View Poll Results: What should the 2020 Democratic main message be?
Positive: The importance of progressive causes (i.e., universal healthcare, UBI, forgiving student loan debt, reparations, etc.) 39 69.64%
Negative: The harm of Trump - focus on how important it is to get him out of office 7 12.50%
Other 10 17.86%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2019, 03:38 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,113

What should the Democratic 2020 main campaign message be?


Getting Trump out of office, and pushing for progressive causes, are of course not mutually exclusive. But by and large, one tends to supersede the other. Which would you prefer? (There is the "other" button in case I've left an excluded middle in the poll)
  #2  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:40 PM
black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dungaree High
Posts: 3,797
I voted positive, because I firmly believe that the major failure of the Clinton campaign was to deliberately avoid fully engaging with the base in every possible precinct.

In reality, I'd be ok with 75% positive, 25% "Fuck Trump."
  #3  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:51 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,523
Positive. It would be very easy to sincerely identify problems and propose solutions, and when needed or convenient, pivot from there to a message of "... and the Trump Administration is locking kids in cages while running trillion dollar deficits!" Plus the pussy grabbing, crime &etc. Basically anything you would want to criticize Trump for can be presented as a positive message, and then some.
  #4  
Old 07-28-2019, 07:55 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Running a negative campaign against trump in 2016 didn't stop 63 million people from voting for him.

I think a positive campaign may work, but it has to be realistic. The democrats are pussies so they won't pass any meaningful legislation even if they control congress. Democrats promising the moon and then being disorganized, tepid pussies will just result in democrats staying home in 2022.

Democrats don't need to win over trumps white nationalist base. They just need to win enough non-whites, women and millennials in the northern Midwest to flip a few states.

So run on things that can be passed via executive order. Pete buttigeig has some ideas for this.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-28-2019 at 07:56 PM.
  #5  
Old 07-28-2019, 08:07 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,749
I went with positive, because Democrats suck at winning with a negative message. The last time that worked for Democrats was back in 1964. That election featured slogans like “In your guts you know he’s nuts” and other ads implying Goldwater might use nukes. Needless to say Clinton wasn’t nearly as skilled as LBJ was at pulling off such attacks, and I doubt any of the 2020 candidates would do much better.

ETA: Positive doesn't necessarily mean progressive. I think there is room for a positive campaign that runs on trying to win over moderates rather than the far left.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 07-28-2019 at 08:12 PM.
  #6  
Old 07-28-2019, 08:50 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,753
D. All of the above.
  #7  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,540
I voted positive but yeah the poll poisons the pot. Some of that list don’t ping my positive list even if they are all on the op’s.

I reality I’d suggest a near 50/50 mix. The specific ways Trump has failed this country, its citizens, and the world, matched with a positive and broadly inclusive vision for the future. Weighted slightly more to the latter.
  #8  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:02 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,820
I think in terms of engineering.

Say that you want to build a bridge to connect the two towns of Bobsville and Janana over the River Rutabaga. Everyone wants this. The only problem being that the politicians of Bobsville, Janana, and the county can't decide where to raise the money, how much money to raise, how to split the cost, which design to go for, who to hire, and so on.

The answer to this sort of engineering problem isn't, "A steel suspension bridge." If that's what you're going in selling, that's not of any use.

To get to where you need to get to, you have a whole chain of dependencies that need to be resolved. And by definition of being dependencies, they have to be resolved in the order that things are dependent on one another by.

Step 1 for this situation isn't architecture nor engineering, it's figuring out how to solve the political situation so that things like this are possible to do.

The can has been kicked down the road long enough. It's time to back away from "the issues" and deal with "the systemic issues". That's what is necessary right now and if you're selling that, then the American people are buying.

Get rid of gerrymandering; set up a rules to create a ticking time bomb situation for legally mandated appointments and Senate votes; create law that specifically defines when the President is and isn't immune from the law; and so on. Make sure that these are impeccably reasonable recommendations that distinctly do not advantage one party or the other. If you're fixing voting, don't throw in anything that could even tangentially increase votes by the poor nor anyone else.

A dozen gaps have been identified in the system in the last few decades. Fix the damn things and make sure that you're the good guy in all cases or you're not going to get those things passed. Minus sanity in the system, all other problems are moot.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-28-2019 at 09:04 PM.
  #9  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,820
And let me make my case further.

You want to pass health care? Really? You want all Americans to be covered and have access to medical options?

THAT WAS PASSED. We already had that, supposedly. If you're trying to sell that to me, and I think that you'll be able to give it to me, then I'm an idiot. Sure, maybe if you're lucky it will be passed, and then it will be taken away again.

All promises for anything, be it climate change, health care, LGBT rights, or what-have-you are lies. And that's regardless of whether the candidates actually believe in those causes and intend to do their best to achieve those policies. So long as politics is a sport where any gain by one team is a loss for the other and has to be rolled back when the other team comes in to power, it's all just nonsense. It's just mugging for the camera and mutual masturbation. When your team wins, it might feel like you've won something, but you haven't. It's an illusion. It's just an excuse to feel good for yourself, when you haven't actually accomplished anything.

Fix the fucking system. If you aren't working on that, if that's not the first and only thing out of your mouth, then you are a waste of our time and a waste to your country. The issues can wait till 2024. Embrace the suck and tackle the big challenge so that we're actually doing things that aren't illusory again.
  #10  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:29 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,504
- Orange man bad
- White people bad
- Religion bad
- USA bad.
- Accept all immigrants without limits and give them every possible perk of citizenship.
- Reparations

That's the winning message

Last edited by Ají de Gallina; 07-28-2019 at 09:30 PM.
  #11  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:52 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Get rid of gerrymandering; set up a rules to create a ticking time bomb situation for legally mandated appointments and Senate votes; create law that specifically defines when the President is and isn't immune from the law; and so on.
Good so far.
Quote:
Make sure that these are impeccably reasonable recommendations that distinctly do not advantage one party or the other. If you're fixing voting, don't throw in anything that could even tangentially increase votes by the poor nor anyone else.
Wait, what? Fixing voting means, by definition, making it easier for folks to participate in the political process. Maybe you can balance things out: ensure that active duty servicemembers can vote easily, because that's a good thing that happens to benefit Republicans. But you can't fix voting while ignoring some of the major problems with voting.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-28-2019 at 09:52 PM.
  #12  
Old 07-28-2019, 09:56 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Wait, what? Fixing voting means, by definition, making it easier for folks to participate in the political process. Maybe you can balance things out: ensure that active duty servicemembers can vote easily, because that's a good thing that happens to benefit Republicans. But you can't fix voting while ignoring some of the major problems with voting.
Removing gerrymandering is removing gerrymandering.

Adding in funding for research to figure out how to make it easier for the barely literate to vote, in an anti-gerrymandering bill, is pissing in the pool. Don't do that shit. Keep it real simple and real straightforward. Don't let even the hint of slime, liberal worldview, nor anything other than the basics into your work. Just keep your nose clean for 4 years and don't be a pack of morons. Run your plan by the most hardcore Republican you know and if they don't like something, take it the fuck out, regardless of whether that's fair or not.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-28-2019 at 09:57 PM.
  #13  
Old 07-28-2019, 10:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Removing gerrymandering is removing gerrymandering.

Adding in funding for research to figure out how to make it easier for the barely literate to vote, in an anti-gerrymandering bill, is pissing in the pool. Don't do that shit. Keep it real simple and real straightforward. Don't let even the hint of slime, liberal worldview, nor anything other than the basics into your work. Just keep your nose clean for 4 years and don't be a pack of morons.
Okay, you're conflating two completely different issues. As you say, removing gerrymandering is removing gerrymandering. It is NOT "fixing voting." That's a different issue.

But you're incorrect if you think that the particular solution to ending gerrymandering can be nonpartisan. Whatever model is chosen for ending gerrymandering is going to favor one party or another, relative to our current model; and you can be damned sure that both parties will know this, and fight for a model that favors them at the expense of their political opponents.

Your engineering hat is probably not as relevant to this conversation as one might hope.
Quote:
Run your plan by the most hardcore Republican you know and if they don't like something, take it the fuck out, regardless of whether that's fair or not.
This is incompatible with "don't be a pack of morons." The current model, in states like mine, favors Republicans. President of the NC senate Phil Berger will, and does, take out anything that doesn't favor Republicans.

This is precisely where your engineering hat is slipping down over your eyes.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-28-2019 at 10:34 PM.
  #14  
Old 07-28-2019, 11:43 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
...
- Accept all immigrants without limits and give them every possible perk of citizenship.
...
I keep seeing Trump supporters mention this and I am well and truly puzzled who they think is advocating for this to happen. Same for the call for "open borders".

Any chance you have link to show this is something the Democratic Party supports?

I assume the rest of your post falls in the joke/parody category.
  #15  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:32 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,920
Officially, run on making steady and sensible progress on reining in health care costs and expanding affordable access and improving our election processes so that the majority of voters are better represented in the corridors of power. I believe Trump and the GOP are extremely vulnerable on the first issue; their faith in the invisible hand of the market to solve the very real problems people are facing and their unwillingness to take positive action has made it clear to millions that their principles are entirely impotent in solving modern problems.

As to election reform, the Republicans are underestimating the resentment building over unfair systems and tactics that constantly favor a rural white minority at both state and federal levels. Their determination to retain power at the cost of fair democracy is a good area to bite them in their collective asses.

Unofficially, they need to flood social media with clips of the worst and dumbest things that Dumb Donald and Moscow Mitch have said. Let the hateful assholes hang themselves with their own words.
  #16  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:34 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
I keep seeing Trump supporters mention this and I am well and truly puzzled who they think is advocating for this to happen. Same for the call for "open borders".

Any chance you have link to show this is something the Democratic Party supports?

I assume the rest of your post falls in the joke/parody category.

Of course no one says like that, but I don't know of any clear plans for limiting illegal immigration that isn't, let them come in or any with a plan that doesn't incentivise others to come.

Even this Vice article doesn't point to any Dem candidate with a clear promise to put any limit and how that limit will be implemented.
  #17  
Old 07-29-2019, 10:14 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
I voted Positive, but none of the examples given are winning issues. Then again, I am a Republican, so I am trying to avoid saying "BY ALL MEANS you should be talking about reparations and student loan debt forgiveness and UBI and M4A" in the sense of "Please, please Br'er Fox - don't throw me into that briar patch!"

They "should" is also quite a different thing from they "will". They "should" have learned about running a negative campaign against Trump from 2016.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:16 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,397
Here's how I see it: the Dems should SHOW people that they're taking on Trump by impeaching the motherfucker between now and January.

But their stated MESSAGING should be positive.
  #19  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:46 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
They "should" have learned about running a negative campaign against Trump from 2016.
There is a difference between a negative campaign focused on his being a vile person, and one that focuses on how he has failed to deliver for the country and for the interests of his core voters. Negative on his record is not the same as negative on him as an example of human.
  #20  
Old 07-29-2019, 12:53 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,947
I went with negative for the reasons I gave in the portion quoted below to another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I am going to go counter to conventional wisdom and say that after the primaries Democrats should not concentrate on a clear positive message for what policies they will bring to the country. Policies are by their nature complicated and imperfect. Any realistic policy will include pluses and minuses. Republicans will find those minuses and focus all attention on what they are. So that instead of being the anti-global warming candidate, the Dem will be the the pro high gas price candidate. You can try to argue back and forth about which is true and which is a bigger problem but it ends up being at best a draw. 2016 showed that empty promises with no details are just as good if not better than complicated policies, but that the real vote getter is fear. People vote with their amygdala, not their cerebral cortex.

I would recommend concentrating on the president's corruption, lies, contempt for any checks and balances, and autocratic tendencies. Make it clear that what Trump has been normalizing is anything but normal and that if we continue down this road, we may go past the point of no return. It is easy to cobble together the statements that Trump as made to indicate that he wouldn't be satisfied with just two terms. We want to leave the impression that the 2020 election is all that stands between us and the world of the man in the high castle.
Also, there is no way that any of the "positive" campaign promises included in a positive Democratic message will actually be achievable. At best there will be a small majority in the Senate patched together with Centrist Democrats from Red states who will flee in terror from any step outside of the box, or more likely a turtled up Mitch who would like nothing better than the complete destruction of health and prosperity in the US, provided a Democrat is in charge at the time.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 07-29-2019 at 12:54 PM.
  #21  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:44 PM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There is a difference between a negative campaign focused on his being a vile person, and one that focuses on how he has failed to deliver for the country and for the interests of his core voters. Negative on his record is not the same as negative on him as an example of human.
That might be possible, but I doubt rather a lot that the Dems will be able to bring it off.

Plus, they will then not be able to talk about the economy, which is doing well and most voters will not fall for the "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes", and also not about his major campaign promise, which was to build the wall. Because nobody in their right mind will believe a Democrat who tries to argue that failure to build the wall is Trump's fault.

"Vote Democratic, because we will do better in fighting illegal immigration!" AKA "pull the other one, it's got bells on it."

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 07-29-2019, 01:53 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,233
Run on positive concepts that are agreed upon by most Democrats and most of the country, like even most leftists would agree that a "public option" alongside the current insurance system is better than what we have now. It may not be everything they want, but they'd vote for it. "Medicare option for all" in the limited polling we have on it vs "Medicare for all, private insurance for none", suggests the former is broadly popular across the entire electorate, the latter is not. Run on that.

Clean air and water also poll very well, something like 90% of people have said they would be fine paying a higher utility bill for an improved environment. I think the Dems have "hidden" from making the environment a political issue for so long they don't realize how broad-based support is for environmental causes.

I'm a conservative and it pains me, but when you want to go negative, go left-populist, it works. Talk about tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while the middle class withers, promise middle class taxpayers will not pay higher taxes, but rich people will.
  #23  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,744
What category is "We can fix the problems that Trump caused"?
  #24  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:08 PM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,681
"See what happens when you don't vote? It really does matter!"
  #25  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:26 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
You beat your opponent not only by exploiting his weakness but also by neutralizing his strength. Democrats have to start looking and feeling more comfortable visiting Trump country, even if they know that 60-70% of the voters in some of these counties will vote Trump -- it doesn't matter. You visit these places because it reassures people, particularly in the middle, that you will be a president for everyone, not just your own base. I also think that presenting a contrast, not by being the Democratic version of Trump, but by being simply the polar opposite anti-Trump in terms of personal and political style is more likely to be effective because a lot of people, even some of those who don't typically vote Democratic, are getting worn out by this president.

I am convinced that a lot of white voters who ended up voting for Obama were deeply skeptical and anxious about their vote when they cast their ballot, but as I've said before, Obama, through his words and actions, convinced people that even if he was Black and had a foreign sounding name and grew up in Hawaii and represented Chicago, while they still might not like his policies, they found it hard to dislike him on a personal level. Similarly, I am convinced that some of the others who just wanted to wait 4 to 8 years to vote for a "real" conservative did so because they didn't fear Obama would turn the nation upside down. I'm obviously not talking about the 30-35% of the country that hates liberals of all stripe, but I'm talking about the independents and some of the Wall Street republican types.

Last edited by asahi; 07-29-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #26  
Old 07-29-2019, 03:49 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 697
I voted "other" because, while I feel the Dems should focus on the positive benefits of their proposals, I don't agree that the proposals in the poll are the ones Dem candidates should push. I think we should focus on less disruptive, more mainstream solutions* to what most Americans can agree are problems -- and at the same time point out how Trump and the GOP have failed to improve them. For example:
  • Here's how we'll improve access to healthcare and control costs -- which Trump and the GOP have failed to do.
  • Here's how we'll make immigration more fair and more helpful to the economy -- which Trump and the GOP have failed to do.
  • Here's how we'll revive our manufacturing base for a more renewable, more international future -- which Trump and the GOP have failed to do.
  • Etc.
*Okay, also more vague and promise-y. Don't get into Medicare-and-no-private-insurance, just talk about expanded Medicare.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 07-29-2019 at 03:51 PM.
  #27  
Old 07-29-2019, 04:10 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,115
You really need to bury the progressive crap. That plays right into Trump's "Dems are Socialists/Commies" wheel house. If you go there, buckle in for four more years of Trump.

Trump bashing is already old, really don't want to hear another year and change of it.

I think the way to go is to find yourselves a squeaky-clean candidate, and then make the election about character. Maybe a veteran--but check them out thoroughly. No suprises.
  #28  
Old 07-29-2019, 05:20 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 194
If you think of the last three Democrats to win the presidency, there are unique ingredients from all three that can be merged into one for 2020.

You take the Carter blend of restoring honesty and decency back after scandals and lies of the recent years. For that you need to spend time on the ground, talking to the people on the ground, get to know their hopes and their fears and understand the human element of policy decisions more than staying rigid to what the political operatives think or what the polls suggest you ought to do. You make a large cornerstone of the campaign about a message of character - personal character and political courage to not be subservient to what is politically the safe route.

You take the Clinton blend of being able to orientate between politics and policy. Whether you like him or not he was (and maybe still is) a political genius because he could emphasise and show that human element of policy with his charisma and charm and then use it to his political gain. Take that famous clip from the 92' debate when a lady asked how Clinton and Bush were affected by the national debt. Bush gave a typical politician answer talking in broad and vague terms. Clinton answered specifically to his state, to the workers in his state, to the people who he saw suffer and why they did, to the people who told him they were hurt and how, and once he got the upper hand of having a connection to people because his response was one that resonates, then and only then he could outline what plan he had or what solutions he has to offer.

You take the Obama blend of mobilising a new generation through your conduct, your ideas, offering something new, something different. You try and encompass the best of America and remind people what America and Americans can be, at a time when we are exhausted at the tired and confusing image of what we are.

This unique mixture comprises the three factors of importance: integrity, connection and ideas.

If there is a candidate out there who can tick all three then I think 2020 is in the bag.

The problem is the candidate who comes closest to this in my opinion is polling low down - Beto O'Rourke. I hope his ground game is a lot better because if you look at some of the more progressive candidates - no doubting their motivation on their ideas but a lot of it is favourable among that base. Expand it to the wider electorate then you run into a problem. You cannot treat a national election as one size fits all. And then if you look at the man currently occupying that moderate lane and out in front of the pack, no doubting his motivation but he has a long record.

Last edited by Boycott; 07-29-2019 at 05:23 PM.
  #29  
Old 07-29-2019, 08:29 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Of course no one says like that, but I don't know of any clear plans for limiting illegal immigration that isn't, let them come in or any with a plan that doesn't incentivise others to come.

Even this Vice article doesn't point to any Dem candidate with a clear promise to put any limit and how that limit will be implemented.
I read the article you linked. I don't think it says what you are suggesting it says. Pathway to citizenship for asylum seekers and reforming ICE is not the same as flinging the doors wide open and as you said
Quote:
Accept all immigrants without limits and give them every possible perk of citizenship.
In fact, it seems the part I bolded in the above quote is not actually based in fact or reality.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 07-29-2019 at 08:30 PM.
  #30  
Old 07-29-2019, 08:39 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
All promises for anything, be it climate change, health care, LGBT rights, or what-have-you are lies. And that's regardless of whether the candidates actually believe in those causes and intend to do their best to achieve those policies. So long as politics is a sport where any gain by one team is a loss for the other and has to be rolled back when the other team comes in to power, it's all just nonsense. It's just mugging for the camera and mutual masturbation.
I understand cynicism when it comes to US politics but this takes it way too far. On a few of the issues you mention, the needle has moved drastically in the time period you list.

Homosexuals were just guaranteed equal protection in 2015! And they were because LGBT activists found court cases they could take to the supreme court, and 5 Supreme Court justices, 4 of whom were chosen by the party that has been advocating for LGBT rights for years and 2 of whom were appointed by the sitting democratic president, voted to grant them equal protection under the Constitution. You might disagree with this method of changing the law, but you can't argue that Democratic promises to LGBT constituents were lies.

The ACA obviously failed to deliver on many of its promises, but disallowing insurance companies from discriminating based on preexisting conditions was a sea change in American healthcare, and generally. Healthcare is also an odd one, because most major healthcare policies were actually implemented the "right" way by passing a real law through congress and observing congressional norms.

As it relates to the message the Democrats should emphasize, I think if there's a way to win over the American public by promising to restore norms, that way hasn't been found yet. If it were, there would be more Romney-Clinton voters than Obama-Trump voters. In fact, Trump basically won by promising to trample over every norm in the book. There's a reason we don't end up with presidents like John Kasich.
  #31  
Old 07-29-2019, 08:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
In fact, it seems the part I bolded in the above quote is not actually based in fact or reality.
I'm curious why you're picking that one particular quote out as not based in reality, when his entire post was a masterclass in ignorant misrepresentation of one's political opponents. Perhaps it was a joke or parody, as you suggested, but good god I hope that's not the current state of conservative political humor.
  #32  
Old 07-29-2019, 11:27 PM
Dongyang2016 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 28
Why in the poll is positive, “positive”? Universal Healthcare will bankrupt the country and will be totally unworkable. Universal Basic Income where everyone will be doled our money is insane. Why should I the taxpayer pay the tab for someone else’s student loans, and reparations? What? You forgot so called “climate change” to the list, where whole industries will have to be killed putting millions out of work and not allow the free markets and technologies work towards a solution.

You call these positives?
  #33  
Old 07-29-2019, 11:29 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongyang2016 View Post
Why in the poll is positive, “positive”? Universal Healthcare will bankrupt the country and will be totally unworkable. Universal Basic Income where everyone will be doled our money is insane. Why should I the taxpayer pay the tab for someone else’s student loans, and reparations? What? You forgot so called “climate change” to the list, where whole industries will have to be killed putting millions out of work and not allow the free markets and technologies work towards a solution.

You call these positives?
yes, they're positives. Pay up.
  #34  
Old 07-30-2019, 06:45 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongyang2016 View Post
Why in the poll is positive, “positive”? Universal Healthcare will bankrupt the country and will be totally unworkable. Universal Basic Income where everyone will be doled our money is insane. Why should I the taxpayer pay the tab for someone else’s student loans, and reparations? What? You forgot so called “climate change” to the list, where whole industries will have to be killed putting millions out of work and not allow the free markets and technologies work towards a solution.

You call these positives?
Yes. Next question.
  #35  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:08 AM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
Yes. Next question.
Okay, next question - what will you wear to Trump's second inauguration?

Regards,
Shodan
  #36  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:16 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,233
On PredictIt, Trump went from 40% to 45% the night after the debates. He's now at 47%. Because of ultra-progressive's stupid fucking ideas (in the context on the current political climate), Trump now has a 7% better chance of winning based on the best indicators we have. How could anyone think abolishing private insurance wouldn't scare the living fuck out of the middle class? Same for "giving free healthcare to undocumented immigrants." Even if it's the right thing to do (and cheaper than paying for ER visits) how do you think that plays with the average centrist in the Midwest? The far left are like a bunch of damn Veruca Salts. I want it NOW daddy! How about we put out the grease fire in the kitchen before we attempt to remodel it?
  #37  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:51 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 697
For once, I agree with Shodan. Trump and the GOP, by failing to meaningfully address (let alone solve) any of the real problems the country faces, have left the door wide open for the Dems to win 2020 with sensible, broad-appeal solutions. Instead, we're pushing extreme left ideas that are not only a turn-off for many centrists but only add credibility to the GOP's "becoming the next Venezuela" story.

Abolishing private health insurance, making college free for everyone and paying out reparations to the descendants of slaves? I get the appeal, but I'd rather see a Dem in the White House in 2021.

Edit: Didn't see KC's reply. He made my point better.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 07-30-2019 at 08:52 AM.
  #38  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:07 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,326
Ouch, my choice (negative) is getting creamed.
  #39  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:07 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
On PredictIt, Trump went from 40% to 45% the night after the debates. He's now at 47%. Because of ultra-progressive's stupid fucking ideas (in the context on the current political climate), Trump now has a 7% better chance of winning based on the best indicators we have. How could anyone think abolishing private insurance wouldn't scare the living fuck out of the middle class? Same for "giving free healthcare to undocumented immigrants." Even if it's the right thing to do (and cheaper than paying for ER visits) how do you think that plays with the average centrist in the Midwest? The far left are like a bunch of damn Veruca Salts. I want it NOW daddy! How about we put out the grease fire in the kitchen before we attempt to remodel it?
Think of it this way: Anyone who has health care now is paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, most are paying part of any coverage they get through their employer. That money adds up.
Do you know of anyone, friends, family, your Aunt's second cousin who is having problems paying for medical care or have gone bankrupt because of medical bills or getting some catastrophic illness like cancer or needing a transplant?
What Medicare for all will do is take that money you're paying to insurance companies and pay it to the government instead, who in turn will pay for all medical expenses for everybody. In most cases any tax for it will be less than what you're paying to insurance companies now. The Koch Brothers funded a study that found Medicare for all will cost the country less than if we just continued on with our present system.

So in effect Medicare for all will cut out the middle man - Insurance companies - who are making a nice profit on people's pain and suffering.

The plan is to phase it in over 4 years - lower the eligibility age from 65 to 55, the next year to 45, the next year to 35, and then everybody. This is a program that is already in place.
I've never heard of anybody who's turning 65 say they're afraid of going on Medicare.

Oh, yeah, undocumented immigrants: I don't know of any hospital who turns away anyone who needs care, do you? Why would they exclude undocumented people? You want some immigrant with a contagious disease wandering around untreated?

Last edited by Emily Litella; 07-30-2019 at 12:09 PM.
  #40  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:16 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongyang2016 View Post
Why in the poll is positive, “positive”? Universal Healthcare will bankrupt the country and will be totally unworkable. Universal Basic Income where everyone will be doled our money is insane. Why should I the taxpayer pay the tab for someone else’s student loans, and reparations? What? You forgot so called “climate change” to the list, where whole industries will have to be killed putting millions out of work and not allow the free markets and technologies work towards a solution.

You call these positives?
Yes. Have you done ANY research on these things?
__________________
NM
  #41  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:06 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Think of it this way: Anyone who has health care now is paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, most are paying part of any coverage they get through their employer. That money adds up.
Do you know of anyone, friends, family, your Aunt's second cousin who is having problems paying for medical care or have gone bankrupt because of medical bills or getting some catastrophic illness like cancer or needing a transplant?
What Medicare for all will do is take that money you're paying to insurance companies and pay it to the government instead, who in turn will pay for all medical expenses for everybody. In most cases any tax for it will be less than what you're paying to insurance companies now. The Koch Brothers funded a study that found Medicare for all will cost the country less than if we just continued on with our present system.

So in effect Medicare for all will cut out the middle man - Insurance companies - who are making a nice profit on people's pain and suffering.
I don't disagree with any of this, but even if mandatory, government-funded universal healthcare is the best way forward (a point many would debate) that doesn't mean it's a good 2020 campaign promise.

Right or wrong, a majority of Americans are OK with private health insurance. Promising to abolish it sounds like the kind of socialist-style overreach that will scare many undecided voters, and it plays right into the GOP's storyline: elect Democrats, and the US becomes the next Venezuela.

Talk about a transition. Talk about competition between Medicare and private insurance. But talk about a ban on private insurance and we'll be stuck with the same system for another generation.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #42  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:14 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I don't disagree with any of this, but even if mandatory, government-funded universal healthcare is the best way forward (a point many would debate) that doesn't mean it's a good 2020 campaign promise.

Right or wrong, a majority of Americans are OK with private health insurance. Promising to abolish it sounds like the kind of socialist-style overreach that will scare many undecided voters, and it plays right into the GOP's storyline: elect Democrats, and the US becomes the next Venezuela.

Talk about a transition. Talk about competition between Medicare and private insurance. But talk about a ban on private insurance and we'll be stuck with the same system for another generation.
I thought Republicans were more susceptible to fear mongering and propaganda from Trump than Democrats, but I guess if we take Trump at his word, then we deserve what we get.
__________________
NM
  #43  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I don't disagree with any of this, but even if mandatory, government-funded universal healthcare is the best way forward (a point many would debate) that doesn't mean it's a good 2020 campaign promise.

Right or wrong, a majority of Americans are OK with private health insurance. Promising to abolish it sounds like the kind of socialist-style overreach that will scare many undecided voters, and it plays right into the GOP's storyline: elect Democrats, and the US becomes the next Venezuela.

Talk about a transition. Talk about competition between Medicare and private insurance. But talk about a ban on private insurance and we'll be stuck with the same system for another generation.

Yes, and the contenders other than Bernie and Warren understand this. It’s typical left winger stubbornness. Get everyone healthcare, and don’t get all caught up in whether it’s a public-private patchwork.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 07-30-2019 at 02:17 PM.
  #44  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:50 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
I thought Republicans were more susceptible to fear mongering and propaganda from Trump than Democrats, but I guess if we take Trump at his word, then we deserve what we get.
I'm not worried about Rs or Ds being susceptible to fear mongering and propaganda -- I'm worried about the few hundred thousand undecideds in the middle who will decide the election. They already have ample reason to view Trump skeptically, but if they can be scared into thinking the Dems are too far left they just might stay home. Again.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 07-30-2019 at 02:50 PM.
  #45  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:57 PM
Shodan is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
What Medicare for all will do is take that money you're paying to insurance companies and pay it to the government instead, who in turn will pay for all medical expenses for everybody. In most cases any tax for it will be less than what you're paying to insurance companies now. The Koch Brothers funded a study that found Medicare for all will cost the country less than if we just continued on with our present system.

So in effect Medicare for all will cut out the middle man - Insurance companies - who are making a nice profit on people's pain and suffering.
Not exactly. The report I assume you are talking about mirrored the findings of another report by the Urban Institute. Those findings were based on the following assumptions.
  • We could cut drug prices significantly. That is, I suppose, possible, but it is not the same as saying "spend the same on drugs but it would cost less".
  • It assumed significant administrative savings. That is problematic, because the administrative costs of Medicare are partially done by other parts of the government. It still has to happen, and administrative costs have to be paid for, but it is important to note that having a different part of the government do the administration is not the same as saying it will automatically save costs.
  • It assumed no increase in utilization, and that people would get preventative care that would reduce health care costs down the line, and things like assuming they would go to their regular doctor instead of the expensive emergency room. This is also problematic. By and large, preventative care does not save money overall. And, under Obamacare, both visits to PHPs and to emergency rooms went up. Visits to regular doctors, IOW, were in addition to emergency room visits, and did not replace them.
  • More importantly, the report also assumed that all doctors and health care providers would be reimbursed at Medicare rates. Those rates are set by law. On average, doctors lose money treating 65-80% of their Medicare patients. They make up the difference by charging their other patients more.
Based on those assumptions, and if we doubled all payroll taxes instead of paying insurance premiums, it would save around $2 trillion over ten years. It would also add to the deficit - doubling payroll taxes would not replace insurance premiums enough to be revenue neutral - it would have to be higher - i.e. we would save less than $2 trillion, but how much less was not addressed.

Obviously we can't just say "replace all insurance premiums with taxes" because that would not save anything and there would be no particular advantage in M4A.

But the report did not find "we would save a lot of money by eliminating the middle man". It found "we would save a lot of money by paying doctors less than it cost them to deliver health care", and that is not at all the same thing.

In theory I suppose we could do it. Just tell doctors and clinics "it will take you a lot longer to pay off your $250,000 in medical school debt - now go figure out how to deliver the best health care possible while getting paid a lot less" but figuring out how to do it is harder than simply informing them it has to be done.

Regards,
Shodan
  #46  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:47 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Think of it this way: Anyone who has health care now is paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, most are paying part of any coverage they get through their employer. That money adds up.
Do you know of anyone, friends, family, your Aunt's second cousin who is having problems paying for medical care or have gone bankrupt because of medical bills or getting some catastrophic illness like cancer or needing a transplant?
What Medicare for all will do is take that money you're paying to insurance companies and pay it to the government instead, who in turn will pay for all medical expenses for everybody. In most cases any tax for it will be less than what you're paying to insurance companies now. The Koch Brothers funded a study that found Medicare for all will cost the country less than if we just continued on with our present system.

So in effect Medicare for all will cut out the middle man - Insurance companies - who are making a nice profit on people's pain and suffering.

The plan is to phase it in over 4 years - lower the eligibility age from 65 to 55, the next year to 45, the next year to 35, and then everybody. This is a program that is already in place.
I've never heard of anybody who's turning 65 say they're afraid of going on Medicare.

Oh, yeah, undocumented immigrants: I don't know of any hospital who turns away anyone who needs care, do you? Why would they exclude undocumented people? You want some immigrant with a contagious disease wandering around untreated?
I think you have may misunderstood me. I agree with you on the issues. I put "giving free healthcare to immigrants" in quotes in the original post because it's how the public sees it, not me. I agree that Medicare for All and healthcare for undocumented immigrants would probably be cheaper and certainly more humane. The problem is the Average Joe and Josie just hear their insurance is being taken from them and that we're giving a "damn free ride to those Mexicans." The Republicans would utterly destroy us on the messaging. Why? Because the reality is just too complex. The average person is simple and uninformed and just doesn't have the capacity to see second order effects. The ultra-progressive agenda is just too big a step for the centrist voters the Democrats will desperately need to win in 2020. I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren, but if Biden polls better against Trump I'll take him in a heartbeat. Getting Trump out of office is the single most important Democratic agenda there is.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 07-30-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #47  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:43 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,326
Yes, the MFA coverage for illegal immigrants idea is the most politically moronic idea ever. And it’s not just about emergency care, but regular primary care as well. This is right up there with Bernie’s plan to let prisoners vote.
  #48  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:14 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 529
The Positive choice will give us four more years of Trump.

The Negative probably isn't enough.
  #49  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:10 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongyang2016 View Post
Why in the poll is positive, “positive”? Universal Healthcare will bankrupt the country and will be totally unworkable. Universal Basic Income where everyone will be doled our money is insane. Why should I the taxpayer pay the tab for someone else’s student loans, and reparations? What? You forgot so called “climate change” to the list, where whole industries will have to be killed putting millions out of work and not allow the free markets and technologies work towards a solution.

You call these positives?
America is a country where the top three richest Americans hold as much wealth as the bottom 150 million Americans, and people have to beg for insulin money on the internet.

Don’t think of it as tax. Think of it as anti-guillotine insurance.
  #50  
Old 07-31-2019, 03:17 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 300
As for the OP, I’d like an 80-20 split between positive and negative. For the positive, I’d focus on healthcare and green jobs. For the negative, I’d steer clear of Russia and Trump’s racist tweets and focus on the appalling conditions in the border camps.
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 02:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017