2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[A.R.$]

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

Bernie wouldn’t have the power to do this. This is what I’m trying to get his hardcore suppers to understand. What senator is going to introduce the bill? The only thing Bernie can do is call on congress to vote on it. They don’t have to listen to him. If congress pass a healthcare bill with a public option the only thing Bernie could do is veto the bill, and I don’t think he would do that.

 

[storyteller]

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.

A) The payroll tax concept works because it isn't gonna have to be so high, it's replacing private insurance costs and it can function in perpetuity without breaking down.

B) The problems with the head tax don't narrow only to the fact that regardless of your income, the costs are distributed entirely evenly. That is indeed a key bit, but you have to add the second key variable to get into the feedback loop that's so problematic. That's the Independent Contractor workaround. This might not immediately be a big problem, but every employer that sees value in switching or outsourcing to avoid the limits brings down the revenue that is needed to keep the program running. That means you have to increase the cost of the tax to keep up the revenue which incentivizes more employers to outsource..and back and forth...that's at the crux of the "unsustainable" part and why the tax sounds good early but requires a real transition plan to avoid it becoming regressive. To continually talk past that problem and imply that it's a right wing talking point is just oversimplifying the issue. Here's another example where the incentives align better.

Warren's wealth tax gets hit with examples of capital flight from other countries. This is undeniably true, but also oversimplified. That's because Warren adds in an exit tax, boosts IRS funding to have more effective auditing practices and plans to avoid loopholes and exemptions that helped tax avoidance in prior models. We see the pitfalls, but we see a number policy specific ideas to address the pitfalls. That's not there for the head tax and that's why the "how do we transition out of the head tax" question is such a focal point.

C) Comparing the two head taxes is a reach. We're talking about thousands of dollars in additional expense per employee vs hundreds and if I'm not mistaken, that Seattle Head tax actually did include a transition to a payroll tax but it went through a bunch of iterations so I don't remember exactly what they closed on.

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.

So let's start at a key aspect of any scenario where Bernie wins and that's the unavoidable implication that it'd mean the American people voted on a candidate whose number one focal point was M4A. That immediately puts pressure on other Democrats to at least move left from complete no-M4A positions. We can see the gradual impact Trump's win has had in further eroding the behavior of already garbage Republicans as an example. One minute you're PoS Lindsey Graham and the next you're PoS Trump worshipping Graham.

We also don't know what impact that could have Congressional leadership. I've mentioned before that the make-up of Congress will have a large impact on what we can consider realistic and not realistic. A continued blue wave could make passing measures a lot easier and having Leadership push back against a president elected by their own party constituents is a stretch. Leadership could very well change, especially if the American people give a Bernie Sanders a resounding victory in the face of leadership's opposition to his trademark proposals. This could happen with Warren too but she's been more open to compromise and her concession to a Public Option makes it unlikely that she'd rock the boat.

Lastly is the interim election. That's the big place to put pressure on Congressional members to support the bill. My favorite example of primary pressure on a candidate is Hakeem Jeffries. There were stories that Pelosi was really upset on occasions where Jeffries moved more toward Progressive stances (aka sided with the Squad and caused one of Nancy's attacks on them)...but those also followed with rumors that Justice Democrats had marked him for a primary. Bernie's approach of starting this fight out the gate means that if the Dems are dragging their feet, the interim election could see them facing progressive primary challengers that force their hands. This might also extend to Dems challenging Republicans.

These are obviously moving parts and impossible to put a clear conclusion on. But assuming the worst and conceding ahead of time is simply bad strategy. If Bernie is forced to fall back to a Public Option and Medicare expansion but with limits, you've acknowledged that he'll likely do that. But the key here is that he's not folding beforehand when so many variables aren't even decided.

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.

Popular with who? We've seen polling tricks to make it sound worse than it is, but once constituents know that they can keep their physicians, they're good with it. The unpopularity is more out of representatives than constituents. We've seen similar scenarios play out before, specifically impeachment. A lot of Dems slowly came around after time off where they had to face angry constituents. Not only that but if you really want to undermine a negotiating position, spend your first two years establishing one healthcare reform and then immediately press a new healthcare reform to follow up. Even worse, let all of your opponents know the plan so that even if they have to concede the first reform, they can spend years poisoning the well on the second fight.

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.

Everything you've just said applies to Bernie's plan except he's not spending the first two years with a focus on middleman legislation. Bernie has the same tools at his disposal, the same year one goal for expansion (age 50) and the same executive privilege to lower drug prices. Through the course of fighting for the rest, he could also fix parts of the ACA that Trump has tarnished as a stopgap. The only addition to this debate is that actual M4A legislation will not be on the table for discussion at all until year three. Before that, you've set up an unnecessary benchmark as a goal instead of something you can fall back on as a compromise tactic. You've set up a focal point on the Public Option instead of on the broader goal and by doing so, you've added a step to M4A that only might be necessary. And we can address that need when we understand it to be a need.

And here's where the trust issue comes in. My concern is that everything Warren is talking about would be delayed heavily by obstruction and virtually no different from what a Public Option would face is that was set up to be the goal. Everyone knows that a reform is going to be what constituents want. Republicans and Dems who are beholden to lobbyists won't be so much focused on deading the legislation as extracting as many concessions as they can from it. With Warren already conceding to a middle ground, my concern is that other priorities will render this fight of less importance once she gets to her first benchmark. Then she can preach the waiting game, "just wait and the American people will come around..." My concern being that the people coming around will take a lot longer than expected and face a ton of a propaganda that got a two year head start.

And regardless I'm glad we've gone from a belief that Warren filled in crucial gaps to the idea that Warren is using a different strategy. Her funding mechanism vs Bernie's funding mechanism and Her transition vs Bernie's Transition are actual debatable parts but it was never about gaps in Bernie's plan. It's about strategic differences which lies at the crux of damn near ever critique yall get mad about until we drill down into the theory underlying the claims being made. The Native American crap is disingenuous. Distrust of Warren on corporate levels or as a shill are totally off base imo. But calling out potential pitfalls or places where her vision does not suffice strategically is worth actually drilling down instead of dismissal and attack.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Bernie wants to ban solitary confinement rooms at elementary schools. This is unrealistic, of course. Warren has a plan to make the solitary confinement rooms at elementary schools slightly larger and with a little more padding on the walls. Wow!

 

[A.R.$]

A) The payroll tax concept works because it isn't gonna have to be so high, it's replacing private insurance costs and it can function in perpetuity without breaking down.

B) The problems with the head tax don't narrow only to the fact that regardless of your income, the costs are distributed entirely evenly. That is indeed a key bit, but you have to add the second key variable to get into the feedback loop that's so problematic. That's the Independent Contractor workaround. This might not immediately be a big problem, but every employer that sees value in switching or outsourcing to avoid the limits brings down the revenue that is needed to keep the program running. That means you have to increase the cost of the tax to keep up the revenue which incentivizes more employers to outsource..and back and forth...that's at the crux of the "unsustainable" part and why the tax sounds good early but requires a real transition plan to avoid it becoming regressive. To continually talk past that problem and imply that it's a right wing talking point is just oversimplifying the issue. Here's another example where the incentives align better.

Warren's wealth tax gets hit with examples of capital flight from other countries. This is undeniably true, but also oversimplified. That's because Warren adds in an exit tax, boosts IRS funding to have more effective auditing practices and plans to avoid loopholes and exemptions that helped tax avoidance in prior models. We see the pitfalls, but we see a number policy specific ideas to address the pitfalls. That's not there for the head tax and that's why the "how do we transition out of the head tax" question is such a focal point.

C) Comparing the two head taxes is a reach. We're talking about thousands of dollars in additional expense per employee vs hundreds and if I'm not mistaken, that Seattle Head tax actually did include a transition to a payroll tax but it went through a bunch of iterations so I don't remember exactly what they closed on.



So let's start at a key aspect of any scenario where Bernie wins and that's the unavoidable implication that it'd mean the American people voted on a candidate whose number one focal point was M4A. That immediately puts pressure on other Democrats to at least move left from complete no-M4A positions. We can see the gradual impact Trump's win has had in further eroding the behavior of already garbage Republicans as an example. One minute you're PoS Lindsey Graham and the next you're PoS Trump worshipping Graham.

We also don't know what impact that could have Congressional leadership. I've mentioned before that the make-up of Congress will have a large impact on what we can consider realistic and not realistic. A continued blue wave could make passing measures a lot easier and having Leadership push back against a president elected by their own party constituents is a stretch. Leadership could very well change, especially if the American people give a Bernie Sanders a resounding victory in the face of leadership's opposition to his trademark proposals. This could happen with Warren too but she's been more open to compromise and her concession to a Public Option makes it unlikely that she'd rock the boat.

Lastly is the interim election. That's the big place to put pressure on Congressional members to support the bill. My favorite example of primary pressure on a candidate is Hakeem Jeffries. There were stories that Pelosi was really upset on occasions where Jeffries moved more toward Progressive stances (aka sided with the Squad and caused one of Nancy's attacks on them)...but those also followed with rumors that Justice Democrats had marked him for a primary. Bernie's approach of starting this fight out the gate means that if the Dems are dragging their feet, the interim election could see them facing progressive primary challengers that force their hands. This might also extend to Dems challenging Republicans.

These are obviously moving parts and impossible to put a clear conclusion on. But assuming the worst and conceding ahead of time is simply bad strategy. If Bernie is forced to fall back to a Public Option and Medicare expansion but with limits, you've acknowledged that he'll likely do that. But the key here is that he's not folding beforehand when so many variables aren't even decided.



Popular with who? We've seen polling tricks to make it sound worse than it is, but once constituents know that they can keep their physicians, they're good with it. The unpopularity is more out of representatives than constituents. We've seen similar scenarios play out before, specifically impeachment. A lot of Dems slowly came around after time off where they had to face angry constituents. Not only that but if you really want to undermine a negotiating position, spend your first two years establishing one healthcare reform and then immediately press a new healthcare reform to follow up. Even worse, let all of your opponents know the plan so that even if they have to concede the first reform, they can spend years poisoning the well on the second fight.



Everything you've just said applies to Bernie's plan except he's not spending the first two years with a focus on middleman legislation. Bernie has the same tools at his disposal, the same year one goal for expansion (age 50) and the same executive privilege to lower drug prices. Through the course of fighting for the rest, he could also fix parts of the ACA that Trump has tarnished as a stopgap. The only addition to this debate is that actual M4A legislation will not be on the table for discussion at all until year three. Before that, you've set up an unnecessary benchmark as a goal instead of something you can fall back on as a compromise tactic. You've set up a focal point on the Public Option instead of on the broader goal and by doing so, you've added a step to M4A that only might be necessary. And we can address that need when we understand it to be a need.

And here's where the trust issue comes in. My concern is that everything Warren is talking about would be delayed heavily by obstruction and virtually no different from what a Public Option would face is that was set up to be the goal. Everyone knows that a reform is going to be what constituents want. Republicans and Dems who are beholden to lobbyists won't be so much focused on deading the legislation as extracting as many concessions as they can from it. With Warren already conceding to a middle ground, my concern is that other priorities will render this fight of less importance once she gets to her first benchmark. Then she can preach the waiting game, "just wait and the American people will come around..." My concern being that the people coming around will take a lot longer than expected and face a ton of a propaganda that got a two year head start.

And regardless I'm glad we've gone from a belief that Warren filled in crucial gaps to the idea that Warren is using a different strategy. Her funding mechanism vs Bernie's funding mechanism and Her transition vs Bernie's Transition are actual debatable parts but it was never about gaps in Bernie's plan. It's about strategic differences which lies at the crux of damn near ever critique yall get mad about until we drill down into the theory underlying the claims being made. The Native American crap is disingenuous. Distrust of Warren on corporate levels or as a shill are totally off base imo. But calling out potential pitfalls or places where her vision does not suffice strategically is worth actually drilling down instead of dismissal and attack.

Just want to state a big part of Warren platform is labor reform, that makes it harder for employers to designate workers as contractors. You have to factor that in when it comes to her proposal.

 

[storyteller]

Just want to state a big part of Warren platform is labor reform, that makes it harder for employers to designate workers as contractors. You have to factor that in when it comes to her proposal.

That's fair but it also adds another legislative challenge along the path to M4A. She has to get the Public Option passed, get the major labor reform either simultaneously or roughly at the same time and then she has to pass M4A. And I keep coming back to the idea that if Warren could get a Public Option inside her first hundred days then also get her labor reforms through, the make up of Congress is likely such that you could win a tougher but attainable M4A fight. PO to Labor Reform to M4A is difficult needle to thread just like passing M4A flat out would be. I've applied this logic to the VAT coupled with UBI too. Could it work? Absolutely, but it's a tightrope with a lot of ways to go wrong and wind up with shoddy legislation that gets pulled back or seriously damaged once Republicans get the chance to attack it. We're seeing that now with the ACA, one of Warren's first three steps is restoring the ACA from damage inflicted by Trump.

That's high key why I prefer universal programs to means tested strategies though I don't fault Warren for her approach. Just a matter of strategic preference.

 

[A.R.$]

That's fair but it also adds another legislative challenge along the path to M4A. She has to get the Public Option passed, get the major labor reform either simultaneously or roughly at the same time and then she has to pass M4A. And I keep coming back to the idea that if Warren could get a Public Option inside her first hundred days then also get her labor reforms through, the make up of Congress is likely such that you could win a tougher but attainable M4A fight. PO to Labor Reform to M4A is difficult needle to thread just like passing M4A flat out would be. I've applied this logic to the VAT coupled with UBI too. Could it work? Absolutely, but it's a tightrope with a lot of ways to go wrong and wind up with shoddy legislation that gets pulled back or seriously damaged once Republicans get the chance to attack it. We're seeing that now with the ACA, one of Warren's first three steps is restoring the ACA from damage inflicted by Trump.

That's high key why I prefer universal programs to means tested strategies though I don't fault Warren for her approach. Just a matter of strategic preference.

This is an interesting debate. I actually hope you are right. I would love to be wrong on this one. Unfortunately I just don’t see it that way. I think M4A is going to one of the hardest fights we are ever going to have. While I don’t think passing a public option and labor reform will be easy, I definitely think it easier than passing M4A. I give Bernie a lot of credit for pushing the Overton Window left on healthcare. The public option was considered far left just a few years ago. Thanks to Bernie M4A push it is now the compromise position for Dems. You even have conservative Democrats stating that they support a public option. Right now only real progressives politicians are supporting M4A. Don’t get me wrong. Without the threat of M4A most of these corporate/conservative Dems will backtrack on a public option. That why a have a problem with Biden and Buttigieg position.

As for as labor the Obama Administration did make some progress throughout his 8 years. Obama tried to extend overtime pay to worker but a judge struck it down
U.S. judge strikes down Obama administration overtime pay rule
My point is there is some momentum even with establishment Dems on some labor issues. Former Obama Labor Chief David Weil have been pushing to regulate how companies use contracting. I just don’t see the same push on M4A from establishment Dems.

 

[NY's #1 Draft Pick]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren


Warren began her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She then moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became an associate dean in 1980 and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981 and returned as a full professor two years later (staying from 1983 to 1987). She was a research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987[16] and was also a visiting professor at the University of Michigan in 1985. During this period, Warren also taught Sunday school.[9][22]

Warren's earliest academic work was heavily influenced by the law and economicsmovement, which aimed to apply neoclassical economic theory to the study of law with an emphasis on economic efficiency. One of her articles, published in 1980 in the Notre Dame Law Review, argued that public utilities were over-regulated and that automatic utility rate increases should be instituted.[23] But Warren soon became a proponent of on-the-ground research into how people respond to laws. Her work analyzing court records and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[24] According to Warren and economists who follow her work, one of her key insights was that rising bankruptcy rates were caused not by profligate consumer spending but by middle-class families' attempts to buy homes in good school districts.[25] Warren worked in this field alongside colleagues Teresa A. Sullivan and Jay Westbrook, and the trio published their research in the book As We Forgive Our Debtors in 1989. Warren later recalled that she had begun her research believing that most people filing for bankruptcy were either working the system or had been irresponsible in incurring debts, but that she concluded that such abuse was in fact rare and that the legal framework for bankruptcy was poorly designed, describing the way the research challenged her fundamental beliefs as "worse than disillusionment" and "like being shocked at a deep-down level".

In 1995, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission's chair, former Congressman Mike Synar, asked Warren to advise the commission. Synar had been a debate opponent of Warren's during their school years.

Michael Lynn "Mike" Synar (October 17, 1950 – January 9, 1996) was an American Democratic politician who represented Oklahoma's 2nd congressional district in Congress for eight terms. Mike Synar - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is your source?

 

[Pressure]

Labor reform and a public option is easier than M4A and it will improved the lives of workers and will be popular.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Bernie has more support than anybody else running. It's simple. He's winning. That's why there's an attempted media blackout and ten more jabronies jumping in the race.

 

[Atlrocafella]

Wikipedia is your source?

Where you been at brodie? It ain’t looking to good out here for Lizzie in these streets

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Bernie wouldn’t have the power to do this. This is what I’m trying to get his hardcore suppers to understand. What senator is going to introduce the bill? The only thing Bernie can do is call on congress to vote on it. They don’t have to listen to him. If congress pass a healthcare bill with a public option the only thing Bernie could do is veto the bill, and I don’t think he would do that.

At 1:26:00 and for the next like 20+ minutes, Sam Seder calls out Jamie for ruthlessly attacking Warren's healthcare plans and discusses the reality of ANYTHING changing and how to address and frame the discussion around Medicare for All ...and Seder supports Sanders for president!

This was damning.




@wire28 @Th3G3ntleman @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @Piff Perkins @BigMoneyGrip @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado @Armchair Militant @panopticon @88m3 @Tres Leches @ADevilYouKhow @dtownreppin214 @A.R.$

 

[StatUS]

Some one up Warren's measures to make sure that a public option remains solvent and not just filled with the sickest of us with private insurance shananigans.

 

[storyteller]

This is an interesting debate. I actually hope you are right. I would love to be wrong on this one. Unfortunately I just don’t see it that why. I think M4A is going to one of the hardest fights we are ever going to have. While I don’t think passing a public option and labor reform will be easy, I definitely think it easier than passing M4A. I give Bernie a lot of credit for pushing the Overton Window left on healthcare. The public option was considered far left just a few years ago. Thanks to Bernie M4A push it is now the compromise position for Dems. You even have conservative Democrats stating that they support a public option. Right now only real progressives politicians are supporting M4A. Don’t get me wrong. Without the threat of M4A most of these corporate/conservative Dems will backtrack on a public option. That why a have a problem with Biden and Buttigieg position.

And as for as labor the Obama Administration did make some progress throughout his 8 years. Obama tried to change extend overtime pay to worker but a judge struck it down
U.S. judge strikes down Obama administration overtime pay rule
My point that there is some momentum even with establishment Dems on some labor issues. Former Obama Labor Chief David Weil have been pushing to regulate how companies use contracting. I just don’t see the same push on M4A from establishment Dems.

I definitely think this one comes down to how the Congressional elections break. While I agree that Public Option and Labor Reform both have good momentum, I think the more bold the next Presidential Platform is the more we can accumulate additional momentum and political capital to press bigger shifts. That's a big reason why I think Warren is still a huge dub for the country, even on M4A she's still the second best option but I think she's pushing her advantages with bigger and bolder approaches elsewhere in her policies. That Public Option hedge from Warren hurts the ability to call a winning election a mandate for M4A and without doing much if anything to bolster the potential Public Option fight comparatively.

Two Caveats:
- I'm still looking at the numbers in polling and approval, etc. and believing that the only way a Democratic candidate loses is to absolutely drop the ball in a huge way or with a ton of successful voter suppression. So I'm not concerned with bold approaches costing votes and I think the margin of victory is likely to be pretty pronounced.

- And I'm still looking at using M4A as the initial goal as the best way to leverage bigger compromises out of centrist dems and potentially republicans too but for the Republicans it's more of an, "if everything falls exactly right" scenario than something I count on.

 

[Warren Moon]

Wikipedia is your source?

yes. Along with the links to other sources backing them up

she’s a presidential candidate U have to have certain access to change her page

This is a well known fact breh. She wrote a book about it. It’s ok you didn’t know. Most didnt. But now she’s running for President, her past needs to come to light.

she was recruited to Harvard as a conservative Native American women law professor. I.e a unicorn. She was an emerging conservative star.

she did a 180 quickly.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This is an interesting debate. I actually hope you are right. I would love to be wrong on this one. Unfortunately I just don’t see it that way. I think M4A is going to one of the hardest fights we are ever going to have. While I don’t think passing a public option and labor reform will be easy, I definitely think it easier than passing M4A. I give Bernie a lot of credit for pushing the Overton Window left on healthcare. The public option was considered far left just a few years ago. Thanks to Bernie M4A push it is now the compromise position for Dems. You even have conservative Democrats stating that they support a public option. Right now only real progressives politicians are supporting M4A. Don’t get me wrong. Without the threat of M4A most of these corporate/conservative Dems will backtrack on a public option. That why a have a problem with Biden and Buttigieg position.

As for as labor the Obama Administration did make some progress throughout his 8 years. Obama tried to extend overtime pay to worker but a judge struck it down
U.S. judge strikes down Obama administration overtime pay rule
My point is there is some momentum even with establishment Dems on some labor issues. Former Obama Labor Chief David Weil have been pushing to regulate how companies use contracting. I just don’t see the same push on M4A from establishment Dems.

whats wild is that people dont realize even Klobuchar's plan is infinitely more progressive than anything we had for the last 50 years and on par with what most of Europe has.

The bernie bros don't know a win, milestone, or even achievement looks like.

I'll go so far as to say this...because of how cavalier Sanders is with actual policy, I'll trust a medicare for all program/single payer option that HE is not apart of. Because at no point have I ever trusted his policy recommendations. I agree with his advocacy and activism, but his policy is just flat out garbage.