Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

Kaimi Kyomoon

Persistent Participant
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
429
Location
San Diego, California
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
2007
One reason we don't have universal health care is that the insurance industry likes to take big fat profits out of the system. Another is because so many voters here have been conditioned for a long time to fear anything that takes any power away from the plutocrats ie socialism-perish-the-thought. Any one who claims to be helping the working class has to make the working class believe that they are really helping it.
 

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,249
SL Rez
2006
I can't muster any indignation over Schulz because he's a dull, boring billionaire and even the lavish drooling attention paid to him by the media is not going to light any fires. He's the Democratic version of Jeb! Bush. Yawn. He's beating the drum for the status quo and no one is dancing to that tune this year.

Biden is disqualified because he can't fight his way out of a paper bag. For god's sake man, run or don't run, but STOP DITHERING.

Warren was my choice in 2016, but unfortunately she didn't run. Now she's finally running and she gets my primary vote. Even if she doesn't win, she'll get plenty of play for her "level the playing field" message. Americans have to stop clutching their pearls at the very idea of advantages for all, rather than advantages for the very rich.

If Kamilah Harris wins the Dem nomination, more power to her. Warren may be my first choice, but I could get behind Harris very easily if she emerges the winner of the primaries.
 

Zaida Gearbox

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
352
Based on what I've heard about Howard Schultz - he seems more likely to divide Trump voters than Democrats. His economic policies come right out of the rich asshole handbook. I mean in what way is this guy a moderate?

I think a barrier to universal health care is getting people to understand that it's not free. Medicare is not free. The Part B premium is 135.50 per month - unless you're very poor, and really to make it economically feasible people under 65 (except the very poor) would probably need to pay a higher premium than that.
 
Last edited:

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,249
SL Rez
2006
One reason we don't have universal health care is that the insurance industry likes to take big fat profits out of the system. Another is because so many voters here have been conditioned for a long time to fear anything that takes any power away from the plutocrats ie socialism-perish-the-thought. Any one who claims to be helping the working class has to make the working class believe that they are really helping it.
The key factor, however, is that progressives see "helping" as improving educational and economic opportunities for the working class. And these same progressives assume that this is a universally shared definition, so they're always so mystified when people "vote against their own interests."

This progressive perspective is a bit condescending. "Look at those poor people who are fooled into voting for the wrong party." It's also quite possibly wrong.

My contention is that people have a pretty good idea of what is good for them and what isn't. When you see them consistently voting "against their own interests", you probably don't understand what matters to them. There is considerable evidence that many so-called conservatives have prioritized religious zealotry and White identity above all else. Safe-guarding their white privilege is what is in their best interest.

When people tell you who they are, take them at their word.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
626
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
Based on what I've heard about Howard Schultz - he seems more likely to divide Trump voters than Democrats. His economic policies come right out of the rich asshole handbook. I mean in what way is this guy a moderate?

I think a barrier to universal health care is getting people to understand that it's not free. Medicare is not free. The Part B premium is 135.50 per month - unless you're very poor, and really to make it economically feasible people under 65 (except the very poor) would probably need to pay a higher premium than that.
$135 is better than what it is now. Poor people may still need a subsidy, but the difference between that and my total premium now is significant. That's like less than half of my total premium as a mid 40s woman. My subsidy would be like $90 instead of $235.

And look, by putting millions of healthy people into the pool of payers, the overall cost should go DOWN. Or at the very least hold steady. Add that in by cutting out the insurers from primary care and there should be significant cost savings.
 
Last edited:

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,184
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
In states with Medicaid expansion the ultra poor are covered, and I can’t see an incrementalist change toward universal health care changing this system.

Low to middle income workers who don’t get good insurance from their employers are facing barriers to care, because of high deductibles and high prescription costs. When I was in that position I gladly took on a higher premium if I could, in order to avoid a high deductible that would lock me out of care.

People who don’t need chronic care or who don’t have expensive injuries see the premium as their main expense and resent it. But they probably do not understand how a high deductible would block many of them from getting care, or ruin them with debt. Nobody in the working class should get a high deductible plan unless they have a bit of wealth, like home equity, that they are willing to gamble.

Compared to being blocked from care, I preferred a higher premium for as long as I could still afford it. Then when my income fell and my new employer didn’t offer real insurance (a situation common to most temps and gig workers) I was locked out of care because of the high ACA deductible and didn’t get care again until I had gotten so sick (from lack of care) that I fell into the Medicaid range. In other words, the only plan I could afford, Bronze, was useless because of the high deductible.

I’m convinced there are probably many people now on Medicaid who wouldn’t have landed there if we had a system that actually gave the working poor access to care.

A decently designed Medicare for all system should subsidize the working poor with a premium discount right up front. Blocking access to care with deductibles and high prescription costs is how the Right defanged the ACA and turned the poorer workers against it.
 

Kaimi Kyomoon

Persistent Participant
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
429
Location
San Diego, California
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
2007
$135 is better than what it is now. Poor people may still need a subsidy, but the difference between that and my total premium now is significant. That's like less than half of my total premium as a mid 40s woman. My subsidy would be like $90 instead of $235.

And look, by putting millions of healthy people into the pool of payers, the overall cost should go DOWN. Or at the very least hold steady. Add that in by cutting out the insurers from primary care and there should be significant cost savings.
In states with Medicaid expansion the ultra poor are covered, and I can’t see an incrementalist change toward universal health care changing this system.

Low to middle income workers who don’t get good insurance from their employers are facing barriers to care, because of high deductibles and high prescription costs. When I was in that position I gladly took on a higher premium if I could, in order to avoid a high deductible that would lock me out of care.

People who don’t need chronic care or who don’t have expensive injuries see the premium as their main expense and resent it. But they probably do not understand how a high deductible would block many of them from getting care, or ruin them with debt. Nobody in the working class should get a high deductible plan unless they have a bit of wealth, like home equity, that they are willing to gamble.

Compared to being blocked from care, I preferred a higher premium for as long as I could still afford it. Then when my income fell and my new employer didn’t offer real insurance (a situation common to most temps and gig workers) I was locked out of care because of the high ACA deductible and didn’t get care again until I had gotten so sick (from lack of care) that I fell into the Medicaid range. In other words, the only plan I could afford, Bronze, was useless because of the high deductible.

I’m convinced there are probably many people now on Medicaid who wouldn’t have landed there if we had a system that actually gave the working poor access to care.

A decently designed Medicare for all system should subsidize the working poor with a premium discount right up front. Blocking access to care with deductibles and high prescription costs is how the Right defanged the ACA and turned the poorer workers against it.
But I want to pay for it all with fair taxes, from those who have to those who need. Dammit! Like it was in the UK when I lived there in the sixties.
 

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,184
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
But I want to pay for it all with fair taxes, from those who have to those who need. Dammit! Like it was in the UK when I lived there in the sixties.
I agree. That is the best way.

Our system is deliberately reflecting the right wing idea that people should be discouraged from using "too much" care, which to me sounds like one of the shortsighted propaganda points that started with the insurance companies.
 
Last edited:

Free

Kamilah is stalking me
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
5,342
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
May 2009
SLU Posts
55565
You know, he's so despicable that he might actually take votes from Trump in 2020.

Yup. We have yet another conservative in centrist clothing. To paraphrase someone else, someone needs to tell this dolt that a real political centrist watches networks other than Fox News Channel.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,819
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009

Romana

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
727
SL Rez
2010
So, he's running as the sexism candidate. Sounds like a Trump substitute - another useful idiot puppet.
And the racism candidate. He promoted as a reasonable point of view and article that referred to Elizabeth Warren as "Fauxcahontas" as well as calling Kamala shrill.
Didn't even mention Warren's proper name either, just the slur.
He deleted the tweet, but the internet never forgets.
 

Khamon

Irish Harper
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
533
Location
Alabama
SL Rez
2003
Joined SLU
2007
I'm kind of looking at all of the candidates looking at who has the best chance of beating Trump. Joe Biden probably has the best chance, but honestly, I'm getting tired of old white guys running the government. I believe we need younger, fresher blood in the Oval Office, around Obama's age, if not maybe a bit younger. I'd prefer female, and am hoping Harris or Warren can show themselves to be able to beat Trump.

But, in all honestly, I don't know if I can be that picky. If someone rises to the forefront as a candidate capable of handily beating Trump, I will stand behind that candidate, and then stand behind whoever wins the Primary.
The Democratic primary ending with an old white guy in the lead will be devestating. What hope do we have if our option to hateful right wing purists are people who overwhelming support an old white guy. That'll be a choice between square negative three and square zero.[/hyperbolic rant]
 

Grandma Bates

Only mostly banned....
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
100
Location
Airport
Joined SLU
Yes
SLU Posts
-1000
Tangentially related: Bill Weld will probably run and primary Trump. He should have been on the top of the Libertarian ticket last time.

Former Mass. Gov. William Weld to announce possible run for president
If Gov. Weld is willing to point out that the vast majority of his fellow Republicans are complicit in gross mismanagement, blatant hypocrisy, and sedition I am willing to hear him out. Plus he should also acknowledge that he voluntarily transformed himself into a huge flaming ass at the end of his time in office in hopes to attract the aforementioned party members to support his presidential aspirations (like Gov. Jindal. Is this a theme?). Other than that I am keeping an open mind.

--------------------------------------

Back to Kamala Harris. There is a lot I like about her, but there are some things that give me pause. For example, the overt way she went after Backpage without concern for the impact to sex workers is troubling. Additionally, her outspoken support for SESTA and FOSTA reveal an indifference to protections for small internet operators when given the opportunity to make a big statement that can draw attention to herself. Finally, in her appearance on CNN she liked to spout the usual kind of "get tough" rhetoric that leads to over aggressive policing of high schools and high school students was not helpful in dispelling concerns about her support of an unbalanced criminal justice system.

On the plus side the revenge-porn bill she is supporting is one of the more balanced approaches compared to what is happening in some states.

There is a number of positive things about her, but the tendency to stay away from the negatives is problematic. The press does not seem to know how to approach her and are treating her with kid gloves. That would not be good in a general election where her past could be defined by an opposition that is not concerned with an existing narrative.