Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beebo Brink

Climate Apocalypse Alarmist
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,453
SL Rez
2006
This is beyond misspeaking or saying something that is out of touch with the zeitgeist of the times. It's like he doesn't even know where he is.
Speaking as an old person, this kind of time conflation isn't that uncommon. He had two similar events -- meetings with family and victims of a gun massacre -- one that happened when he was VP and another more recently when he was no longer VP. I could easily see myself mixing those up.... but I'm not running for president. Conversely, I can't see that happening to Elizabeth Warren, who as far as I've seen remains sharp as a tack, or even Bernie Sanders, who is older but living very much in the present. Biden isn't dotty, but he's showing his age. And I do consider that cause for caution.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,276
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
It's not a comment about you, Kara, but the Post. I'm grateful that you're a more discerning reader.
No worries, sorry if I was being short but was about to start a meeting. Anyway, in many (most?) papers the op-ed section and the news sections are run by totally different groups. While the op-eds may be interesting, particularly for local matters, I consider them no more informative that some stranger on the street rambling about something.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,276
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
Speaking as an old person, this kind of time conflation isn't that uncommon. He had two similar events -- meetings with family and victims of a gun massacre -- one that happened when he was VP and another more recently when he was no longer VP. I could easily see myself mixing those up.... but I'm not running for president. Conversely, I can't see that happening to Elizabeth Warren, who as far as I've seen remains sharp as a tack, or even Bernie Sanders, who is older but living very much in the present. Biden isn't dotty, but he's showing his age. And I do consider that cause for caution.
Ironically, I do know people who do not like Bernie because of his age ... but do not seem to realize Biden is about the same age, even though they know it, until I point it out. I doubt they are Biden supporters either.

I am guessing strange things like this come from 2016 where the age difference on the D side was more pronounced. Bernie got the rep of being old and now it does not matter the age of the person he runs against. Which is strange because if we measured age by activity and energy I would put him as middle aged.
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
377
Ironically, I do know people who do not like Bernie because of his age ... but do not seem to realize Biden is about the same age, even though they know it, until I point it out. I doubt they are Biden supporters either.
To be honest, I'm not thrilled about the ages of either. They both have pretty visible senior moments at times (though in Biden's defense/not defense - he's had foot in mouth syndrome for a very long time, it isn't age-related). Bernie's is different than Biden's - and I'd still vote for either of them, but I'd be happier if one of the younger candidates that represents the views of either of them went further.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,276
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
To be honest, I'm not thrilled about the ages of either. They both have pretty visible senior moments at times (though in Biden's defense/not defense - he's had foot in mouth syndrome for a very long time, it isn't age-related). Bernie's is different than Biden's - and I'd still vote for either of them, but I'd be happier if one of the younger candidates that represents the views of either of them went further.
Yeah, Mayor Pete would be an excellent choice for VP. In the future he would have the name recognition and experience he needs. If he was VP to someone like Bernie he could get only more progressive too, which is where the Ds are hopefully headed now if someone like Biden does not drag us back to the past.
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
377
Yeah, Mayor Pete would be an excellent choice for VP. In the future he would have the name recognition and experience he needs. If he was VP to someone like Bernie he could get only more progressive too, which is where the Ds are hopefully headed now if someone like Biden does not drag us back to the past.
To be honest, I still think that Bennet is a very good Biden alternative - if the election is going in that direction. He's progressive, but is for Medicare for everyone who wants it instead of requiring that people lose their current insurance (which is much more winnable in the general). He's likeable, can get red state votes, has a good record and doesn't seem to ever stick his foot in his mouth - and I doubt that the Trump camp could easily get anything on him. They'd call him "Low energy" but they say that about everyone lately. I'm not sure he'll make the next cut, though.

I like Mayor Pete a lot, but he just isn't experienced enough nationally and internationally at a time when we've torn up all our norms and alliances and they will need to be rebuilt. I'd like to see him either in a cabinet level position or see him run for a national office soon and then be a contender next election.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Anya Ristow

bad influence
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
344
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
Yeah, Mayor Pete would be an excellent choice for VP. In the future he would have the name recognition and experience he needs. If he was VP to someone like Bernie he could get only more progressive too

Bernie's ... Biden ... I'd be happier if one of the younger candidates that represents the views of either of them went further.
Mayor Pete is not progressive, and he is not destined to become progressive, and there's no way in hell Bernie would pick him as VP. I don't know where people are getting their info about Mayor Pete.

‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum

The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
Those names don't mean the same to most here as they do to Sanders supporters. None of these people are almost Bernie. None of them are allies. None of them will pursue progressive policies if we could just get rid of Trump. These are people who despise Bernie and actively work to defeat progressive policy. The fucking dinners are underhanded stop-Bernie affairs, as says none other than The New York Nobodytakesusseriouslybecausewe'refuckingnobody Times. Google what Neera Tanden has said about Sanders on twitter. Google where her PAC came from and what it did in 2016. And then ponder why Mayor Pete is in on this.

Mayor Pete's campaign exists to make you think you don't really want medicare for all. It exists to confuse you what it even means, and when you've gotten attracted to the candidate, you'll question that you ever wanted M4A.
 
Last edited:

Anya Ristow

bad influence
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
344
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
Medicare for everyone who wants it instead of requiring that people lose their current insurance (which is much more winnable in the general).
If you know what it means, then maybe you could cheer on someone who is educating those who do not, someone who has dramatically increased awareness of M4A and pushed its support even among republicans over 50%, instead of hoping we'll end up with someone who will bargain it away before we even begin.

Insurance is not the same as health care. Insurance only grants you access to healthcare. With M4A you don't need insurance. It is totally unnecessary. You have access to health care without insurance.

Nobody likes their health insurance company. People like their doctor. Best case scenario, the former is only a gatekeeper to the latter.

If we can't get that straight even among the supposed not-fooled-by-mainstream-propaganda, many-news-sources informed special few, then Mayor Pete's campaign has been a success.
 
Last edited:

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,276
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
To be honest, I still think that Bennet is a very good Biden alternative - if the election is going in that direction. He's progressive, but is for Medicare for everyone who wants it instead of requiring that people lose their current insurance (which is much more winnable in the general). He's likeable, can get red state votes, has a good record and doesn't seem to ever stick his foot in his mouth - and I doubt that the Trump camp could easily get anything on him. They'd call him "Low energy" but they say that about everyone lately. I'm not sure he'll make the next cut, though.

I like Mayor Pete a lot, but he just isn't experienced enough nationally and internationally at a time when we've torn up all our norms and alliances and they will need to be rebuilt. I'd like to see him either in a cabinet level position or see him run for a national office soon and then be a contender next election.
The phrase 'medicare for all who want it' never made sense to me. The moment there is a public option companies will drop their plan (or change it to a medigap version) as soon as they can. I have not seen the numbers lately but from what I recall most people were getting insurance through their or their spouse's company.

Using a phrase like that also comes across as wishy-washy to progressives. It is not like there are no other candidates out there to flock to!
 

Anya Ristow

bad influence
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
344
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
The phrase 'medicare for all who want it' never made sense to me. The moment there is a public option companies will drop their plan
M4A will not eliminate employers' role in providing health coverage. Their cost doesn't suddenly become zero. They will be incentivized to cover their employee's share of medicare taxes by the same forces that incentivize them to offer health insurance plans. Ideally M4A will cost less, but in all likelihood employers will continue to pay it.

(or change it to a medigap version)
There is no medigap. M4A covers everything, including dental and vision. There is no covered and non-covered; only elective and non-elective. If it's non-elective, then it's covered.

There is only a gap to be covered by medigap if we bargain away some of the coverage.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
377
Call it whatever you want - forcing people to lose their current insurance rather than giving them a better option and letting them take it will lead to "THEY ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR HEALTH CARE" ads that resonate and win the election. No one has ever won anything by taking something away or by the perception of taking something away. Millions of Americans negotiated wages based on what they were getting or not getting for insurance. Millions more negotiated union contracts on the same. Medicare for all may indeed be the long term answer, but it short term cannot win the general because it /reads/ as "we take something away and you have no choice".

My argument isn't that Medicare for All isn't a better long term plan. My argument is that it will never happen because it will cost the election. The intermediate plans make more sense because they don't disrupt so violently - and that is really important to a lot of Americans. The important issue here isn't to get one or another version passed - the important issue is to get universal health care in place as soon as possible. How we do it should be secondary to getting it done.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
781
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
Call it whatever you want - forcing people to lose their current insurance rather than giving them a better option and letting them take it will lead to "THEY ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR HEALTH CARE" ads that resonate and win the election. No one has ever won anything by taking something away or by the perception of taking something away. Millions of Americans negotiated wages based on what they were getting or not getting for insurance. Millions more negotiated union contracts on the same. Medicare for all may indeed be the long term answer, but it short term cannot win the general because it /reads/ as "we take something away and you have no choice".

My argument isn't that Medicare for All isn't a better long term plan. My argument is that it will never happen because it will cost the election. The intermediate plans make more sense because they don't disrupt so violently - and that is really important to a lot of Americans. The important issue here isn't to get one or another version passed - the important issue is to get universal health care in place as soon as possible. How we do it should be secondary to getting it done.
I disagree. That's a terrible narrative and when you consider that most upper middle aged people are just waiting to get onto Medicare, it's not funny. They drop eligibility in brackets every year and add in more comprehensive coverage. It's only the apparatchiks in the media making people afraid of it.
 

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid Hologram
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,225
Location
Coonspiracy Central, Noonkkot
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sep 2009
SLU Posts
20780
Mayor Pete is not progressive, and he is not destined to become progressive, and there's no way in hell Bernie would pick him as VP. I don't know where people are getting their info about Mayor Pete.
:qft:

Democrats are mostly a moderate conservative party, with a few moderate leftists like Sanders pulling them towards the center.

OTOH Medicare as a public option competing with peoples favorite plans will end up leading either to medicare for all or actual meaningful competition.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,276
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
M4A will not eliminate employers' role in providing health coverage. Their cost doesn't suddenly become zero. They will be incentivized to cover their employee's share of medicare taxes by the same forces that incentivize them to offer health insurance plans. Ideally M4A will cost less, but in all likelihood employers will continue to pay it.



There is no medigap. M4A covers everything, including dental and vision. There is no covered and non-covered; only elective and non-elective. If it's non-elective, then it's covered.

There is only a gap to be covered by medigap if we bargain away some of the coverage.
The problem is, who decides if something is elective vs nonelective? I guess if you are actually dying right there and then something becomes nonelective?

You can still find people today that will count SRS as elective. Not just crazy kooks either.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
377
The problem is, who decides if something is elective vs nonelective? I guess if you are actually dying right there and then something becomes nonelective?
My insurance company told my pharmacy that my doctor had prescribed "too much" and they would no longer pay for one of my medicines last month. Basically, the medication I need every day is "elective" in their mind. I was fortunate that it comes in generic and I can afford it (like $24 a month). But, this is fairly common and to be honest, one thing that worries me about not just private insurance, but single payer, as well.
 

Romana

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
945
SL Rez
2010
I have to agree with Eunoli. If it seems like M4A means people lose their current insurance, we'll have another "Harry and Louise" scare campaign, and probably lose some swing voters. And we need all we can get. I know I'd jump at it, since whatever taxes there are and a supplemental plan did still be tons cheaper than what I'm paying now, and probably a lot of other people would too. But some would need to ease into the idea.
If M4A is achieved in steps, it still succeeds.
And I'm not so sure M4A would cover everything 100%. If it follows the pattern of current Medicare a supplemental plan would still be necessary. Also I don't remember if my mom's plan covered the "donut hole". It would all have to be overhauled (as it should anyway) and that would take time.
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
377
And I'm not so sure M4A would cover everything 100%. If it follows the pattern of current Medicare a supplemental plan would still be necessary. Also I don't remember if my mom's plan covered the "donut hole". It would all have to be overhauled (as it should anyway) and that would take time.
The other issue that worries me a great deal is that Medicare doesn't cover naturopaths. It isn't for everyone and if even people who use them still occasionally need specialists (another issue). But, for the millions who go to naturopaths, I'd like to see how all the proposed plans mean to handle them.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Romana

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
781
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
The other issue that worries me a great deal is that Medicare doesn't cover naturopaths. It isn't for everyone and if even people who use them still occasionally need specialists (another issue). But, for the millions who go to naturopaths, I'd like to see how all the proposed plans mean to handle them.
There's the role for supplemental insurance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.