Official Bernie Sanders HQ: Not Me, Us!

[Conan]

4Q 2019: $34.5m

4Q 2015: $33m

4 years ago:
January 2016: $20m

February 2016: $43m

March 2016: $44m

1Q 2016: $107m

He raised $107m in 1Q 2016?

 

[FAH1223]

He raised $107m in 1Q 2016?

Yup. Pretty incredible.

 

[FAH1223]

 

[FAH1223]

 

[King Kreole]

What Warren is outlining does not make M4A inevitable and can backfire or be hamstrung due to a number of variables that are plain unpredictable...That right there is what I keep trying to explain to you. You've constantly treated Bernie's plan as impossible and something only dummies would fall for but there's some magical thinking in the assumptions that even the first portion of Warren's plan will just easily make it through and that it will work to the extent of making M4A an inevitability.

You're ignoring obvious challenges BOTH candidates are going to face by essentially saying "well Warren's will be easier to pass..." without acknowledging that easier doesn't equal EASY.

As I've said multiple times now, Warren's M4A transition proposal is on the outskirts of what is even possible given current political constraints. So no, I obviously don't believe it'll be an easy fight she will just breeze through. My point is that Bernie's M4A proposal exists outside the realm of what is possible given current political constraints, both rule-wise (he can't pass it through reconciliation) and congressional support-wise (his bill simply does not have the votes). If you think about it, Bernie is lowkey actually making the same shytty argument Biden is making that Republicans will grow a conscience when he's President, because that's the only way his M4A bill gets passed when he introduces it in his first week, as he's pledged.

Anyway, the reason I think M4A is inevitable isn't that I think Liz is such a genius that she'll do some magical shyt to make it happen, it's because I believe in ground-up, grassroots, mass movement politics. The people are what will eventually make M4A happen, not the President.

Case in point to how you're not treating both candidates' rhetoric the same. Alleging that you'll pass M4A right after passing a Public Option isn't just a different approach, it's objectively full of shyt. But I don't treat that like she's counting on her constituents' stupidity. No, I think she trusts her constituents to do the math and understand that some of her promises aren't as likely to work out as planned. You'd do a lot better to treat Bernie supporters to that much respect all the same instead of assuming that they're just idiots who take his word as Bible. You're not doing that with Warren, they don't do that with Bernie (the vast majority I mean, as always small but vocal contingents exist for sure).

Of course passing M4A in 2023 is unlikely. The whole point of her transition plan is basically to acknowledge this. Which is why she's splitting the bill into what's doable and what's aspirational, with an actual plan to enact the former while keeping sights on the latter. By expanding M4A healthcare to as many people as possible on the road to full coverage, she's actually increasing the likelihood of M4A eventually passing. Tens of millions more people are in the M4A system, hundreds of million more people are benefitting from it, and you're proving to the fence-sitters and agnostics that it can actually work.

If you agree that Bernie's word isn't Bible, and he's talking shyt when he says he'll pass M4A through reconciliation, then we're in agreement here. He hasn't outlined an actual plan grounded in reality to expand healthcare. I have full faith that either during the general or once he's sworn in, Bernie will drop this nonsense and end up rolling with Liz's plan.

Nobody has fooled themselves into thinking M4A is a foregone conclusion if Bernie wins. They just know that the only snowball's chance in hell they get at passing it within the next administration is through Bernie.

M4A is not happening in the next administration, regardless of who the President is, especially not a 1-termer like Bernie. So that path is dead.

You made another bad read on what the left thinks with that last bit too. Nobody thinks 2021 is the only chance to pass M4A but we are aware of how prolonged these Healthcare overhaul fights can go. If you don't even try in 2021 then the next opportunity might not arise for quite some time and in that span. You don't give up the fight before you even try. That's the only difference between Warren and Bernie. We'd rather TRY to pass M4A first. But that's an important enough difference to the progressive wing. They're not dumb, they're not thinking with magic, they're just willing to push for more before taking a compromise position. Bernie's position doesn't preclude expanding healthcare to tens of millions of people, it just gives a real effort to passing the most effective change we can ask for before it settles.

By claiming that 2021 is some big window to pass M4A, you're retrofitting Bernie Sanders celebrity fandom onto actual leftist political philosophy. 2021 is a relatively arbitrary date that's only brought to significance by the specious arguments deployed in the line of thinking that Bernie Sanders must become president. In reality, when President Sanders doesn't enact M4A in 2021, the fight should continue and efforts should be made to move towards the goal of universal healthcare. The next opportunity could come whenever. This primary has mutilated the minds of a lot of alleged leftists. This is the healthcare of millions and millions of people we're talking about here. Lives are at stake. Bernie Sanders doesn't get a backrub and a cookie for trying a doomed approach before coming up with, or borrowing, an actual approach. The efforts he's laid out don't represent a real effort. It's the same political campaign season rhetoric politicians usually dole out, just like Trump saying he'll build a border wall and Mexico will pay for it. It's ridiculous except to people who have their identity wrapped up in the worship of that political figure.

Warren decided that aspect of the fight isn't worth it (likely because she believes it impossible). That's fine as a political calculation but it's absolutely just a difference in political strategy. If we're holding everything they've promised up as something their constituents believe than her M4A in year three plan is as magical as it gets...it's better than nothing at all, but we can both be realistic about the odds of that working as planned. Same with Bernie. Neither candidate's rhetoric warrants condescending the others' supporters.

Enacting M4A three years from now, after successfully rolling out M4A coverage to tens of millions of people, is far less magical than enacting M4A in Bernie's first week in office. That doesn't mean the former will be easy or even likely, but the latter is as ridiculous as saying Bernie will enact M4A before he even gets elected. He's selling wolf tickets with this line. Again, I don't think I'm condescending to Bernie supporters because a lot of them realize the facts and reality of the situation. It's the ones who are willing to swallow Bernie's dumb stance on this that I'm annoyed by. This fight to refuse to confront reality is actually beneath the movement Bernie is fighting to nurture.

 

[storyteller]

As I've said multiple times now, Warren's M4A transition proposal is on the outskirts of what is even possible given current political constraints. So no, I obviously don't believe it'll be an easy fight she will just breeze through. My point is that Bernie's M4A proposal exists outside the realm of what is possible given current political constraints, both rule-wise (he can't pass it through reconciliation) and congressional support-wise (his bill simply does not have the votes). If you think about it, Bernie is lowkey actually making the same shytty argument Biden is making that Republicans will grow a conscience when he's President, because that's the only way his M4A bill gets passed when he introduces it in his first week, as he's pledged.

You're just speculating, point blank. How do we measure what is and isn't accomplishable given the current political constraints? What if Dems don't win the Senate? Does any option still have legs? What's the gap in resources and opposition coming from lobbyists against Warren's plan if she's elected instead of Bernie? How many Senators can be pushed to overlook those lobbyists in the name of a Public Option as opposed to full M4A and why? None of this has a concrete or measurable answer. We're both speculating yet you're way too comfortable insulting the intelligence of anyone who has the audacity to think maybe we should try for more than exactly where Warren set down her plan...even though that doesn't preclude turning Warren's approach into a fall back or compromise position. It's just pushing for more before settling for less.

And from there we're forced to do even more speculation. What damage does starting with higher demands inflict compared with negotiating down? Which approach has a higher chance of extracting the most possible concessions from those in opposition? We're back to guesswork which is especially tricky not knowing the results of 2020 on Congressional make-up. Not only that, does the margin of victory for the presidential nominee impact the pressure to pass healthcare reform? When you can definitively conquer all of these questions, you need to get on Warren's campaign staff immediately and stop posting on forums because nobody has these answers.

Anyway, the reason I think M4A is inevitable isn't that I think Liz is such a genius that she'll do some magical shyt to make it happen, it's because I believe in ground-up, grassroots, mass movement politics. The people are what will eventually make M4A happen, not the President.

...this sounds familiar...

Of course passing M4A in 2023 is unlikely. The whole point of her transition plan is basically to acknowledge this. Which is why she's splitting the bill into what's doable and what's aspirational, with an actual plan to enact the former while keeping sights on the latter. By expanding M4A healthcare to as many people as possible on the road to full coverage, she's actually increasing the likelihood of M4A eventually passing. Tens of millions more people are in the M4A system, hundreds of million more people are benefitting from it, and you're proving to the fence-sitters and agnostics that it can actually work.

I get the logic you're selling, I'm just acknowledging that nothing goes so smoothly and that opposition will be equally fierce to anything that sets us on a path to M4A as it will be for the actual M4A legislation (whatever we put up will be attacked to the fullest of the lobbyists' abilities, literally everything Obama tried faced the same intense opposition regardless of how much compromising he tried to do).

So again, if there's magical thinking it's based on assuming that everything will go through perfectly if Warren is elected but that pushing for anything more would somehow lead to serious consequences. Otherwise it's easy enough to acknowledge that should Bernie meet opposition to his full plan, then he could literally just negotiate down to whatever actually is attainable. Be it more or less than what Warren has proposed. The difference is only trying to get more out of any legislation passed before settling.

If you agree that Bernie's word isn't Bible, and he's talking shyt when he says he'll pass M4A through reconciliation, then we're in agreement here. He hasn't outlined an actual plan grounded in reality to expand healthcare. I have full faith that either during the general or once he's sworn in, Bernie will drop this nonsense and end up rolling with Liz's plan.

Actually, Warren's plan pretty heavily iterative of Bernie's which is iterative of his predecessors. But we're back at what is and isn't realistic in your imagination again.

M4A is not happening in the next administration, regardless of who the President is, especially not a 1-termer like Bernie. So that path is dead.

Here we go, stating speculation as fact again.

By claiming that 2021 is some big window to pass M4A, you're retrofitting Bernie Sanders celebrity fandom onto actual leftist political philosophy. 2021 is a relatively arbitrary date that's only brought to significance by the specious arguments deployed in the line of thinking that Bernie Sanders must become president. In reality, when President Sanders doesn't enact M4A in 2021, the fight should continue and efforts should be made to move towards the goal of universal healthcare. The next opportunity could come whenever. This primary has mutilated the minds of a lot of alleged leftists. This is the healthcare of millions and millions of people we're talking about here. Lives are at stake. Bernie Sanders doesn't get a backrub and a cookie for trying a doomed approach before coming up with, or borrowing, an actual approach. The efforts he's laid out don't represent a real effort. It's the same political campaign season rhetoric politicians usually dole out, just like Trump saying he'll build a border wall and Mexico will pay for it. It's ridiculous except to people who have their identity wrapped up in the worship of that political figure.

This is a pretty weak strawman. Here's the simple math for why I think 2021...because we're assuming the Democrats win the presidency. We don't know what happens in 2024 or any time beyond that. So this seems like an obviously important time to set some aim to get things done. The overconfidence that we could just keep rolling along without disruption came back to bite the Obama Administration and set up for Trump to roll back a ton of the progress he made.

Ironically, this could be problematic of any legislation enacted by even Warren or Bernie. This is why pushing to eliminate duplicative care and build the largest buy-in to what legislation does pass as possible becomes pretty damned important. It makes that legislation much harder to defeat. Now I can happily acknowledge that we MIGHT lose the fight to stop duplicative care and that we may not get expansion beyond Warren's 50 years of age. That we MIGHT have to settle for a strong public option with whatever cost controls we're able to fight for pressed upon the broader industry. But MIGHT is the key word here.

We also MIGHT be able to get more. Maybe not full single-payer but more than Warren's first part nonetheless. Maybe we get the age down further for inclusion. Or maybe we can mix it up, drop the top half to 50-55 but also add in minors up to a certain age group (another expansion strategy that has been considered by others). The idea that Warren has found the sweet spot in negotiations before even getting to the table...before we know the make up of Congress post 2020...and before we see the presidential election bared out...it's just bullshyt.

And comparing M4A to Build a Wall when Warren's stated goal is M4A is just laughable fam. Oh wait, it's only a wall if it's Bernie's attempt to get there. If it's Warren's it's perfect...yeah Bernie has mutilated the minds of leftists, we're all just so damned biased that we can't imagine anything other than our own candidate's plan being successful. This in spite of the fact that I'm a Warren donor who consistently acknowledged throughout this conversation that her plan is fine as a fall back option. Just that it would be foolish not to push for more when we have the highest lever of power given the back and forth nature of electoral politics in this country. That's a precedent based assessment, not a cult of personality. I'm worried you might even be projecting here considering how comfortably you've dismissed any attempt to get more passed than what Warren has promised.

Enacting M4A three years from now, after successfully rolling out M4A coverage to tens of millions of people, is far less magical than enacting M4A in Bernie's first week in office. That doesn't mean the former will be easy or even likely, but the latter is as ridiculous as saying Bernie will enact M4A before he even gets elected. He's selling wolf tickets with this line. Again, I don't think I'm condescending to Bernie supporters because a lot of them realize the facts and reality of the situation. It's the ones who are willing to swallow Bernie's dumb stance on this that I'm annoyed by. This fight to refuse to confront reality is actually beneath the movement Bernie is fighting to nurture.

The problem is you've conflated your own speculation with reality and then want to be mad at anyone who dares to speculate that more might be possible. I've made sure throughout this conversation to point to the fact that Warren's positions could indeed be where the compromise position falls backward to. I just add the caveat that getting even Warren's plan through does not make M4A a foregone conclusion and it doesn't eliminate the possibility for the next guy to sabotage it (again, this is why you push for the strongest possible legislation FIRST and then take compromises as they are necessitated).

I don't think you MEAN to condescend Bernie supporters when you talk about how poisoned their minds have been. Or how they use specious arguments. Or how he must think they're all idiots to suggest the strategies he does...but it's insulting as hell, especially when you're quick to push forward the rosiest dream scenario for your preferred candidate and take my suggestion that her path doesn't guarantee M4A as some kind of Bernie induced ignorance.

Again let me make this abundantly clear: I don't think Bernie is a guarantee to get us M4A. But I do think he's the only candidate that actually will push for M4A right away and whether or not he gets there, compromising back to where Warren intends to start her negotiations isn't precluded by his strategy in any way shape or form. So why not try while we definitely have a progressive in the oval office?

 

[King Kreole]

You're just speculating, point blank. How do we measure what is and isn't accomplishable given the current political constraints? What if Dems don't win the Senate? Does any option still have legs? What's the gap in resources and opposition coming from lobbyists against Warren's plan if she's elected instead of Bernie? How many Senators can be pushed to overlook those lobbyists in the name of a Public Option as opposed to full M4A and why? None of this has a concrete or measurable answer. We're both speculating yet you're way too comfortable insulting the intelligence of anyone who has the audacity to think maybe we should try for more than exactly where Warren set down her plan...even though that doesn't preclude turning Warren's approach into a fall back or compromise position. It's just pushing for more before settling for less.

And from there we're forced to do even more speculation. What damage does starting with higher demands inflict compared with negotiating down? Which approach has a higher chance of extracting the most possible concessions from those in opposition? We're back to guesswork which is especially tricky not knowing the results of 2020 on Congressional make-up. Not only that, does the margin of victory for the presidential nominee impact the pressure to pass healthcare reform? When you can definitively conquer all of these questions, you need to get on Warren's campaign staff immediately and stop posting on forums because nobody has these answers.

Sure, we're all just speculating. Who knows, maybe Mitch McConnell and all the Senate Republicans will vote for Bernie's M4A bill as well. But in the absence of surety, I'm basing my speculation on the actions, statements, and history of the key figures who will be needed to enact M4A. And yes, the scenario I've been describing is one in which the Democrats have their best possible outcome in the Senate and House elections in 2020. The votes to pass M4A still won't be there. Regardless of whether Bernie or Liz are President, any effort to expand healthcare coverage will be met with heavy resistance from the insurance and for-profit healthcare industry, just like the push for Obamacare was. Which is why I've said over and over again that Liz would be in a very difficult position to pass her plan if she's elected. But not impossible. Plus she's detailed the bevy of executive orders she will take to advance the healthcare football down the field as much as possible on her own. If someone believes that Bernie can pass his M4A bill in his first 100 days through reconciliation, as Bernie himself has recently been saying, it's not insulting their intelligence to say they're wrong, it's being realistic. There are ways to try for more than exactly where Warren set down her plan that are far more realistic and grounded in reality than the idiotic plan to pass M4A Bernie has been putting out there. The damage this does, to me, is it makes me far less confident in Bernie's ability to be an effective political actor. It doesn't instill trust or confidence in the prospects of a Sanders Presidency when he talks about how we just need to flap our arms really hard so we can fly.

But sure, who knows, maybe Bernie will win all 50 states and the strength of him being the candidate will make Democrats win every down ballot race.

...this sounds familiar...

Yeah, which is why I support the two candidates who understand the need for grassroots activity to create long-lasting, structural change. Bernie and Liz.

I get the logic you're selling, I'm just acknowledging that nothing goes so smoothly and that opposition will be equally fierce to anything that sets us on a path to M4A as it will be for the actual M4A legislation (whatever we put up will be attacked to the fullest of the lobbyists' abilities, literally everything Obama tried faced the same intense opposition regardless of how much compromising he tried to do).

So again, if there's magical thinking it's based on assuming that everything will go through perfectly if Warren is elected but that pushing for anything more would somehow lead to serious consequences. Otherwise it's easy enough to acknowledge that should Bernie meet opposition to his full plan, then he could literally just negotiate down to whatever actually is attainable. Be it more or less than what Warren has proposed. The difference is only trying to get more out of any legislation passed before settling.

I agree with this in general but disagree with the bolded. I truly do not believe that a medicare expansion and introduction of a public option will be as difficult to pass as the eradication of the private insurance industry that comes with Bernie's full M4A plan. The fight for Obamacare is an instructive example, so I'm glad you brought it up. Everything he tried faced intense opposition from industry, but the congressional makeup meant that he was limited to passing what he could, which meant no public option. It didn't have the votes. It's not like Lieberman would have voted for the public option if Obama started the negotiations with single-payer. Lieberman had an optimal negotiating position, and the Obama making empty threats - like Bernie is saying he will do - wouldn't have moved him. The point is that if they're elected President, neither Bernie or Liz will be deciding what type of healthcare expansion the country will receive, it'll be Joe Manchin.

This is a pretty weak strawman. Here's the simple math for why I think 2021...because we're assuming the Democrats win the presidency. We don't know what happens in 2024 or any time beyond that. So this seems like an obviously important time to set some aim to get things done. The overconfidence that we could just keep rolling along without disruption came back to bite the Obama Administration and set up for Trump to roll back a ton of the progress he made.

Ironically, this could be problematic of any legislation enacted by even Warren or Bernie. This is why pushing to eliminate duplicative care and build the largest buy-in to what legislation does pass as possible becomes pretty damned important. It makes that legislation much harder to defeat. Now I can happily acknowledge that we MIGHT lose the fight to stop duplicative care and that we may not get expansion beyond Warren's 50 years of age. That we MIGHT have to settle for a strong public option with whatever cost controls we're able to fight for pressed upon the broader industry. But MIGHT is the key word here.

We also MIGHT be able to get more. Maybe not full single-payer but more than Warren's first part nonetheless. Maybe we get the age down further for inclusion. Or maybe we can mix it up, drop the top half to 50-55 but also add in minors up to a certain age group (another expansion strategy that has been considered by others). The idea that Warren has found the sweet spot in negotiations before even getting to the table...before we know the make up of Congress post 2020...and before we see the presidential election bared out...it's just bullshyt.

The President can't enact M4A, Congress will have to. Until Congress is ready, it's not happening. And 2020 is not the election in which that line is crossed. It's not happening in any President's next term, and I think it's very important to understand this so people don't get disillusioned and turn their backs on the political process because Bernie promised M4A and it's not here. From a purely practical perspective, the M4A movement would be better spent donating to and supporting congressional primary opponents for centrist Dems against M4A than Bernie Sanders. The actual pro-M4A argument for Bernie is that while electing him won't bring M4A about, his constant advocacy for it would hasten its arrival. But then we get into the question of wasted political capital for other pressing issues.

Also, the medicare eligibility age range in Bernie's transition plan is narrower than Warren's, so he would actually be starting behind her and she would be in the better position to negotiate to a more expansive position when it comes to this.

And comparing M4A to Build a Wall when Warren's stated goal is M4A is just laughable fam. Oh wait, it's only a wall if it's Bernie's attempt to get there. If it's Warren's it's perfect...yeah Bernie has mutilated the minds of leftists, we're all just so damned biased that we can't imagine anything other than our own candidate's plan being successful. This in spite of the fact that I'm a Warren donor who consistently acknowledged throughout this conversation that her plan is fine as a fall back option. Just that it would be foolish not to push for more when we have the highest lever of power given the back and forth nature of electoral politics in this country. That's a precedent based assessment, not a cult of personality. I'm worried you might even be projecting here considering how comfortably you've dismissed any attempt to get more passed than what Warren has promised.

I didn't compare M4A to Build the Wall, I compared claiming you can pass M4A in your first 100 days through reconciliation to claiming you're gonna build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. M4A is pretty much my optimal healthcare position. I actually believe it doesn't go far enough when it comes to nationalizing hospitals and doctors and forcing cost reductions. But I don't think Bernie is foolish for not advocating for those positions in the name of a maximal opening bid. Congress is simply not ready for those policies to be enacted. As I said before, my concern isn't really even Bernie making these dumb statements during a campaign because he's politicking, my concern is that he really believes this shyt and wastes political capital on a DOA fight. I don't think Warren's plan is perfect, I just think it's better than Bernie's "plan" because it's grounded in reality.

The problem is you've conflated your own speculation with reality and then want to be mad at anyone who dares to speculate that more might be possible. I've made sure throughout this conversation to point to the fact that Warren's positions could indeed be where the compromise position falls backward to. I just add the caveat that getting even Warren's plan through does not make M4A a foregone conclusion and it doesn't eliminate the possibility for the next guy to sabotage it (again, this is why you push for the strongest possible legislation FIRST and then take compromises as they are necessitated).

I don't think you MEAN to condescend Bernie supporters when you talk about how poisoned their minds have been. Or how they use specious arguments. Or how he must think they're all idiots to suggest the strategies he does...but it's insulting as hell, especially when you're quick to push forward the rosiest dream scenario for your preferred candidate and take my suggestion that her path doesn't guarantee M4A as some kind of Bernie induced ignorance.

Again let me make this abundantly clear: I don't think Bernie is a guarantee to get us M4A. But I do think he's the only candidate that actually will push for M4A right away and whether or not he gets there, compromising back to where Warren intends to start her negotiations isn't precluded by his strategy in any way shape or form. So why not try while we definitely have a progressive in the oval office?

Yeah I generally have a problem with selling snake oil, especially on issues as dire and important as healthcare. If Bernie started saying Republicans will come to their senses and vote for M4A (which is what would actually have to happen if he follows through on his approach), would you still be defending him like this? What about if he just starts saying he'll pass M4A by executive order? Everything still good because he's taking the most extreme position to start?

Again, I don't think Warren's path is rosy at all. As I've said time and time again, it's very thorny and lies at the edges of what is possible. But at least her fundamentals are correct and her plan is based in reality. Anyway, to wrap this up, I don't think Bernie pushing for M4A right away will do much of anything to significantly get us to M4A because the blockages to enacting it immediately aren't things he can control. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

P.S. I really enjoyed your podcast! keep putting in that work breh

 

[tru_m.a.c]

 

[tru_m.a.c]

 

[tru_m.a.c]

 

[storyteller]

Sure, we're all just speculating. Who knows, maybe Mitch McConnell and all the Senate Republicans will vote for Bernie's M4A bill as well. But in the absence of surety, I'm basing my speculation on the actions, statements, and history of the key figures who will be needed to enact M4A. And yes, the scenario I've been describing is one in which the Democrats have their best possible outcome in the Senate and House elections in 2020. The votes to pass M4A still won't be there. Regardless of whether Bernie or Liz are President, any effort to expand healthcare coverage will be met with heavy resistance from the insurance and for-profit healthcare industry, just like the push for Obamacare was. Which is why I've said over and over again that Liz would be in a very difficult position to pass her plan if she's elected. But not impossible. Plus she's detailed the bevy of executive orders she will take to advance the healthcare football down the field as much as possible on her own. If someone believes that Bernie can pass his M4A bill in his first 100 days through reconciliation, as Bernie himself has recently been saying, it's not insulting their intelligence to say they're wrong, it's being realistic. There are ways to try for more than exactly where Warren set down her plan that are far more realistic and grounded in reality than the idiotic plan to pass M4A Bernie has been putting out there. The damage this does, to me, is it makes me far less confident in Bernie's ability to be an effective political actor. It doesn't instill trust or confidence in the prospects of a Sanders Presidency when he talks about how we just need to flap our arms really hard so we can fly.

But sure, who knows, maybe Bernie will win all 50 states and the strength of him being the candidate will make Democrats win every down ballot race.


Yeah, which is why I support the two candidates who understand the need for grassroots activity to create long-lasting, structural change. Bernie and Liz.


I agree with this in general but disagree with the bolded. I truly do not believe that a medicare expansion and introduction of a public option will be as difficult to pass as the eradication of the private insurance industry that comes with Bernie's full M4A plan. The fight for Obamacare is an instructive example, so I'm glad you brought it up. Everything he tried faced intense opposition from industry, but the congressional makeup meant that he was limited to passing what he could, which meant no public option. It didn't have the votes. It's not like Lieberman would have voted for the public option if Obama started the negotiations with single-payer. Lieberman had an optimal negotiating position, and the Obama making empty threats - like Bernie is saying he will do - wouldn't have moved him. The point is that if they're elected President, neither Bernie or Liz will be deciding what type of healthcare expansion the country will receive, it'll be Joe Manchin.


The President can't enact M4A, Congress will have to. Until Congress is ready, it's not happening. And 2020 is not the election in which that line is crossed. It's not happening in any President's next term, and I think it's very important to understand this so people don't get disillusioned and turn their backs on the political process because Bernie promised M4A and it's not here. From a purely practical perspective, the M4A movement would be better spent donating to and supporting congressional primary opponents for centrist Dems against M4A than Bernie Sanders. The actual pro-M4A argument for Bernie is that while electing him won't bring M4A about, his constant advocacy for it would hasten its arrival. But then we get into the question of wasted political capital for other pressing issues.

Also, the medicare eligibility age range in Bernie's transition plan is narrower than Warren's, so he would actually be starting behind her and she would be in the better position to negotiate to a more expansive position when it comes to this.


I didn't compare M4A to Build the Wall, I compared claiming you can pass M4A in your first 100 days through reconciliation to claiming you're gonna build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. M4A is pretty much my optimal healthcare position. I actually believe it doesn't go far enough when it comes to nationalizing hospitals and doctors and forcing cost reductions. But I don't think Bernie is foolish for not advocating for those positions in the name of a maximal opening bid. Congress is simply not ready for those policies to be enacted. As I said before, my concern isn't really even Bernie making these dumb statements during a campaign because he's politicking, my concern is that he really believes this shyt and wastes political capital on a DOA fight. I don't think Warren's plan is perfect, I just think it's better than Bernie's "plan" because it's grounded in reality.


Yeah I generally have a problem with selling snake oil, especially on issues as dire and important as healthcare. If Bernie started saying Republicans will come to their senses and vote for M4A (which is what would actually have to happen if he follows through on his approach), would you still be defending him like this? What about if he just starts saying he'll pass M4A by executive order? Everything still good because he's taking the most extreme position to start?

Again, I don't think Warren's path is rosy at all. As I've said time and time again, it's very thorny and lies at the edges of what is possible. But at least her fundamentals are correct and her plan is based in reality. Anyway, to wrap this up, I don't think Bernie pushing for M4A right away will do much of anything to significantly get us to M4A because the blockages to enacting it immediately aren't things he can control. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

P.S. I really enjoyed your podcast! keep putting in that work breh

Much appreciated brethren. I think my big issue here is your insistence that Bernie supporters believe M4A will pass in the first 100 days when I think everyone view Bernie's comments as symbolic of his dedication (and this runs 100% parallel to Warren's promise that she'll jump right to M4A in 2023 after overhauling healthcare once already). Neither of those are realistic, but what that rhetoric is meant to do is reassure their supporters. I wouldn't characterize either of those claims as snake oil (especially in light of the fact that you earlier pointed to Budget Reconciliation as a way to pass aspects of Warren's plan which means you understand how that approach can be viable for some aspects of a broader plan).

On top of that, I'm not the one calling M4A inevitable under my candidate. I've continually called for taking the boldest plan to the table and negotiating down. You've claimed that by passing a lesser plan, M4A would be virtually inevitable. That's not being realistic to the multiple variables that could block, disrupt or otherwise damage even the best laid plans.

I don't think you provide charitable nuance to Bernie's promises. If he said he'll get M4A passed via political pressure, Budget Reconciliation and Executive Orders; I can walk through aspects of his plans that require each approach. He can absolutely use executive orders to reduce drug prices, that's explained in the Day One Agenda article series and I believe Warren has the same idea. You've acknowledged aspects of the bill can be achieved with Budget Reconciliation. The last parts require political pressure which also requires actually knowing the make-up of Congress before we can evaluate exactly how realistic or unrealistic that part of the plan is for either politician.

So all of this is to say, if you're going to take a reductive approach to Bernie and pair it with insults against his supporters intelligence...well we could treat Warren to a similarly uncharitable approach. M4A year three can go from highly unlikely to snake oil. The Public Option can go from a step in the right direction and attempt at paving the way to M4A to a copout. With those oversimplified premises, I can call Warren Supporters useful idiots who want M4A but are hurting the process. I think that's just as bad as rolling out the awful Pocahontas memes except in this case, I'd also be attacking policy strategy that with just a bit more nuanced thinking actually make some sense whether I agree with the strategy or not.

 

[storyteller]

adding that to my bag...

 

[goatmane]

 

[goatmane]

The biggest thing IMO is that jobs can no longer hold us hostage over you and your children's health

 

[FAH1223]

ANY one of you read this?







There are currently more than 115,000 people who’ve created a Bern account, the campaign claims, and it has generated more than 300,000 IDs. The Elizabeth Warren campaign uses an app called Reach that was developed for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign, which itself was a game-changer. Under the old programs, a volunteer would get a list of voters and then go out and try to find them at their doors or over the phone. But it’s much easier to make contact with voters in the wild: at farmer’s markets, on street corners, at concerts, or just out at the bar with friends. Reach allows a volunteer to easily enter information they collect on the street, but it falls short of what Bern is capable of.

What the Bern app enables is called relational, or friend-to-friend organizing, which has become a buzzword among progressive organizers, something many groups say they do, but don’t actually do with any rigor or scale.

“It’s very new overall and I don’t think that it’s ever been tried at this scale,” Sandberg said. “It doesn’t work to just say, ‘Bring five friends and then we’ll get bigger and bigger and bigger and win.’ It only works if you can systematize it and have ways of following up with every single volunteer and also finding out who they’re talking about and matching them back to the voter file. You can’t turn them out unless you have their precinct location.”

“The only other campaign that is doing relational organizing on a scale close to what we are doing actually is the Trump campaign,” she added.