2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[Mook]

black ppl were anti school busing. Back then sending your kid to white suburbs was a safety issue. There’s no twitter, no fb, no cell phone, no news camera following them. And all they had for a reference point was black ppl getting their ass kicked in the south.

On top of that, unlike the elitist white twitter bullshyt you probably read. Black ppl didn’t think they needed to have Liberal white ppl educating their cHildren. They didn’t want a white savior to teach their kids, they wanted more money.


They explicitly asked for it not to be approved and told him to vote no. That’s how I know all y’all are regurgitating white progressive bullshyt. Everything ur saying is from that viewpoint, a white savior mentality that acted like blacks in the 1970’s didn’t know any better. Just as whites didn’t want their kids around blacks, blacks didn’t want their kids around whites.



The crime bill passed under a democratic president. Everyone got it wrong. It passed with 94 yes’ and 4 no’s In the senate. 94% of senators regardless of party voted yes.


Biden has the most comprehensive plan to right those wrongs via criminal justice reform.

End crack discrepancies. Biden and Bernie want it to be eliminated. In fact they both supported it in 2007 and agreed on a bill to get it done. Warren refuses to answer the question


He wants No more private prisons, no cash bail reform, No mandatory sentences.

Everyone got it wrong, except the goat.

 

[storyteller]

People's Policy Project is Matt Breunig

And nothing in that Yglesias piece contradicts what I've been. Bernie is proposing (at least we have to infer, because he has yet to put out a financing plan) a flat tax on employees whereas Warren is proposing a flat head tax on employers. I don't believe Bernie's approach is indefensible, I've previously stated there can be strong benefits to reorienting the public perception of taxes as a bad thing we have to give to the government into the price we all willingly pay to live in a healthy society. And there is an argument to be had that a payroll tax that incentives low-wage hiring but disincentivizes wage increases is preferable to a flat head tax that incentivizes wage increases but disincentivizes low-wage hiring, but instead, we've been dragged into this dumbass Republican economics side argument about how Elizabeth Warren is an evil neoliberal shill trying to punish low-wage workers because she's taxing their employers.

Nah, you have literally categorized any claims that Warren's tax plan is regressive are right wing talking points and you continue to lean into that bullshyt attack instead of just acknowledging the OBVIOUS pitfalls that EVERY SINGLE policy wonk acknowledges. So when I say you're being purposefully obtuse, I'm saying you'd rather assume that everyone offering the critique that her head tax is a bad idea and impossible to sell as a long term solution is calling Warren a neoliberal shill.

I ran into this same ridiculous bias explaining to heads that the VAT has too many pitfalls to ignore. It's not that we've narrowed the debate down to technical details that are worth reviewing for the sake of passing the best bill possible, everybody's just being a hater...yeah.

Oh and if you don't understand why people categorize it as regressive because it's aimed at employers, then you probably haven't actually read what these people are explaining is the problem. That might also explain why you utterly fail to address it.

There's no confusion here. Bernie's response to Liz's transition plan was to say he's going to push for his M4A bill to be introduced. Everyone operating in reality knows this will not be passed, so we're debating what exactly are the merits of introducing a doomed, DOA bill.

Nah, this is again, putting blinders on for the sake of attack. Introducing the bill and forcing an immediate vote on it are not the same thing. Everyone operating in reality knows that there's going to be a phase from introducing the idea to whipping votes (which likely requires some tweaks to the bill which is also why you start at the extreme and compromise down, a strategy you used to acknowledge as the best laid plan). That's how legislation gets passed, look back at the ACA and how it changed from concept, to proposal, to House bill, to Senate bill, to signed legislation. You've demonstrably recognized this but since this time, it drew a clear distinction between Bernie's strategy to get M4A passed and Warren's, you're emotional about it and acting like Bernie supporters think he's a genie rather than someone who actually understands the challenges his bill will face (which is why he needs to start fighting for it from day one and which we both agree will likely end in some concessions).

Dixon hasn't caught any strays because he has been offering well thought out, reasonable critiques of Warren. Same with Cenk. Same with Emma Vigeland. Same with Ryan Grim. All these people are for Bernie over Warren, and I value their takes and even agree with a lot of them. Ball, Brooks, Kulinsky, Day, Breunig and their ilk have not been offering good-faith critiques of Warren. They've been offering up hacky bullshyt, so they get called out as such.

I'm glad we agree on Benjamin Dixon, here's what he has to say about Elizabeth Warren's transition time stamped...


"She's going down the same route as Pete Buttigeig and she's talking about a slow transition, three years transition to M4A. Which honestly does NOTHING but gives the healthcare industry time to make sure that it never happens. There's only one candidate, and I'm not throwing all my weight behind Bernie, I'm throwing my weight behind Medicare for All. He's the only candidate who is gonna get out there and fight for this the way it needs to be defended and fought for. That's it!"

I guess he's a hack now too.

And just to throw it in, I've been a monthly donor to Warren since she got into the race and continue to donate. I still think she's a great candidate, she's just screwed up her M4A proposal with red flags for anyone who claims to be a wonk and then poor strategy for anyone who actually wants to get M4A passed rather than concede defeat on the issue for at least until 2023.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

bruh, if yall really think sanders is gonna change 1/5th of the US economy (something obama didn't even try to do) in 12 months, you're smoking crack.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

2020 is so weird...these are all very strong candidates in their own right... Cory Booker is widely liked by 2020 Democratic voters, but only 3% of voters support him as their first choice

 

[88m3]

bruh, if yall really think sanders is gonna change 1/5th of the US economy (something obama didn't even try to do) in 12 months, you're smoking crack.

Bernie helped pass the crime bill and now we have private prisons


Bernie is a job creator, hell he helped birth an entire business sector


Don't count him out

 

[Warren Moon]

2020 is so weird...these are all very strong candidates in their own right... Cory Booker is widely liked by 2020 Democratic voters, but only 3% of voters support him as their first choice

I know a lot of older blacks that don’t support Cory bc he isn’t married and don’t support Kamala bc she’s married to a white guy.

They got old school values

 

[A.R.$]

Also Ben Doesn’t catch strays because he has been fair. I disagree with his conclusion about Warren’s Plan, but I respect his opinion. He is a Bernie supporter but he is not a Stan. He has criticized Bernie and his team several times. He has commented on how Bernie campaign is not putting enough resources into getting the Black vote. He also called out Bernie and other White progressives on how they answer specific Black questions. He also stated how he understand why some on the left are supporting Warren. This is a clear difference from Klye, Michael Brooks, Ana, and Krystal Ball.

 

[King Kreole]

Nah, you have literally categorized any claims that Warren's tax plan is regressive are right wing talking points and you continue to lean into that bullshyt attack instead of just acknowledging the OBVIOUS pitfalls that EVERY SINGLE policy wonk acknowledges. So when I say you're being purposefully obtuse, I'm saying you'd rather assume that everyone offering the critique that her head tax is a bad idea and impossible to sell as a long term solution is calling Warren a neoliberal shill.

I ran into this same ridiculous bias explaining to heads that the VAT has too many pitfalls to ignore. It's not that we've narrowed the debate down to technical details that are worth reviewing for the sake of passing the best bill possible, everybody's just being a hater...yeah.

Oh and if you don't understand why people categorize it as regressive because it's aimed at employers, then you probably haven't actually read what these people are explaining is the problem. That might also explain why you utterly fail to address it.

Why is it you believe the left has a problem with flat/regressive taxes? I was under the impression that it's because they unfairly hit lower-income people more than higher-income people due to the diminishing marginal value of money as it increases. So, someone making $40K being taxed at 15% would feel that much more than someone making $100K being taxed at 15%, making a flat tax, in effect, regressive. But that's obviously not the case with a flat corporate head tax, because the average income level of a corporation's employees is not the same as the income of the corporation itself. You can have very rich companies that disproportionately employ low-income employees, like Walmart and Amazon and Disney. These are the companies you're defending with claims that a flat employer-side head tax is unfairly regressive, and why we're seeing alleged leftists deploying the exact same trickle-down, right-wing economics of pro-corporate forces. I mean, your argument is literally premised on the loaded assumption that taxing employers is the same as taxing employees. What are we doing here?! Seattle leftists, like Kshama Sawant, battling Amazon have been pushing for a head tax and the pro-Amazon forces were using these same "flat tax is regressive!" arguments. I'm sorry, but the 2020 Democratic Primary battle between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders doesn't negate basic facts about economic politics.

Nah, this is again, putting blinders on for the sake of attack. Introducing the bill and forcing an immediate vote on it are not the same thing. Everyone operating in reality knows that there's going to be a phase from introducing the idea to whipping votes (which likely requires some tweaks to the bill which is also why you start at the extreme and compromise down, a strategy you used to acknowledge as the best laid plan). That's how legislation gets passed, look back at the ACA and how it changed from concept, to proposal, to House bill, to Senate bill, to signed legislation. You've demonstrably recognized this but since this time, it drew a clear distinction between Bernie's strategy to get M4A passed and Warren's, you're emotional about it and acting like Bernie supporters think he's a genie rather than someone who actually understands the challenges his bill will face (which is why he needs to start fighting for it from day one and which we both agree will likely end in some concessions).

I've advocated having M4A as your starting policy, I've never advocated for actually calling for a vote or introduction on week 1. But let's actually game this out. Bernie introduces his bill. No vote has been taken yet, but we've opened up space for public statements and tallying up who stands where on M4A. It immediately faces massive, overwhelming disapproval from Congress. I'm not sure who is whipping votes when Chuck Schumer and dikk Durbin are both publicly against this bill, but whatever. At this point, Bernie has to start making massive concessions, essentially gutting the core of what makes it full M4A. What incentive is there for the anti-M4A forces and squishes to give something up when M4A has just been proven to be very congressionally unpopular? What threat does Bernie have? This is my concern with this approach. It's walking loudly and carrying a small stick. You're believing your own bluff.

You and I both want M4A, but it seems we disagree on how popular it currently is. I think pulling everyone's cards at this moment could undermine the negotiating position because M4A is a lot more popular in theory than it is in practice. That's where it should be kept for the time being. You lose your ace in the hole if actually test it.

I'm glad we agree on Benjamin Dixon, here's what he has to say about Elizabeth Warren's transition time stamped...


"She's going down the same route as Pete Buttigeig and she's talking about a slow transition, three years transition to M4A. Which honestly does NOTHING but gives the healthcare industry time to make sure that it never happens. There's only one candidate, and I'm not throwing all my weight behind Bernie, I'm throwing my weight behind Medicare for All. He's the only candidate who is gonna get out there and fight for this the way it needs to be defended and fought for. That's it!"

I guess he's a hack now too.

And just to throw it in, I've been a monthly donor to Warren since she got into the race and continue to donate. I still think she's a great candidate, she's just screwed up her M4A proposal with red flags for anyone who claims to be a wonk and then poor strategy for anyone who actually wants to get M4A passed rather than concede defeat on the issue for at least until 2023.

The M4A transition plan is an area of legitimate disagreement. I have no problem with you or Dixon thinking Bernie's approach is better. I'm not even totally convinced myself. But I disagree with Dixon that it's a 3 year transition to M4A. It's 3 years of expanding M4A coverage to millions more people, and then finishing off the rest in year 3. She's doing the same thing Bernie is doing in the first few steps of his M4A plan, but she's not waiting until the bill is passed to do so, like he's advocating. Which is what Ady Barkan has been saying. That's the trade-off. You can do the first steps of the M4A transition immediately, but you would have to take out the poison pill of the final step. Or you can keep the structural integrity of full M4A, but you have to impossibly get it passed through congress.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Also Ben Doesn’t catch strays because he has been fair. I disagree with his conclusion about Warren’s Plan, but I respect his opinion. He is a Bernie supporter but he is not a Stan. He has criticized Bernie and his team several times. He has commented on how Bernie campaign is not putting enough resources into getting the Black vote. He also called out Bernie and other White progressives on how they answer specific Black questions. He also stated how he understand why some on the left are supporting Warren. This is a clear difference from Klye, Michael Brooks, Ana, and Krystal Ball.

Basically Dixon is not a bullshytter and is easy to disagree with. He’s not a propagandist.

 

[Atlrocafella]

I know a lot of older blacks that don’t support Cory bc he isn’t married and don’t support Kamala bc she’s married to a white guy.

They got old school values

And people like to act like those two things don’t matter amongst the black voters. Imagine 08 Obama parading around the country with a white wife in hiding trying to court black voters, we would of had a President Hillary Clinton in 08

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Bernie helped pass the crime bill and now we have private prisons


Bernie is a job creator, hell he helped birth an entire business sector


Don't count him out

Bernie being a tough on crime legislation supporter is always lost/ignored for whatever reasons.

 

[A.R.$]

Why is it you believe the left has a problem with flat/regressive taxes? I was under the impression that it's because they unfairly hit lower-income people more than higher-income people due to the diminishing marginal value of money as it increases. So, someone making $40K being taxed at 15% would feel that much more than someone making $100K being taxed at 15%, making a flat tax, in effect, regressive. But that's obviously not the case with a flat corporate head tax, because the average income level of a corporation's employees is not the same as the income of the corporation itself. You can have very rich companies that disproportionately employ low-income employees, like Walmart and Amazon and Disney. These are the companies you're defending with claims that a flat employer-side head tax is unfairly regressive, and why we're seeing alleged leftists deploying the exact same trickle-down, right-wing economics of pro-corporate forces. I mean, your argument is literally premised on the loaded assumption that taxing employers is the same as taxing employees. What are we doing here?! Seattle leftists, like Kshama Sawant, battling Amazon have been pushing for a head tax and the pro-Amazon forces were using these same "flat tax is regressive!" arguments. I'm sorry, but the 2020 Democratic Primary battle between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders doesn't negate basic facts about economic politics.


I've advocated having M4A as your starting policy, I've never advocated for actually calling for a vote or introduction on week 1. But let's actually game this out. Bernie introduces his bill. No vote has been taken yet, but we've opened up space for public statements and tallying up who stands where on M4A. It immediately faces massive, overwhelming disapproval from Congress. I'm not sure who is whipping votes when Chuck Schumer and dikk Durbin are both publicly against this bill, but whatever. At this point, Bernie has to start making massive concessions, essentially gutting the core of what makes it full M4A. What incentive is there for the anti-M4A forces and squishes to give something up when M4A has just been proven to be very congressionally unpopular? What threat does Bernie have? This is my concern with this approach. It's walking loudly and carrying a small stick. You're believing your own bluff.

You and I both want M4A, but it seems we disagree on how popular it currently is. I think pulling everyone's cards at this moment could undermine the negotiating position because M4A is a lot more popular in theory than it is in practice. That's where it should be kept for the time being. You lose your ace in the hole if actually test it.


The M4A transition plan is an area of legitimate disagreement. I have no problem with you or Dixon thinking Bernie's approach is better. I'm not even totally convinced myself. But I disagree with Dixon that it's a 3 year transition to M4A. It's 3 years of expanding M4A coverage to millions more people, and then finishing off the rest in year 3. She's doing the same thing Bernie is doing in the first few steps of his M4A plan, but she's not waiting until the bill is passed to do so, like he's advocating. Which is what Ady Barkan has been saying. That's the trade-off. You can do the first steps of the M4A transition immediately, but you would have to take out the poison pill of the final step. Or you can keep the structural integrity of full M4A, but you have to impossibly get it passed through congress.

All great points. I would be shocked if M4A is introduce the first week. Like I said in a previous post Bernie doesn’t even have to power to do this. Legislation has to be introduced by congress. I’m sure Jayapal will probably reintroduce her bill in the house, but I don’t know who would introduce it in the Senate. And I highly doubt there will be a vote unless the bill has close to majority support in Congress. What Warren is seeing is let’s pass a strong public option immediately to get people covered, and continue to push M4A during her 1st term, because she knows the votes are not there. It was just a bad strategy to announce it to everyone, because it weakens the negotiation. If Bernie is elected I wouldn’t be surprised if he passes a public option first then try to comeback for M4A. Of course he is not going to say that now.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Bernie being a tough on crime legislation supporter is always lost/ignored for whatever reasons.

white leftists really think of some utopian class war and its hilarious because details and policy implementation is never on the forefront for them. they leave the details to everyone elseq

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

All great points. I would be shocked if M4A is introduce the first week. Like I said in a previous post Bernie doesn’t even have to power to do this. Legislation has to be introduced by congress. I’m sure Jayapal will probably reintroduce her bill in the house, but I don’t know who would introduce it in the Senate. And I highly doubt there will be a vote unless the bill has close to majority support in Congress. What Warren is seeing is let’s pass a strong public option immediately to get people covered, and continue to push M4A during her 1st term, because she knows the votes are not there. It was just a bad strategy to announce it to everyone, because it weakens the negotiation. If Bernie is elected I wouldn’t be surprised if he passes a public option first then try to comeback for M4A. Of course he is not going to say that now.

bernie would do it, fail, then say he tried, then ride the "america didn't let bernie do it" wave until the sunset.

people who work in politics have known bernie is NOT serious for decades