Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-16-2019, 09:48 AM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 622

"Elizabeth Warren Retreats From Medicare for All" Good for her campaign?


Quote:
Elizabeth Warren Retreats From Medicare for All

If Warren believes that what’s possible is limited to a public option, she should just say so. It would not be illegitimate for Warren to argue that she would rather support a compromise measure that she believes has a better chance of passing—though in that case, she will have to own the substantive inadequacies and diminished public health that arise from that decision. If, however, she actually wants to pass Medicare for All, leaving that project to her third year in office makes no sense—unless the plan is to create an escape hatch from her promise of single-payer. There are two possibilities: Either Warren is naive, or she believes voters to be.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1557...reats-medicare
  #2  
Old 11-16-2019, 10:47 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,213
Hard to say.

It does make me more likely to vote for her, since it signals that she is willing to be pragmatic and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but still has the right goals in mind. But I'm probably not the audience she is aiming at.

In the primary I think it depends on the staying power of Sanders. If it evolves into a two person race of Biden vs Warren, I think it probably helps, since even with a moderated message, she is still the better choice for the activist left, and this softening of her views might make moderates less worried about voting for her. But if Sanders stays in, then she may find herself squeezed with activists seeing her as not a true believer and sticking with Sanders, while the moderates stick with Biden.

In the general election, anything she can do to shift to the middle will probably help her. After 2016, no liberal is going to decide to stay home out of spite just because the Democratic candidate is not radical enough. The way we lose is if the Republicans can portray the Democrat to be just as dangerous as Trump. Unfortunately, whether or not she moderates her tone, the Republicans will use previous sound bites paint her as a communist radical looking to abolish capitalism and turn us into Soviet Russia, so I'm not sure how much good it will do.
  #3  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:17 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,113
Repeating a little from what I said in the "Hee Haw ..." thread but ...

First - if this had been what she went with in the first place it would have been fine or at least not far from it. Her timeline is unrealistic but the idea that step one is to support the ACA, expand real Medicare (what we have now that people are most content with) as a buy-in option, and have some public buy-in option available to all, with step two giving a few years for those plans to simply outcompete the privates in the marketplace as consumers/voters see it is a better value, is a good one IMHO. The timeline is unrealistic in several ways ... reality is that there would be just one or two year of experience with a plan which will without question have initial implementation hiccups before she says she'd move on "true MfA", too soon for anyone to be convinced of anything ... and it commits all of her battle of the first term to healthcare, which really is not the only or even single most pressing issue we face as a country and as a world leader. Yeah yeah we can do more than one thing at the same time but big battles take resources and attention both of which there is only so much of. Climate change matters more, for example, and many others at least as much.

Second, the damage is to a large degree done. Her all in embrace has shown how poor her judgement is, in many ways on many levels. Looking for a second merely tactically she made the bad choice to move as hard to revolutionary progressive as she could ... but still failed to get Sanders core to leave him (they won't) while pushing away all the less revolutionary progressives to center left folk who were coming to her as more electable than Biden (as Biden has ... not been inspiring confidence). I'm in that group and I now see her as a much riskier choice than she was before this embrace. Tacking back now does not undo that. I now see Sanders as maybe a less risky choice than her and I see him as a very risky choice indeed.

Now maybe enough just haven't been paying attention yet and she can successfully play this way to get there over time as a public option proves itself to the public as what she always intended, not as flipping around in response to perceived election needs? Not sure. Iowa has been paying attention and I think there at least this will end up having her now both lose some progressives to Sanders while not regaining any support that has gone to Buttigieg.

The question is if this will be perceived as fine-tuning the details of the plan or flip-flopping. If she can sell the former she is a better politician than I think she is.
  #4  
Old 11-16-2019, 11:24 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Repeating a little from what I said in the "Hee Haw ..." thread but ...

First - if this had been what she went with in the first place it would have been fine or at least not far from it. Her timeline is unrealistic but the idea that step one is to support the ACA, expand real Medicare (what we have now that people are most content with) as a buy-in option, and have some public buy-in option available to all, with step two giving a few years for those plans to simply outcompete the privates in the marketplace as consumers/voters see it is a better value, is a good one IMHO. The timeline is unrealistic in several ways ... reality is that there would be just one or two year of experience with a plan which will without question have initial implementation hiccups before she says she'd move on "true MfA", too soon for anyone to be convinced of anything ... and it commits all of her battle of the first term to healthcare, which really is not the only or even single most pressing issue we face as a country and as a world leader. Yeah yeah we can do more than one thing at the same time but big battles take resources and attention both of which there is only so much of. Climate change matters more, for example, and many others at least as much.

Second, the damage is to a large degree done. Her all in embrace has shown how poor her judgement is, in many ways on many levels. Looking for a second merely tactically she made the bad choice to move as hard to revolutionary progressive as she could ... but still failed to get Sanders core to leave him (they won't) while pushing away all the less revolutionary progressives to center left folk who were coming to her as more electable than Biden (as Biden has ... not been inspiring confidence). I'm in that group and I now see her as a much riskier choice than she was before this embrace. Tacking back now does not undo that. I now see Sanders as maybe a less risky choice than her and I see him as a very risky choice indeed.

Now maybe enough just haven't been paying attention yet and she can successfully play this way to get there over time as a public option proves itself to the public as what she always intended, not as flipping around in response to perceived election needs? Not sure. Iowa has been paying attention and I think there at least this will end up having her now both lose some progressives to Sanders while not regaining any support that has gone to Buttigieg.

The question is if this will be perceived as fine-tuning the details of the plan or flip-flopping. If she can sell the former she is a better politician than I think she is.
I agree. A skillful politician will be able to message this as "Look, I haven't changed my position, I meant this all along." Let's see if she can make this "retreat" appear more as a clarification. And it's likely that, yes, the fact that not many people are actually paying much attention yet nationally may help her with this. I don't think this is the ship-sinker many think it is.
  #5  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:03 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I agree. A skillful politician will be able to message this as "Look, I haven't changed my position, I meant this all along." Let's see if she can make this "retreat" appear more as a clarification. And it's likely that, yes, the fact that not many people are actually paying much attention yet nationally may help her with this. I don't think this is the ship-sinker many think it is.
Did I really believe that Warren, were she to win in 2020, would not compromise her UHC position when it finally came time to legislate and get it done? Did I fuck. Honestly, did anyone?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #6  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:14 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
And it's likely that, yes, the fact that not many people are actually paying much attention yet nationally may help her with this. I
The problem being that there is plenty of pretty direct evidence of her arguing against those who supported policies closer to her new position. Her position wasn't just buried as a platform statement on her campaign website with some mentions at campaign events. She dueled with other candidates about it indirectly through media statements. She argued with them during debates. Those candidates have every reason to bring it up when the bulk of voters are actually paying attention. Warren basically spoonfed them convenient video clips for their attack ads. As long as Sanders, is in the race he also has reason to attack her for abandoning Medicare For All.

I don't think ignorance is going to help her much on this one.
  #7  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:15 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Did I fuck.
If you have to ask, you probably didn't.
  #8  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
This could be very disconcerting for the Warren crowd. They are very concerned about flip flops about healthcare. Very very concerned. At least when Buttigieg supposedly does it.
  #9  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:56 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,188
This will give the image that Warren is someone who flips on an issue based off of polling. How can you count on her to deliver something if she backs off just because it's not popular at the time?
  #10  
Old 11-16-2019, 12:58 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
If you have to ask, you probably didn't.
You responded to the one sentence I wrote that wasn't phrased as a question.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #11  
Old 11-16-2019, 01:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,524
So a politician panders when it seems productive and panders less when that seems productive. Seems typical.
  #12  
Old 11-16-2019, 01:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Did I really believe that Warren, were she to win in 2020, would not compromise her UHC position when it finally came time to legislate and get it done? Did I fuck. Honestly, did anyone?
Did anyone? Yes I am fairly confident that some believe the revolutionary progressive mindset that compromise is failure, better nothing than compromise, better to burn down the building than to compromise. These are the people on the Left who view Obama as a failure. Compromise means you did not fight hard enough is all.

Cynicism about promises to do the impossible is of course realistic. If all voters were realistic Sanders and Warren would not have the support they have. I don't bank on voters being realistic. Support is often about hitting the right emotional connection notes, be it channelling anger or hope or other.

Making promises to deliver the impossible while demeaning those who come up with ambitious, still hard to pull off, but more possible plans (which I believe expansion of Medicare, a public option buy-in, as a next step, building and supporting a very successful first steps ACA, is) as just not willing to fight hard enough, because what we have now with the ACA is a dysfunctional and cruel thing, as just not having the guts to stand up for them, as supporting only Medicare for all who can afford it? (If you need me to find cites for her taking those stances I am pretty sure I can.)

And then when that message does not sell as well as you hoped tacking back to the positions you had derided? (Albeit with a tacked on impossible to deliver next step.)

It is a bad look. Again, maybe she can sell it.
  #13  
Old 11-16-2019, 01:59 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,235
As a Pete supporter that has been torched on Twitter by her nastiest trolls, I’m just making popcorn.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #14  
Old 11-16-2019, 02:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,235
Good for her.
  #15  
Old 11-17-2019, 12:01 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,709
I doubt it's bad for her campaign. People whose priority was Medicare For All didn't have much of a reason to support her in the first place. One of the reasons it was a little vexing that she was becoming the avatar for all the funding/implementation conundrums (due to both some bad decisions on her campaign's part, as well as weird media decisions like devoting every debate to non-presidential issues like the exact content of a congressional bill) was that she was never the definitely-do-M4A candidate. That was, always has been, and always will be Bernie. Warren avoided healthcare altogether for months, and made it clear that it was a secondary/tertiary issue after things like corruption.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-17-2019 at 12:04 AM.
  #16  
Old 11-17-2019, 12:18 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 258
This flip-flop is like going from "I will give every American a unicorn" to "I will give every American a pink pony."
  #17  
Old 11-17-2019, 03:29 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
Some might think switching from magical characters to unfortunately dyed non-magical characters is a big plot swing. Others may not.
  #18  
Old 11-17-2019, 03:36 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,973
Either way, it’s a horse of a different color.
  #19  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:12 AM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
The problem with a flip based on the polls is that it is incoherent. She's produced this huge plan, and couldn't see the serious flaws with it? She couldn't anticipate the criticism? But as soon as the polls look bad she abandons it? Does she not have any confidence in her work? Surely she has already considered the objections, given that they are obvious and not small matters. So either way, her judgement looks bad.

But this is just the first in a string of bad ideas. Her first serious proposal for the 'Green New Deal' to fight climate change is... A 182 billion dollar program to rebuild public housing. Because weather stripping and solar panels. A cynical use of climate change to push a left-wing agenda, which even Mother Jones called her out on.

Her tax policies are being ripped apart by economists on the left and right. Is she going to bail on that too? She needs those 70% tax rates, wealth taxes, and all her other revenue collection schemes to pay for even 10% of what she is promising.

The thing is, all of her ideas involve 'radical restructuring', because she's a 'tear it all down and rebuild it the right way', person. Small changes on the margin are not her thing. But no one's looking for a bleemin' progressive revolution in 2020. The economy is roaring, unemployment is low, wages are rising for the middle class and billionaire wealth is declining. That's not a formula for electing a revolutionary.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 11-17-2019 at 04:15 AM.
  #20  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:37 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
She needs those 70% tax rates, wealth taxes, and all her other revenue collection schemes to pay for even 10% of what she is promising.
Cite? Or are you just speaking colorfully?
  #21  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
I've always felt Warren was a combination of Bernie's big dreams and Obama's pragmatism. This is actually a very positive development because it reassures progressives that she's not going to commit to a policy that will get shot down by her own party.
  #22  
Old 11-17-2019, 09:51 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I've always felt Warren was a combination of Bernie's big dreams and Obama's pragmatism. This is actually a very positive development because it reassures progressives that she's not going to commit to a policy that will get shot down by her own party.
I guess my question to you is: do you think she actually meant what she’d been saying before, and actually means what she’s saying now? Or is it that she still thinks the same way she did before, and merely changed what she’s saying?
  #23  
Old 11-17-2019, 10:15 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I guess my question to you is: do you think she actually meant what she’d been saying before, and actually means what she’s saying now? Or is it that she still thinks the same way she did before, and merely changed what she’s saying?
I don't really care: I think she wants to expand access to the healthcare system for nearly everyone. Like others, she's trying to figure out the best way to do that without scaring people and allowing her proposal to fall victim to propaganda.
  #24  
Old 11-17-2019, 11:30 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,638
I know I’m an outlier on this, but, to me, representative is a job title. The job of the representative is to represent the views of their clients (in this case, their constituents). Ideally, this persons personal viewpoints would align with that of her constituents and the policies that she’s promoting but that’s a very small piece of the puzzle for me.

It should be a back and forth process. Part of being a successful representative is sussing out what your constituents want and modifying your stance accordingly — as well as bringing as many of your constituents as possible around to your point of view. So, what many critics regard as “flip-flopping” I see as “doing your job”. Yes, there has to be a certain artfulness to your position shifts, but the fact that political positions shift doesn’t bother me in the least. The content of the platform/policy changes sometimes bothers me - especially if I aligned more closely with the old positions, but the idea of shifting positions doesn’t.
  #25  
Old 11-17-2019, 11:42 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I doubt it's bad for her campaign. People whose priority was Medicare For All didn't have much of a reason to support her in the first place. One of the reasons it was a little vexing that she was becoming the avatar for all the funding/implementation conundrums (due to both some bad decisions on her campaign's part, as well as weird media decisions like devoting every debate to non-presidential issues like the exact content of a congressional bill) was that she was never the definitely-do-M4A candidate. ...
She not only allowed herself to get sucked in, she tried to position herself as the leader on "a plan for that." Even with this tack back she is placing revolutionizing what we've accomplished with the ACA as the big item for her first term to try to accomplish. Somehow she and her team, chasing Sanders' voters, have actively made that the key aspect of her brand, to be prioritized over everything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I've always felt Warren was a combination of Bernie's big dreams and Obama's pragmatism. This is actually a very positive development because it reassures progressives that she's not going to commit to a policy that will get shot down by her own party.
IMHO - nah.

She made herself fairly unattractive to the larger group who actually like what the ACA is doing, who would much prefer building on it, and those who had begun to consider her as more electable, without picking up any of the Sanders support she was aiming for, and now is making herself less appealing to them as well. The debate moderators huge focus on healthcare may have put the brush in her hand, but the she's the one who painted herself into the corner she is now stuck in.

To the degree that voters care about "authenticity" I think she has lost it.

ALL the candidates want "to expand access to the healthcare system for nearly everyone." Lots of progress has been made in getting there and building on the ACA can make a great deal more progress (see some analysis by The Commonwealth Fund) SHE however took the angle of condemning anyone who did not agree with the MfA approach to doing that as candidates who really only wanted to provide care for those who could afford it, and as candidates without the guts to dream big and fight hard.
  #26  
Old 11-17-2019, 01:15 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,334
Well, OK, maybe we can't. Or maybe we can't yet. I want a progressive candidate that tells me the truth, if we can't yet go there, what steps need we take to get closer?
  #27  
Old 11-17-2019, 03:02 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,188
Furthermore, Warren had years and years of time to do the research and homework on MfA. She should have known all the details cold before even throwing her hat into the ring. For a candidate to promise something, then say, "Well, errr, on second thought, it looks like we didn't do the math" suggests a shoddy, thrown-together campaign mindset.
  #28  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:22 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Well, OK, maybe we can't. Or maybe we can't yet. I want a progressive candidate that tells me the truth, if we can't yet go there, what steps need we take to get closer?
'Progressives'' are only about 20% of the electorate. And they are only about 30% of the Democratic party, which is why Biden is still in the lead despite the fact he's basically in the candidate protection program to keep him out of the public where he tends to say stupid things that get him in trouble.

If your candidate is too far to the left for the Democrats, imagine how they will do in a general election. That's how you get four more years of Trump.

Democrats seem to be thinking that Trump is so hateful and weak that they can finally run their dream lefty candidates and win. What they 'should' be thinking is that Trump is so bad and so dangerous that now is not the time to risk running an extreme candidate who might lose. They should be focused like a laser beam on finding a compromise candidate who can attract moderate Democrats, independents, and Republicans sick of Trump. Get rid of the orange man, try to take the Senate back, then they can move to the left in the next election.

Obama has been sounding this alarm for weeks. You should listen to him.
  #29  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:35 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Another thing Progressives should worry about: The black and hispanic vote. Progressives are heavily made up of young, white, college educated people. More women than men. In the meantime, the most socially conservative cohort in the party is black and hispanic.

If I were a Democrat, I'd be very worried about losing those votes that they have been taking for granted for decades. Trump is already making inroads here. Black and hispanic unemployment is at an all-time low, wages are up for blue-collar workers, and Kanye's album is #1. He's now going around preaching to blacks in sold-out stadiums as an unabashed Trump-supporting Christian.

If the Republicans become the party of blue collar populism and the Democrats become the party of white college educated progressives built around a coalition of feminists, gay people and open borders, just where do you think some of those socially conservative, religious black and hispanic votes might go?

If the Democrats lose even 20% of their current share of black and hispanic voters, they cannot win. They'll become the party of the urban coasts and a few large dysfunctional cities, and that's about it. If Warren keeps yapping about completely banning fracking and offshore drilling while taking away the hard-fought gold-plated health care plans of blue collar union workers, she'll drive another nail in the coffin, and guarantee the loss of electoral college votes in otherwise winnable states in the midwest and northeast.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 11-17-2019 at 04:38 PM.
  #30  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:38 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If the Republicans become the party of blue collar populism and the Democrats become the party of white college educated progressives built around a coalition of feminists, gay people and open borders, just where do you think some of those socially conservative, religious black and hispanic votes might go?
As long as the GOP is the racist party (the party of Steve King, Stephen Miller, Rush Limbaugh, the Trumps, and many more racists), as it currently is -- welcoming white nationalists and white supremacists within its ranks, including Congress and the White House -- the chances of these voters going to the GOP is nil.
  #31  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:49 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As long as the GOP is the racist party (the party of Steve King, Stephen Miller, Rush Limbaugh, the Trumps, and many more racists), as it currently is -- welcoming white nationalists and white supremacists within its ranks, including Congress and the White House -- the chances of these voters going to the GOP is nil.
Trump did better than Romney with blacks and hispanics, and he did so even though Hillary grabbed something like 94% of black and hispanic females. We have no idea how much of that was due specifically to Hillary, and how they'd vote against say, a gay white male candidate. Or a white male billionaire.

And the 'racism' that you see everywhere is part of the progressive worldview. Most people don't equate wanting stronger borders with racism. If you asked the average person to describe the characteristics of Trump, they'd call him a loudmouth, a boor, a sexist, a business crook perhaps, lots of things. 'Racist' wouldn't automatically come to mind. And the 'white supremacists' in the Republican party aren't anti-black. If anything, they are anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner. There are blacks in the 'white supremacist' far right.

Again, progressives see 'white supremacist' when others might see blue-collar people trying to protect their jobs from immigrants and their way of life from culture shock. And guess what? That describes a lot of blacks and hispanics, who are the demographic groups hardest hit from cheap immigrant labour.

There's a big difference between a Klan member and a rural hispanic family terrified of losing their jobs to cheap illegal immigrant labor.
  #32  
Old 11-17-2019, 04:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Trump did better than Romney with blacks and hispanics, and he did so even though Hillary grabbed something like 94% of black and hispanic females. We have no idea how much of that was due specifically to Hillary, and how they'd vote against say, a gay white male candidate. Or a white male billionaire.
Gee, what could that be due to? Wait a sec, was Romney the guy who ran against Obama? Hmm, do you think Obama had something to do with Romney performing worse? Maybe?
  #33  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I doubt it's bad for her campaign. People whose priority was Medicare For All didn't have much of a reason to support her in the first place...
Bernies plan, called MfA, was not in any way shape or form MfA. It was just called that, which led to endless confusion. A REAL MfA plan could work. Bernies plan was pie in the sky.
  #34  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Most people don't equate wanting stronger borders with racism.
Neither do I.

Quote:
If you asked the average person to describe the characteristics of Trump, they'd call him a loudmouth, a boor, a sexist, a business crook perhaps, lots of things. 'Racist' wouldn't automatically come to mind.
Actually, a majority of voters think Trump is racist. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/1877168001/

Trump is doing absolutely nothing to change this perception in his favor.

Quote:
And the 'white supremacists' in the Republican party aren't anti-black. If anything, they are anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner.
Lots of them are anti-black, and certainly they tolerate anti-black rhetoric from many of their fellow Republicans.

Quote:
There are blacks in the 'white supremacist' far right.
If accurate, this doesn't tell us anything -- there were (very few) Jews who cooperated with Nazis; (very few) blacks who helped the Confederacy and Jim Crow system; etc.

Quote:
Again, progressives see 'white supremacist' when others might see blue-collar people trying to protect their jobs from immigrants and their way of life from culture shock. And guess what? That describes a lot of blacks and hispanics, who are the demographic groups hardest hit from cheap immigrant labour.

There's a big difference between a Klan member and a rural hispanic family terrified of losing their jobs to cheap illegal immigrant labor.
You are not accurately describing the views of progressives here. Border security is not racist. Deliberately separating immigrant families and harming migrant children because the administration believes that deliberately harming children deters future migration is racist, as an example. Calling majority black countries "shithole countries" is racist. Etc.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-17-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #35  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:25 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Gee, what could that be due to? Wait a sec, was Romney the guy who ran against Obama? Hmm, do you think Obama had something to do with Romney performing worse? Maybe?
Of course. Which is why you shouldn't take that vote for granted when you replace a charismatic, center-left black candidate with a far-left white candidate whose constituency is primarily college educated progressives.
  #36  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
That kinda goes in the "no shit" file. Obama being a high water mark is not a mystery to anyone. But you didn't even mention his name. It was "Trump beat Romney".
  #37  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:45 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You are not accurately describing the views of progressives here. Border security is not racist. Deliberately separating immigrant families and harming migrant children because the administration believes that deliberately harming children deters future migration is racist, as an example.
Um, that doesn't follow. If true (I have never heard this 'intentionally hurting children' thing), how can it be racist to do that if it isn't racist to prevent them from coming into the country in the first place? The only way it would be racist is if they were doing this because of the child's race. Child abuse does not equate to racism. Or are you suggesting that they are only picking out children of certain races for this treatment?

Quote:
Calling majority black countries "shithole countries" is racist. Etc.
Is it? Really? Are you denying that there are 'shithole countries'? If there are, are we not allowed to say that if some of them happen to be majority black? What about countries like Syria, which has plenty of 'white' people? And did he ever say that the reason these countries are 'shithole' countries was because of the ethnicity of the people?

Somalia is a 'shithole country' that happens to be majority black. But its shithole status has nothing to do with the color of the people, and everything to do with the despicable tyrants that have been in power there, stealing resources and preventing capital formation by the public to keep anyone from building political power that might threaten the corrupt rulers.

So am I a racist for saying that?
  #38  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:50 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That kinda goes in the "no shit" file. Obama being a high water mark is not a mystery to anyone. But you didn't even mention his name. It was "Trump beat Romney".
Yes, but I wasn't trying to make a point about Trump, but rather that Democrats shouldn't count on getting those high levels of black support forever. Democrats had high black support because of the civil rights movement and because Democrats spoke more to issues that blacks cared about.

If the Democrats become the party of open borders, climate change taxes and white progressive 'woke' politics, they risk alienating huge swaths of their former constituencies who are blue-collar and socially conservative.
  #39  
Old 11-17-2019, 05:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Um, that doesn't follow. If true (I have never heard this 'intentionally hurting children' thing), how can it be racist to do that if it isn't racist to prevent them from coming into the country in the first place? The only way it would be racist is if they were doing this because of the child's race. Child abuse does not equate to racism. Or are you suggesting that they are only picking out children of certain races for this treatment?
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_...icy#Motivation

Trump administration officials are on record for advocating purposefully harming children, by separating them from their families, for deterrent purposes. It's not credible to claim that they would be willing to do the same to white people, not when Trump and his team are on record, over and over again, saying racist things about Hispanic migrants.

Quote:
Is it? Really? Are you denying that there are 'shithole countries'? If there are, are we not allowed to say that if some of them happen to be majority black? What about countries like Syria, which has plenty of 'white' people? And did he ever say that the reason these countries are 'shithole' countries was because of the ethnicity of the people?

Somalia is a 'shithole country' that happens to be majority black. But its shithole status has nothing to do with the color of the people, and everything to do with the despicable tyrants that have been in power there, stealing resources and preventing capital formation by the public to keep anyone from building political power that might threaten the corrupt rulers.

So am I a racist for saying that?
Trump's assertions lack any of this nuance. You seem willing to bend over backwards on the tiny chance that these ridiculous, ignorant, and hateful assertions by Trump and his administration might not be motivated by any ill-feeling towards black people, Hispanic people, or others. That's just ridiculous. We know who this guy is, and who the people he's surrounded himself are. They've shown who they are again and again -- from 'Mexicans are rapists' to 'the judge can't do his job because he's Mexican' to spreading a racist, evidence-free conspiracy theory (birtherism) for many years to telling American women of color serving in Congress that they should 'go back to where they came from' to praising white supremacists at Charlottesville...

It's just not credible. It's ridiculous. We've heard it again and again from his mouth and from those serving him. I don't know why you'd want to go to so much effort to insist that none of this is relevant to his various policies that just so happen to harm people of color.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-17-2019 at 05:57 PM.
  #40  
Old 11-17-2019, 06:30 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,835
I'll take half a loaf rather than nothing.

But I don't think the democratic congress will even pass a public option, let alone medicare for all.

Buying into medicare for 5% of gross income really isn't bad. Its not M4A but its vastly superior to what we have now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #41  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
... Somalia is a 'shithole country' that happens to be majority black. But its shithole status has nothing to do with the color of the people, and everything to do with the despicable tyrants that have been in power there, stealing resources and preventing capital formation by the public to keep anyone from building political power that might threaten the corrupt rulers.

So am I a racist for saying that?
My bolding; how does that passage NOT describe Russia?

And, yes: it's pretty rare to hear someone on your side describe Russia as a shithole country---despite its history (past as well as recent) of dictators grabbing wealth for themselves and their cronies, while the mass of the population, lacking the freedoms and protections of a free society, live in reduced circumstances.

An economic powerhouse it is not; innovation? entrepreneurial strength? Nope. Russia has been bailed out to an extent by its oil. But its economy, without the oil, is basically a basket case.

Yet: somehow not a "shithole country"....now why would that be???
  #42  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:33 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Yes, but I wasn't trying to make a point about Trump, but rather that Democrats shouldn't count on getting those high levels of black support forever. Democrats had high black support because of the civil rights movement and because Democrats spoke more to issues that blacks cared about.

If the Democrats become the party of open borders, climate change taxes and white progressive 'woke' politics, they risk alienating huge swaths of their former constituencies who are blue-collar and socially conservative.
Do you really think they'll run to become republicans? Republicans are the party of white southerners and rural whites. Blacks may not love the democratic party, but they aren't going to become republicans anytime soon IMO.

Black voters tend to be aligned with the democrats and against the GOP on immigration. Also despite pretending immigration is about the law, the GOP's attitudes about immigration are about keeping scary dirty brown people out of the country. This fact isn't lost on black people.

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/...e-accordingly/
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #43  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:50 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
... He's now going around preaching to blacks in sold-out stadiums as an unabashed Trump-supporting Christian. ...
He is??

Only if you call a conference room somewhere near a stadium a stadium.
Quote:
... The event was like a Trump rally in miniature. Instead of a large stadium, it was held in a conference room with about 400 people. Among them were some of Mr. Trump’s most loyal African-American supporters, including Herman Cain, the pizza mogul turned 2012 presidential candidate; Alveda King, a niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and anti-abortion leader; and Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, two African-American sisters and internet stars better known as Diamond and Silk.

It did not go unnoticed on social media that at least a couple of the people wearing “Blacks for Trump” were actually white ...
But yes ... it is true that if a GOP presidential candidate won 20% of the Black vote and kept the non-college educated white (NCEW) margins that Trump got they'd win. And a D who won more of the NCEW vote while keeping everything else the same would win.

It is unlikely that any D nominee, including a Black one, will recreate the performance Obama had in that demographic. HRC against Trump did better in Black turnout and share than any modern D candidate not named Obama.

Meanwhile running a fairly explicitly racist administration has impacts. 2018 midterms saw record midterm numbers for Hispanic and Black voters and they were voting for Democrats overwhelmingly (90% of Black voters voted D).

It would likely be true that a GOP that did not allow itself to be branded as the racist party could make inroads into non-white D support. Trumpism has gotten in the way of that bigly.
  #44  
Old 11-17-2019, 07:58 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Do you really think they'll run to become republicans? Republicans are the party of white southerners and rural whites. Blacks may not love the democratic party, but they aren't going to become republicans anytime soon IMO.

Black voters tend to be aligned with the democrats and against the GOP on immigration. Also despite pretending immigration is about the law, the GOP's attitudes about immigration are about keeping scary dirty brown people out of the country. This fact isn't lost on black people.

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/...e-accordingly/
Yes. In the Kremlin's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election they are known to have prioritized dissuading black voters from voting for Democrats:

Quote:
Russian trolls' chief target was 'black US voters' in 2016
9 October 2019
A Senate inquiry has concluded that a Russian fake-news campaign targeted "no single group... more than African-Americans."
It says Russian operatives used social media to deter black people from voting and planted subtly racist content to incite conflict between ethnicities.

The report comes two years into the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the 2016 election.
Social media firms say they are trying to prevent it from happening again.

Thousands of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and You Tube accounts created by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) were aimed at harming Hillary Clinton's campaign and supporting Donald Trump, the committee concludes.

More than 66% of Facebook adverts posted by the Russian troll farm contained a term related to race.
African-American community voters were discouraged from voting, and from supporting Hillary Clinton.
Posts with the titles "Our Votes Don't Matter," "Don't Vote for Hillary Clinton" and "A Vote for Jill Stein is Not a Wasted Vote" were specifically targeted at black voters, the report says. ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49987657

(This article goes into a lot of detail on the Russian operation, complete with pics of the made-up "advocacy groups" and so on.)

Black voters tend to be practical. Of course all voters, of any demographic, would like to believe that the candidate they support will give precedence to their best interests, or at least treat those interests equivalently to the interests of people of other demographics. But most people are realistic enough to acknowledge that there are a lot of competing interests. Smart people vote for the best possible outcome given the choices---not for an elusive "perfect" outcome.

Also, any black voter who becomes aware of how the GOP and Kremlin tried to manipulate him-or-her in 2016, is going to be much less interested in GOP/Kremlin messages this time around.
  #45  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:02 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I know I’m an outlier on this, but, to me, representative is a job title. The job of the representative is to represent the views of their clients (in this case, their constituents). Ideally, this persons personal viewpoints would align with that of her constituents and the policies that she’s promoting but that’s a very small piece of the puzzle for me.

It should be a back and forth process. Part of being a successful representative is sussing out what your constituents want and modifying your stance accordingly — as well as bringing as many of your constituents as possible around to your point of view. So, what many critics regard as “flip-flopping” I see as “doing your job”. Yes, there has to be a certain artfulness to your position shifts, but the fact that political positions shift doesn’t bother me in the least. The content of the platform/policy changes sometimes bothers me - especially if I aligned more closely with the old positions, but the idea of shifting positions doesn’t.
I agree with this. Efforts to paint evolving positions as a "lack of authenticity" and the like seem disingenuous to me. (Frankly, I think the "lacking authenticity" accusation is, fundamentally, just another excuse for dismissing an already-disliked candidate.)
  #46  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:15 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
My bolding; how does that passage NOT describe Russia?

And, yes: it's pretty rare to hear someone on your side describe Russia as a shithole country---despite its history (past as well as recent) of dictators grabbing wealth for themselves and their cronies, while the mass of the population, lacking the freedoms and protections of a free society, live in reduced circumstances.

An economic powerhouse it is not; innovation? entrepreneurial strength? Nope. Russia has been bailed out to an extent by its oil. But its economy, without the oil, is basically a basket case.
How long would it take $25/bbl crude to collapse the country? My meta-view: any rise in crude prices aids Putin and any fall hurts his interests, and all Russia short-term.

Quote:
Yet: somehow not a "shithole country"....now why would that be???
Because some Russians can still afford foreign holidays. I've spent time between Tehuantepec and Honduras, a region drawing more European than USAnian tourists, and I've validated some national stereotypes. If I see overweight, sunburnt, sloppily-dressed folks, I go downwind and inhale. If I smell body odor, they're from Russia; if not, they're from USA and spent more on soap. Otherwise they're pretty similar.
  #47  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:47 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
How long would it take $25/bbl crude to collapse the country? My meta-view: any rise in crude prices aids Putin and any fall hurts his interests, and all Russia short-term.
Yes. Russia is overly-dependent on just that one industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Because some Russians can still afford foreign holidays. I've spent time between Tehuantepec and Honduras, a region drawing more European than USAnian tourists, and I've validated some national stereotypes. If I see overweight, sunburnt, sloppily-dressed folks, I go downwind and inhale. If I smell body odor, they're from Russia; if not, they're from USA and spent more on soap. Otherwise they're pretty similar.
!!!

But, sure, some Russians make out well in their corrupt economy. In any corrupt economy, some people are going to be able to afford to go on vacations, with or without soap.
  #48  
Old 11-17-2019, 08:51 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
[Russia stuff]
Sorry for spinning off-topic with that last post. Does EW's politicking damage her campaign? I have no idea, any more than I know if any Dem moderates exist. Isn't the US electorate too polarized for moderation? (Yes, that's another thread around here.)

A leader accommodates their constituents or is soon out of work. How large a voting constituency can EW gather with ANY healthcare proposal?
  #49  
Old 11-18-2019, 01:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
... In the meantime, the most socially conservative cohort in the party is black and hispanic.

If I were a Democrat, I'd be very worried about losing those votes that they have been taking for granted for decades....
I forget: Anything 11 years or longer is considered decadeS, right? As recently as 2010, 42% of Hispanic voters said there "was no difference between D and R parties in their concern for Hispanics/Latinos."

To a large extent, the political division in today's America is not left vs right, but between truth and propaganda. The modern idea that truth is what we want it to be; that we should report not what is true but whatever falsities or exaggerations fit our agenda of the moment. Where do we all stand on that; key to today's division?

Mr. Stone? I didn't see your answer to my #20; did I miss it?
  #50  
Old 11-18-2019, 12:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Yes, but I wasn't trying to make a point about Trump, but rather that Democrats shouldn't count on getting those high levels of black support forever. Democrats had high black support because of the civil rights movement and because Democrats spoke more to issues that blacks cared about.
...
Do you really think minorities are gonna vote for the party which openly caters to racists?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017