Yeah, it was bogus with Hillary and it’s doubley bogus now.
Coronation is for amateurs anyway. Obama was anointed as I recall.
Are we talking about REAL Medicare for all or Sanders plan by the same name which has no relation at all to medicare, and that we cant afford?
Real Medicare for all, warts and all, is workable and affordable.
Sanders/Warrens plan will never pass.
You dramatically overestimate asahi’s influence.
I would consider that what this poll tells us is being ignored is the larger problem or Democrats. To my reading it reinforces what I have been saying for a while - Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the key states for Democrats to flip in 2020. Selecting a candidate who can do that is the only way we win. Selecting a candidate who boosts turnout in more liberal areas like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc gets the Democrats nothing.
Whoever the Democrats select is pretty well guaranteed to carry the same states HRC carried in 2016, whether they are acceptable to the progressive/liberal wing or the more moderate wing of the party. Selecting someone who can carry those three states in the Upper Midwest is crucial but I remain worried this continues to be ignored.
…I suggest you direct that question to Mayor Pete. What was he thinking when he gave unqualified support for Medicare for all?
Let’s be honest. If any of the health plans being touted by any of the potential nominees passes Congress, any of them will sign it. It’s all “how many angels” stuff at this moment.
I recently heard someone say that Democrats are the “debate team” and Republicans are the “cheerleader squad”. That seems about right. I think that people would rather have the debate team running things but they seem to vote for the cheerleaders.
Okay, no one really likes or takes seriously the Mooch or much of anything he say, but this dubious prognostication of his, that Individual-ONE will not survive (as president) past March is worth noting.
Worth noting inasmuch as everyone here is concerned about permanently sending the Putter-in-Chief back to Florida, when, really, what needs to be considered is that the Democrats need a viable candidate who can stand on their own. What if the election pits the Democrat against a copper coin from Indiana? I hear the man is fairly articulate and seems comparatively rational. What if Don-of-Orange turns out to be not in play and the Democrats are forced to contend with someone who can at least put on a respectable adult façade?
Are you talking about Pence? That guy never says anything substantive. He would be the Republican placeholder, getting the standard Republican votes, and sounding like an idiot in a debate with any of the Democratic candidates.
And any situation which ends up with Trump removed from office is going to put a major taint on the Republican brand as a whole. Pence can’t just say “Donald who? Never heard of him.”.
I agree, which is one reason why most Senate Republicans are unlikely to go along with it.
Yeah. “One reason.” I can’t think of another reason, can you?
Yes. I literally gave the Joe campaign fifty bucks seconds after reading that article. This is one of those elections when one’s own preferences and feeling do not matter. All that matters are the preferences and feelings of about 100,000 people living within 200 miles of a Great Lake.
Bizarre that it’s cone down to this, but it has.
Regardless of when Pete switched from Medicare for All to Medicare for All Who Want It, I hardly think it’s the major paradigm shift that has been suggested. MfAWWI is a subset of MfA. And for the record, there is no way MfA is going to be the law of the land in four years if say Warren is elected, or even 10. If adopted MfAWWI will either be a success, saving money for those who want it, thus leading to wider adoption, or it will fail, but ISTM that this is the only viable way to eventually get to MfA any time “soon”.
And plenty of both Democrats and Republicans do like the health care they have, so if nothing else, Pete’s plan is the most politically astute. And while I get that as a general rule you don’t want someone in office who changes positions at the drop of a hat, given that you don’t know what they’ll do in the future, I’ve never understood the excoriation of politicians who sometimes switch positions, the dreaded flip-flop. A politician should be allowed to adapt to what the voters want. I don’t know if that’s why Pete changed positions, but it is not always bad to do so.
In the mid 1970s, a Republican President left office in disgrace. The VP who took over for him lost a rather close election, and the Rs were back in the WH only 4 years later. This seems different, but even so, parasites rarely go easily.
Uh, no, I take no responsibility for people not having hope. What kills hope is the blatant corruption the see and the lack of accountability. I’m outraged, and while I have my doubts, I still participate in the system and still encourage others to participate. My messages of despair aren’t messages of apathy; they reflect outrage and frustration.
Find someone else to blame, Chronos.
Swing voters in battleground states like Bernie and Biden, but not Warren:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-swing-voters-might-decide-193019533.html
Sure, I can think of a lot of reasons. Another one might be that they don’t consider anything he’s done to amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” that merit removal from office.
While everyone was pointing and laughing at Trump’s Joke Campaign Guaranteed to Fold. Oy…
And stronger and ideologically harder-core.
People tend to badly discount the resiliency of parties and movements.
Good grief, Procrustus, you served him a slow, fat, pitch right down the middle of the plate and he hit the talking point out of the park.
Not that there’s any validity to the talking point, but why give him the opportunity to trot it out?