2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[dora_da_destroyer]

Bernie supporters are not a monolith and the majority of his supporters understand how tough the fight is going to be just to get legislation passed let alone implemented. The vast majority of critiques on Warren's plan that I saw fell to it either being disingenuous (because passing a public option followed immediately by M4A is an obvious pipe dream) or bad strategy (you don't give away the compromise position before you even begin a negotiation). Both positions are pretty well grounded and fairly common among Sanders supporters when you engage them for clarification.

i was speaking about the segment who attacked her plans, not all bernie supporters. secondly this is quite literally where we differ on this point, i feel the health care debate should have been grounded from a point of what realistically could be accomplished, the whole premise of my replies on this subject. starting it at m4a, a position that even those who want a public option don't agree with was too radical. but it seems like some progressives can't ever admit to needing to tone down some ideas and take things in steps

 

[Pressure]

Doubt it. California is a huge state, lots of delegates.

If he can't even place at 15% when voting starts or gets minimal amount while Bernie and Warren take the lion's share, then we're legit going to a contested convention and a certainty that Bernie and Warren together would have the majority of pledged

A contested convention means no candidate has a mandate within the party.

Effectively moving, in my opinion, to the nomination coming down to electability over policy. I'm not sure that bodes well Sanders or Warren's key proposals going forward.

 

[FAH1223]

A contested convention means no candidate has a mandate within the party.

Effectively moving, in my opinion, to the nomination coming down to electability over policy. I'm not sure that bodes well Sanders or Warren's key proposals going forward.

Yet Bernie in polls is comparable to Biden in many states defeating Trump.

And Biden supporters in polls cite Bernie as a 2nd choice despite the ideology difference

but to voters, ideology isn’t what’s important despite social media

 

[saturn7]

Pete Buttigieg Support Rally Interrupted By Black Lives Matter Protesters

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

There’s a big time false argument being made here by “moderate” Democrats and some who aren’t as pro-Sanders regarding Medicare for all. First and foremost, the fact that a lot of people like their private insurance has not stopped 81 percent of Democrats from liking Medicare for all as Sanders prescribes it. Why? Because his plan would be even more comprehensive than their current plan and they’d still have access to their doctors. What you’re really saying is (a) you don’t believe in healthcare without exorbitant costs as a right or (b) you don’t trust the government to run a legitimate healthcare program. The argument that you should not support a policy because every Democrat isn’t on board makes no sense when the entire operating philosophy of the current Democratic Party is that we are a big tent party that compromises. For the record, the percentage of the Democratic Party and Democratic-leaning independents that support Medicare for All is the exact same as the percentage that supports same sex marriage. In other words, only around 20 percent of Democrats don’t support it. Why should the 80 percent who do cater to you?

Warren was attacked because her plan’s funding didn’t make sense and would have a regressive effect on small businesses that would likely tank any chance of the legislation passing. It wasn’t a serious proposal. The left, which had questions about her support, attacked the bill as evidence of her lack of sincerity. That may be unfair but it was expected. Warren tried to move center because she couldn’t peel off anymore Sanders supporters and then it backfired with the public option stuff. It is the exact same thing that happened to Kamala.

What you’re all ignoring is that Sanders point is simple - don’t negotiate away your bargaining position before you get to the table.

That seems to be the case across parties. Overall, 71 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of independents, and 28 percent of Republicans favor “Medicare for All,” according to Kaiser. But support is down across all three, while opposition is up.

down to 71%, furthermore across all it's down 51% overall favorability in the kaiser study (varies per other polls). this won't just be a dem issue so framing it as to what dems favor is wrong as it requires more support than that


lastly, successful negotiation comes from knowing you opponent. if your opponent stands at 10 and you're at 1, and knowing you'd be happy to meet at 7, you don't come in at 1. the gulf seems so unsurmountable that your opposnent rather walk away than deal with the unrealistic position you're presenting. unfortunately m4a is not the stronger opponent as there is already an incumbent plan in place that needs to be disrupted. starting the bargaining position at 3 does a lot more to move things forward.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Wtf is Reggie Love endorsing anybody for?

 

[saturn7]

Some people still ain't learned.





Kamala Hotstep Harris

 

[Atlrocafella]

Wtf is Reggie Love endorsing anybody for?

 

[Miles Davis]

I really wish the race would thin out.

 

[MoneyTron]

They said Biden was at an event calling some dude who was talking about his son "a damn liar" and challenging him to push up contest.

If this Biden shows up for the rest of the race, shyt is going to be hilarious.

 

[CBSkyline]

If Biden gets minimal or no delegates in California, that’s a huge deal

Bernie just keep lingering around. That silent shift in his base of support when compared to 16, is one of the least reported stories of this cycle. It's the main reason why he hasn't faded yet.

 

[Warren Moon]

There’s a big time false argument being made here by “moderate” Democrats and some who aren’t as pro-Sanders regarding Medicare for all. First and foremost, the fact that a lot of people like their private insurance has not stopped 81 percent of Democrats from liking Medicare for all as Sanders prescribes it. Why? Because his plan would be even more comprehensive than their current plan and they’d still have access to their doctors. What you’re really saying is (a) you don’t believe in healthcare without exorbitant costs as a right or (b) you don’t trust the government to run a legitimate healthcare program. The argument that you should not support a policy because every Democrat isn’t on board makes no sense when the entire operating philosophy of the current Democratic Party is that we are a big tent party that compromises. For the record, the percentage of the Democratic Party and Democratic-leaning independents that support Medicare for All is the exact same as the percentage that supports same sex marriage. In other words, only around 20 percent of Democrats don’t support it. Why should the 80 percent who do cater to you?

Warren was attacked because her plan’s funding didn’t make sense and would have a regressive effect on small businesses that would likely tank any chance of the legislation passing. It wasn’t a serious proposal. The left, which had questions about her support, attacked the bill as evidence of her lack of sincerity. That may be unfair but it was expected. Warren tried to move center because she couldn’t peel off anymore Sanders supporters and then it backfired with the public option stuff. It is the exact same thing that happened to Kamala.

What you’re all ignoring is that Sanders point is simple - don’t negotiate away your bargaining position before you get to the table.

Your post is why M4all is dangerous for ppl who support it without even knowing what it is.

M4all is not more comprehensive than peoples insurance. They cover way less stuff. Medicare advantage (private) covers more than Medicare. This is just a flat out lie.

Most Americans like universal healthcare. Not m4all with no private insurance. Poll: Most Americans want universal healthcare but don't want to abolish private insurance

In fact there are no developed nations providing high quality healthcare that don’t have private insurance. Canadians spent over 50 billion last year for private health insurance. U.K. spent billions as well. Private insurance is everywhere.

my biggest pet peeve with m4all is that it it’s being pushed by northern white liberal elites with zero input from the rest of the diaspora of America. The issues black ppl face with our current system are all still in m4all for things that WE need covered. Bernie and Liz are already using black lives as negotiation points. We can not let that happen. We need to be apart of the creation and implementation of M4all from the beginning to end. That’s not something that’s negotiable. We have to be at the table, not random blavity negros looking for acceptance among white liberals.

This isn’t an overstatement at all, y’all are literally selling out black lives to be included with liberal whites. It’s fukking disgusting

Bernie nor Liz actually represent any of the ppl they supposedly want to help. They both are represent the richest areas of the United States and policies are driven by higher education researchers instead of ppl who’s policies reflect tangible results of the poor ppl of America.

That’s why when I see Bernie and Liz fans in here talked about liberalism it’s fukking comical . Imagine voting for Sara who grew up in Upper Manhattan as a city council person for south Chicago, outside of books and shyt she read, she literally has no idea about wtf she’s talking about. That’s exactly what y’all are pitching


Black progressives need to stop sucking the tit of bullshyt rich white bleeding heart liberals who have no idea how to implement progressive ideals that help us and start getting the guts to back progressive leaders that will actually help us.

Y’all are fake and lazy disrupters. It’s disgusting and hurting the black race . Back progressives who actually help us.

 

[FAH1223]

They said Biden was at an event calling some dude who was talking about his son "a damn liar" and challenging him to push up contest.

If this Biden shows up for the rest of the race, shyt is going to be hilarious.

“Let’s take an IQ test”

Then he called him fat

Laziest campaign ever

 

[storyteller]

i was speaking about the segment who attacked her plans, not all bernie supporters.

I've attacked her plans though. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a Sanders supporter who has been very defensive of Warren to the segment of us that attacked her in unfair ways. One of the things I used to do was try to reassure people that she'd be earnestly fighting for M4A. I can't really pull that off any more but I think that's the big point of those critical of Warren's plans. It's not about passing M4A week one or that sort of delusion, but grounded in the reality that any possibility for Universal Healthcare passing will require someone that's willing to fight hard to get it through. If you're half in and half out, then the legislation is unlikely to even get off the ground (ie: we stay exactly where we're at now). So for the Sanders supporters, the criticism of Warren is grounded in the reality that passing M4A any time in the next 8 years (or two terms) is unlikely in the best of circumstances. But it seems impossible with anything less than that.

I just want to dispel this notion that Sanders supporters are expecting houdini tricks. By and large they aren't.

secondly this is quite literally where we differ on this point, i feel the health care debate should have been grounded from a point of what realistically could be accomplished, the whole premise of my replies on this subject. starting it at m4a, a position that even those who want a public option don't agree with was too radical. but it seems like some progressives can't ever admit to needing to tone down some ideas and take things in steps

Yeah this is a difference of opinion that falls to strategy. I think you start bold and extract concessions before you give way to compromise positions. Not only does that make M4A an actual piece of legislation, forcing people to discuss it but it's a better position of leverage if you want to pull off a Public Option (italicized because I think this is an important aspect). Anyways, M4A polls above 50% with Dems. The majority of the party supports it. So if you're running to represent the majority of the Democrats, it's not a radical position but a commonly accepted idea.

Look at the Overton Window shift from pre-2016 to today for exactly why we might want to start at a bolder idea. M4A went from barely mentioned to a massive increase in cosponsors and coverage. There was still an in-party fight for 15 rather than 12 dollar minimum wages. The make-up of congress was less diverse. You go bold because it creates value for the most people and you start to normalize ideas so that they might seem "radical" now but will look a lot more attainable in the future. What's viable in the country changes, but you have to be willing to fight for it to take it from a pipe dream to widely accepted. The misstep isn't being bold, it's being bold but giving up the fight before it even starts. That gives the opposition a "you see? I was right" attack position.

 

[Anerdyblackguy]

Warren and Biden lose ground, Sanders moves ahead in California’s shifting 2020 Democratic race

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden
By JANET HOOK STAFF WRITER
DEC. 5, 2019
5 AM

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Email

WASHINGTON —

The Democratic presidential contest in California remains extremely fluid — but not enough, at least so far, to provide an opening for Michael Bloomberg, who entered the race two weeks ago and was banking on winning big in the delegate-rich state, a new poll for the Los Angeles Times has found.

The survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that both Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — the commanding front-runner in a September California poll — and former Vice President Joe Biden have lost ground among the state’s likely Democratic primary voters over the last two months.

That erosion has benefited Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who narrowly tops the primary field, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who doubled his support since the September poll.

With less than two months before voting starts in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses and three months before California’s March 3 primary, “the race is really unusually fluid,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS poll of voters likely to go to the polls in the Democratic primary.

“Voters are struggling and not sticking with their candidates,” he said. “They are moving around from candidate to candidate.”

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)
Bloomberg appears ill-equipped to break into the mix. The poll, which was taken Nov. 21-27, just as Bloomberg started advertising in California and elsewhere on Nov. 25, found that he began his campaign with one of the most negative images of any candidate in the field. About 40% of the likely Democratic primary voters surveyed viewed him negatively, and just 15% had a positive impression.

“That’s a hole he’s going to have to dig out of and reintroduce himself to voters,” said DiCamillo. “It’s going to be tough.”

The upshot of the poll is that the field’s most liberal candidates, Warren and Sanders, are in a statistical tie for first place. The leading candidates making a more moderate pitch, Biden and Buttigieg, are lagging and essentially tied for third place.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sanders is in the nominal lead, as the first-choice pick of 24%; Warren is the first pick of 22%. That is a big change from September, when she led the field with 29%.

Biden is the first choice of 14%, down six points from September. Buttigieg is preferred by 12%, up six points from September.

The poll was taken before California Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the race. It asked whom her supporters would name as their second choice if she quit and found that Warren and Biden would benefit the most. If Harris voters were reallocated based on those responses, the race would tighten at the top to Sanders, 25%; Warren, 24%; Biden, 17%; Buttigieg, 13%.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)
California will affect the prospects of all candidates because it has the largest number of delegates at next summer’s Democratic nominating convention. It is especially important for Bloomberg, a multibillionaire and former New York City mayor. He is skipping the first nominating contests and counting on a big splash March 3 in the so-called Super Tuesday primaries in 17 states and territories, including California.

The Berkeley IGS poll, which was three-quarters complete before Bloomberg’s ads started running, found 8% were considering voting for Bloomberg.


POLITICS
Kamala Harris leaves a void in California and rivals rush in
Dec. 5, 2019
Whether his big spending on ads can change the negative image he brings to the race will be a test of the power of money in politics, but the record on such efforts — by rich presidential candidates such as Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992, and Steve Forbes, a Republican candidate in 2000 — is not promising.

California billionaire Tom Steyer also has made a heavy investment in his own 2020 presidential bid, and his campaign is still floundering: Just 1% of California voters in the Berkeley-IGS survey said Steyer was their first choice, and only 18% viewed him favorably.

Among the top-tier candidates, the opinion shifts among Californians are similar to trends found in other polls nationally and in key early-voting states. Warren is coming back down to earth after a heady run-up in polling this summer and fall; Sanders is regaining traction after an October heart attack unsettled his campaign; and Biden is facing increased competition from Buttigieg among voters who think Warren and Sanders are too far left.


POLITICS
House has ‘no choice’ but to move to impeach Trump, Pelosi says
Dec. 5, 2019
Warren’s image has suffered over the last few months, during which she has struggled to answer the question of how she would overhaul the healthcare system. Her favorability rating remains high, with 67% viewing her positively, but that is down 10 points since September.

Still, the poll found that Warren had more room to increase support among California Democrats than any other candidate: 58% said they at least considered supporting her, compared with the 49% who were considering Sanders, 41% considering Buttigieg and 39% considering Biden.

The poll also provided a window into the perceived strengths of the candidates — and why Biden has come in a weak third compared with his stronger standing in national polls.

Biden led the field when California voters were asked which candidate had the best chance of beating Trump and which was best qualified to serve as president: 29% said he was the most electable, and 28% said he was best qualified, compared with Sanders’ second-place ranking on those points, with 22% and 24%, respectively.

But Biden drops to single digits behind other candidates on other qualities: Just 6% said he was the candidate with the sharpest mental abilities, compared with the 24% who picked Warren, who leads the field on that attribute.

Sanders tops the field on three other attributes — being the candidate who would bring the right kind of change to Washington (28%), the one who comes closest to sharing voters’ values (27%) and the candidate who best understands the problems of “people like you” (28%).

The poll found that the four septuagenarian candidates — Sanders, 78; Biden and Bloomberg, 77; Warren, 70 — faced differing levels of concern about their age.

About one-third said they were extremely or very concerned that Biden’s and Sanders’ age would hurt their ability to serve as president. Only 7% said that about Warren; 17% said so about Bloomberg

The poll found increasingly stiff three-way competition in California for older voters, a part of the electorate that has been especially important to Biden’s national standing. Both he and Warren lost ground among those 65 and older over the last few months, while Buttigieg gained among that group, a prized bloc because it tends to vote in large numbers.

Biden narrowly leads with 22% of the over-65 vote, down from 26% in September. Warren’s share dropped to 18%, from 32% in September. Buttigieg supporters, meanwhile, increased to 17% of those seniors, from just 7% in September.

Sanders’ campaign, by contrast, hinges on his ability to turn out younger voters who are less inclined than their elders to vote: He barely registered among older voters but was the first choice of 46% of voters ages 18 to 29. That contributes to the advantage Sanders has among Latino voters, who tend to be younger as a group than other ethnicities. In California, 32% of Latino Democrats favor Sanders, a solid 13-point margin over the next closest candidate, Biden, who has 19%.

California will be an important test of candidate strength because it has a much more diverse population than the first two states in the nominating process, Iowa and New Hampshire, which are predominantly white.

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Nov. 21 to 27 among 1,694 Californians considered likely to vote in the state’s upcoming Democratic presidential primary. The estimated margin of error for the Democratic sample is 4 percentage points in either direction.