles—usually fellow outsiders like former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)—to try to get those amendments passed. He found success, passing more amendments through roll-call votes in a Republican Congress than any other member. But as a 2005 Rolling Stone story detailed, Sanders' often failed too. Many of his hard-won legislative achievements were usually stripped from the final versions of bills by party leaders who didn't want to see his proposals become law. Between his years in the House and the Senate, Sanders filed over 500 amendments, with roughly one in five of them getting approved in a vote. Though not all of those were ultimately included on bills that became law, some important ones did: In 2001, Sanders got an amendment on a spending bill that prohibited goods made with child labor abroad from being imported to the U.S.

Some look back at Sanders' "amendment king" mantle and see it as a sign of his ineffectiveness, not some mastery of the minutiae of the legislative process.

"The reality is, most of his time was spent offering amendments destined to go nowhere because he refused to try to craft compromises with Republicans, much less his Democratic colleagues," said Jim Manley, a former senior aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the former Senate Democratic leader. "He marched to the beat of his own drummer. I don't believe he felt he was there to cut deals."  "[...]

[T. D.]

Another thing the Sandernistas seem to ignore:

The UK has been a pretty good leading indicator for US politics. Recall 2016: "Ah, Brexit'll never happen...OMG, they voted Leave!", followed by "Ah, that orange-painted carnival sideshow barker'll never get elected...OMG, he did!".
The UK Labour Party then steadfastly stuck by the oddball Jeremy Corbyn, whose extreme Leftism makes Bernie look like a piker.
How'd that work out? Hint: Labour suffered a historic rout in 2019; parts of England that had never voted Conservative went for the Tories.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/corbyn-labour-uk-leadership-starmer.html

But I'm sure the Sanders faithful will rationalize that away...To exactly what cabal/conspiracy should one attribute the 2019 UK vote?