Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
2
-
I'd agree with Kyle's assessment if Bernie wasn't so old. While it doesn't impact him now, a lot can change in 2-3 years, especially with what he wants to accomplish. therefore it would be better to chose someone that more closely aligns with his policies and vision (which is why I believe he'd chosen Warren a year ago, not so anymore now). Someone like Nina Turner, who also has shown that she can be an "attack dog" if she wants to (less than Tulsi, but Tulsi is ofcourse a candidate and vilified by the media, more in the spotlights), would be a better pick.
I think the voters Tulsi would bring, would be minimal compared to what Bernie already should be bringing out at this point. Especially since those republicans who'd vote for her as president, might not necessarily vote for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. You can't just add up their supporters, because their can be aversions among them towards the whole ticket. Especially among the possible supporters of the VP.
Tulsi would however be a great pick as SOD, being anti-war, a veteran and she would be the first woman to become SOD (although the last part would be of less importance ofcourse). And if they already talked with Tulsi about becoming SOD directly after the nomination, she still can be an "attack dog" for Bernie's campaign (they could just float that she'd be the most likely pick).
So, yeah, Nina Turner as VP and Tulsi as SOD would be the best at this moment in my eyes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samus598
and maybe it has on candidates who havent straight up called themselves socialists.
Bernie is called and has called himself a socialist for years (even though he is a soocial democrat), yet this hasn't hit him in the polls. He at this point does better in heads to heads against Trump than anyone else, despite everyone by now knowing his "socialist" background. So yes it has lost its strength. Especially since the younger generation identifies almost as much or more socialist than capitalist. And it is exactly this younger vote Bernie is after, since the older vote don't want progress but stability/status quo overall.
You take it for granted that a public option as a pathway to single payer will not work
It speaks for itself that a public option will not work.
First you give the insurance companies a chance to completely destroy the idea of a public option and m4a for a number of years. Even if they have to go in the red for a few years by offering too cheap plans to healthy people, they will if this means a return to "normalcy" and large profiteering after that.
Furthermore will you need to fight on healthcare one more time than necessary, that would be 3 times in 2 decades. Even if a public option works, this would entice people to just say "oh well, we have a working solution, why go further", untill it suddenly doesn't work anymore, because the big companies got their act together and decisively work on destroying it.
Thirdly, with a public option you CAN'T lower cost as much as you can as with m4a. At best you lower costs a bit. Now, could a public option work if you go from m4a to it? Yes, but in the US system today the insurance and drugcompanies have too much power to choose a public option as stepway to the real deal.
Yang supports enstating the most popular healthcare plan
No, Yangs plan isn't the most popular plan, if that were the case Bernie would not be the most trusted on healthcare by a mile.
it doesnt scare the shit out of boomers
Only few people are scared of m4a. If you just ask "do you support m4a?" 70%-80% of the US says they support it. It is only when you ask "do you support m4a if this means no more private insurance?" or something, the numbers drop to maybe half the country (still not bad). If you then rephrase it to "do you support m4a if this means no more private insurance but you can keep your doctor?" suddenly it is again up in the 60%-70%'s. m4a is the most popular plan out there, not a public option. A public option is a political compromise that will still not be supported by republicans and thus not be passed easier than m4a.
Bernie is just the best on healthcare, everything shows that, every poll. If you disagree, convince me otherwise with data.
shrinks the private insurance market dramatically
Yeah, by allowing all the sick people on medicare and the healthy with private insurers, thus putting the majority of the cost on the sick or the government. This is not a healthy way of "shrinking" the insurance market.
and sets us up for an easier transition to m4a
No, it doesn't. Which republican would support a public option, but not m4a?
Bernie wont get anything done if Trump fearmongers enough about socialism, and you have to admit Bernie is more vulnerable to that line of attack against him.
Again, no fearmongering about socialism will not work against Bernie, because that has been done for years now. We are not at the time of the cold war or right after anymore. Socialism is almost only a reason anymore to not vote for a candidate if you already lean republican. Besides, even in 2008 many Hillary supporters went to the republicans, still Obama won nicely because he energized new or disillusioned voters, just like Bernie does.
In fact Bernie is stonger against this 'socialism' attack because he comes out with it. Other candidates would be put on the defensive with such an attack and explain why they aren't socialists, Bernie just accepts the attack and starts explaining what his "socialism" means, basically the scandinavian model.
They are already running terrifying horror commercials about denied surgeries in the UK and government control over what healthcare you can receive.
And you think this kind of commercials won't be aired with a prublic option? LMOA, you must be rather naîve to think that. Furthermore, this can easily be debunked. All necessary care and operations will be given under m4a, but based on urgency. Even now surgeries that aren't necessary or too dangerous can already be denied in the US by the doctors (because it is them who decide), so nothing changes.
You need to stop focussing on the fearmongering of the republicans, they will fearmongering about everything whether it is m4a, a public option or even just strengthening Obamacare. Stop looking about what the republicans will do and focus on what matters: the actual policy and the popularity of these policies.
Support for Bernie's bill is falling
Ofcourse, it is being attacked. The same will happen with Yangs public option if he were to become the nominee. It would be attacked and the support would also drop. This is practically unavoidable at this moment. However while support has been falling, it is still the most popular option with a majority support.
"Bernies way is the only way"
I never said this and if I lived in the US and Yang was the nominee I'd vote for him, but your original statement that Yang is better than Bernie (and Warren) was just ridiculous, just as the reasons you gave. I could have agreed that his democracy dollars idea was great and should be adopted by others and the UBI would also have been fine, if it was build up in a progressive way, not a libertarian one. At this moment his UBI will be best for the middle class, but only slightly better for the lower classes. And it surpasses the original goal: dealing with automation. Jobs will be lost, 1000 isn't enough to live of decently, so you will have to find another job to live a proper life, the problem is, jobs wouldn't be available due to automation, that is the entire point of a UBI: to deal with this jobloss. A progressive UBI would be linked to income (decreasing with higher income), starting at 2000-2500 for those unemployed, but also slowly scaling down over time to a minimum of 1000 if you remain unemployed and aid at that time in finding a job.
Some of Yangs ideas show promise, but most of them aren't what the US needs at this point, maybe in future (especially a good refined UBI can be usefull in the future).
1
-
@samus598
How much does Bernie's healthcare bill cost per year?
Surprisingly less than the current system, meaning over time it will save more than it needs.
youre wrong. 60% oppose when you tell them it removes private insurance.
I haven't seen this poll, could you post the link here?
In the end people against m4a have done research, find out why people might not support it and then spread lies that m4a would exactly cause what people fear. In polls about m4a the way you word it is important. In the same poll, it was phrased in the same 3 ways I said, with these outcomes, so the same people voted differently on this, while the poll was always talking about the same plan. Perception is important.
The same btw happens in regard to a public option, the worse you represent it (while still being true, just deceptive also), the more the support for it lowers. At worst/best the support for m4a and a public option at this moment are around the same and will be equally difficult to implement, so why go for the worse of the two? I'll tell you why, because the media and other large interests don't favour m4a, so politicians switch to a public option as appeasement (or just to seperate them from progressives) or in some cases to link themselves to the previous administation under Obama (for example Biden).
Your argument that public option cannot work is straight up false. Australia has one of the best systems and it has private insurance alongside a public option.
Sure it can work, if it there isn't already a powerfull healthcare industry that only profits from destroying it AND that basically can legally buy politicians. For a public option in the US to work, first you'd have to fix many problems in the US political system, which on its own is an entire nearly impossible battle.
Furthermore, in Australia the public side is paid for by taxes. In the US the public option would basically be the government stepping into the private market. It would be funded similarly to how the insurance companies are funded. People opting for the public option pay into it, others not. At best some money will come from the government. But seeing that candidates supporting a public option show the raising of taxes in m4a as an argument against m4a, clearly they are not going to raise taxes. That is a major difference, the way it is funded in the US vs Australia. And why it works in Australia, but won't work in the US.
Yang is rapidly gaining on Bernie in head to heads.
could you give me some polls to show this? The ones I find don't really show this. Sure Yang is still unknown, the question is, will this change in the next 2 months? If he doesn't gain 15% in Iowa, how is he going to increase his name recognition? In any early state at this moment Yangs best polling is 5%, he needs to at least triple this within the next 2 months, otherwise he won't gain any delegates, completely destroying any changes he had. At this moment I honestly think he's still staying in just to spread his ideas, maybe laying a path for a future run. Unless something really changes, Yang doesn't have chance of winning the primary, but I guess we'll see. It is best he remains in untill at least Iowa or after the 4 early states and decide what to do then. If he can't get any delegates by that point, he is better of endorsing another candidate, maybe even making a deal. I am sure Bernie would see merit in something like his democracy dollars.
Yang doesnt have full name recognition yet while Bernie has been a known public figure for 40 years
Bernie had barely any name recognition outside Vermont before the 2016 election. It is only because then he started to make a real national name. In fact if he had the name recognition then that he had today, he'd probably have won the primary back then. Even though you are correct, it is irrelevant, unless Yang suddenly increases his name recognition dramatically, he won't win the primary and thus also not the general.
I guess we'll see how it goes in february.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahculper5522
So I created a long in depth response 2 days ago and then youtube wouldn't load it up (kept on the loading icon) and I couldn't copy paste it anymore either, so I created a new answer.
But there is absolutely no precedent to back that up.
In 2016 Trump got much coverage from the media, so he couldn't set a precedent, and earlier elections were too early. There always has to be a first time.
Senator Sanders is asking the Democratic Party to take a huge gamble by throwing away one of their most valuable tools against Donald Trump.
In the general the democratic nominee will get enough media coverage, especially when running against Trump, don't worry.
There are a field of candidates who would have the media fawning over them throughout their campaign. Senators Warren and Harris, Secretary Castro, Mayor Buttigieg, and Congressman O’Rourke all come to mind here.
Yes, and look where they are now.
Harris has fallen back completely, even not getting any delegates in her homestate and even surpasse by Yang, someone who gets even less coverage than Bernie.
Castro has difficulty to poll higher than 2-3%, despite being covered well by the msm. Clearly this msm coverage didn't help him too great either.
Buttigieg and O'Rourke the same as Harris, despite being msm favorites, they have fallen back from earlier positions spectacularly, often not even beating Yang in the polls.
And as for Warren, msm only started seeing her as a favorite after she already was well into the double digits, so I can't say that she for now really was helped by them. Especially since many progressives have only become suspicious of her now that msm covers her so very favorably.
If any of those candidates were the nominee, they’d run with the advantage of traditional media making their case to every suburban swing voter with cable or a newspaper subscription.
msm is already mostly partisanised, they'll cover every DNC nominee a lot, especially since of they don't they'll risk losing out, we are talking about the primary with only 2 candidates.
*But all of those voting blocs are notoriously flakey. Even if they like a candidate, they are substantially less likely to show up to vote than the upper-middle class middle aged suburbanites watching CNN and reading the New York Times. *
This is indeed true if you look to the past, then again many of those were not engaged by former candidates like they are now by Bernie. Furthermore the young voter turn out has gone up incredibly in 2018, almost doubled compared to 2014. And if we look at young voter turn out, what do we see? When the young voters come out, democrats win. Both in 1992 and 2008 the young turn out was above 50%, the only times that it was higher than 50% in 40 years. So clearly if you want to be certain of a victory, you need to get out the young vote.
I don’t think the media is particularly attached to the status quo. I really can’t think of a bigger shakeup to the old way of doing things than the candidacy and presidency of Mr. Trump. That’s been fantastic for traditional media outlets. They have more viewers and sell more papers than ever before.
That is correct, this change (but actually just more Trump) has been great for their viewcount, however what you shouldn't forget is that behind these news companies you have large companies and donors who do like the status quo. After all, the status quo got them in power and made them able to influence/buy these msm outlets.
Most Sanders speeches sound kind of like an angry political science professor lecturing us on the economic systems of the Nordic states.
People are constantly trying yo equate his ideas with countries like Venezuela, so ofcourse he's going to correct them and furthermore, what is wrong to use an example that has proven his ideas work?
His events are policy driven and boring, which doesn’t do anything for profit-motivated outlets.
This isn't different from Warren, yet you told yourself she's an msm darling.
He’s spent a career building trust with voters.
LMAO. Go outside and ask Biden supporters why they support him. You'll hear things like "electability", unity, defeating Trump, Obama, ... You'll only rarely hear things from his actual record. This trust people have with Biden is because of the image that Obama trusted him and that he was Obama's pall. If people support him based on his career, he wouldn't get a sliver of the african-american vote. The only reason he has the african-american vote is him being associated with Obama, the same happened with Hillary. If Obama comes out tomorrow and endorses someone else then Biden, his support would be gone in a weak definitely from the African-American voters.
This is his third time running for president, so he’s spent more time in early primary states than anybody else in the field.
Hillary spend two elections with her husband and also ran in 2008 and nearly defeat Obama in the primaries. Joe biden dropped out early in 1988 and in 2008 he dropped out in January after getting less than 1% in Iowa. It doesn't seem that running multiple times seriously helps. Furthermore, while Biden ran two times before, Bernie could just continue his 2016 campaign, which in my eyes is much better than running three campaigns with at least 10 years inbetween every campaign.
He’s built relationships with democratic volunteers in those states
And Bernie got a million volunteers from all states in just 6 days. I don't think Biden can trump Bernie in volunteers.
and he’s been listening to what voters have to say in those town halls for decades.
That is probably one of the worst arguments so far. What is said in 1988 is far from what is being said now. If runs based on what is said back then, he'd not even be in the running.
But it’s because he spent 2008 to 2016 connecting with voters and establishing himself as an ally to the black community.
And this was only possible because he was Obama's VP.
And Biden’s just better at retail politics than anyone else in the field.
Really? We are talking about the same person, right? The guy that has twice as few events, meetings and interview than other candidates. The guy that before his VP-ship couldn't get more than a few % nationally (and in most states) and this time (coïncidently after his VP-ship) got in the 30's even before announcing or campaigning.
I’ve seen a ton of progressives on the internet express a lot of mistrust toward Warren. I don’t really understand that. The two seem virtually identical to me on policy.
It's quite easy, she was first a republican and in 2016 she supported Hillary instead of Bernie, a fellow progressive. She doesn't speak out against the military industrial complex, she is definitely not good on foreign policy, she's having meetings with the DNC establishment, she said she was going to accept money from everywhere in the general. Many believe she might cave much more easily to political pressure once president compared to Bernie and they fear Trump will eat her alive or that she will become Obama 2.0, many promises, but not much done or not fighting enough to change things as promised during the primaries.
Progressives were really dissapointed with Obama's presidency and don't want this dissapointment repeated. And the msm suddenly seeing her as one of their favorites only increased the fear with progressives that they are right and that she'll prove to be a sell out, a hidden status quo candidate.
On the other hand, Bernie has proven throughout his entire career to stand by his policies and principles, that he is steadfast and will truly fight to improve the lives of ordinary people.
Honestly from you comment, I can clearly see that you are in what progressives cal the msm/dnc/establishment bubble. And thinking like you do is exactly what lost the democrats 1000 seats and the 2016 election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1