• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Biden Mulls Abrams as Running Mate

Feb 28, 2018
1,355
Beto can deliver a long speech on any particular issue without actually saying much of anything substantive. It's wooden language taken to the extreme.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,718
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMess.../the-ex-bernie-staffers-behind-betos-campaign

Seven Days VT said:
Many of O’Rourke’s key staffers — particularly from his online team — spent the 2016 campaign working for another crowd-pleasing populist: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

At least eight former Sanderistas have decamped to O’Rourke’s campaign, according to online records. Several held top jobs on the Vermonter’s 2016 campaign before joining up with the Texan’s 2018 U.S. Senate race and 2020 presidential run.

“I have friends in both campaigns whose skills and talents I admire, but Bernie’s loss is Beto’s gain,” said Michael Briggs, who served as Sanders’ top spokesman in 2016 and who has not joined a 2020 campaign.

Among the transplants are Becky Bond and Zack Malitz, who have been credited with leading O’Rourke’s groundbreaking organizing efforts last year during his unsuccessful campaign to knock off Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). In 2016, Bond served as a senior adviser to Sanders while Malitz was his deputy national digital organizing director.

Both told the New York Times last December that they were eager for O’Rourke to run for the White House. Politico reported in January that Bond was in conversations with operatives about jobs with a potential O’Rourke bid, and her name has been floated as a potential campaign manager. Malitz recently changed his Twitter profile to read “@BetoORourke for America.”

Joining them on the Texan’s presidential campaign are half a dozen Sanders alums who now run and work for Middle Seat, a digital strategy and fundraising firm that has advised such progressive standouts as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
Beto's such an evil corporate centrist that a bunch of ex-Sanders/AOC campaign staff are now working for him.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,671
Some people here are laboring under the delusion that Bernie is absolutely unwilling to work with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to push his agenda through Congress, despite the fact that he knows Chuck Schumer very well and has a strong base of support in the House and is not alone. I guarantee you if the choice is between M4A in steps and no M4A, Bernie will clearly go with the former.
I think Bernie would be willing to do M4A in steps.

But the irony here is that his base of diehards would then crucify him as a liar and sellout for not delivering on his promises.
 
Oct 27, 2017
11,076
I'm still not super sold on Beto, and Bernie is Bernie (I like other candidates better, but I have no issue voting for him), but I really hope Biden stays out of this. There are too many progressives that would just be ignored and lose their shot not because of any of their policies, buy solely because of their lack of name recognition. Yeah, that's already somewhat the case, but Biden would completely sweep everyone away
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,035
Could have predicted Beto's answer on Reparations.

He doesn't have a position unless the Donors give it to him first. Hence why he has no positions on his website, and wont respond to the Washingtons post about his top five positions he wants to push. Instead, he just speaks in platitudes like he's from the 1990's.

That doesnt work anymore. It may have done something when you ran against Ted Cruz, one of the most despised politicians whom ever existed....but it wont work when your running against popular politicians who provide clarity like Sanders.
"The Donors"? Who are these "Donors"? Given his fundraising (in his Senate campaign) comes primarily from individual contributions, are you suggesting he get policy information from...voters?
Also, quite rich to claim Sanders of all people provides clarity about policy.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,671
You surely don't really believe that. his single payer bill does m4a in phases.
I do not doubt for even a second that had Sanders become President in 2016 while the GOP still controlled Congress, he would have accomplished very little due to obstructionism. And rather than focus their anger on the GOP, it would have just caused the Bernie bandwagoners to become disillusioned with him.

I feel this way because you saw the exact same thing happen with Obama.

Now, if we're in a situation where President Sanders actually did get the ball rolling on M4A, more of his supporters might give him credit. But I think the problem there is peoples' expectations of a Bernie presidency is they would get everything they've ever wanted like, tomorrow.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,506
I do not doubt for even a second that had Sanders become President in 2016 while the GOP still controlled Congress, he would have accomplished very little due to obstructionism. And rather than focus their anger on the GOP, it would have just caused the Bernie bandwagoners to become disillusioned with him.

I feel this way because you saw the exact same thing happen with Obama.

Now, if we're in a situation where President Sanders actually did get the ball rolling on M4A, more of his supporters might give him credit. But I think the problem there is peoples' expectations of a Bernie presidency is they would get everything they've ever wanted like, tomorrow.
Maybe you're right.
 

guek

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,177
I do not doubt for even a second that had Sanders become President in 2016 while the GOP still controlled Congress, he would have accomplished very little due to obstructionism. And rather than focus their anger on the GOP, it would have just caused the Bernie bandwagoners to become disillusioned with him.

I feel this way because you saw the exact same thing happen with Obama.

Now, if we're in a situation where President Sanders actually did get the ball rolling on M4A, more of his supporters might give him credit. But I think the problem there is peoples' expectations of a Bernie presidency is they would get everything they've ever wanted like, tomorrow.
The counter to your point though is Obama remained incredibly popular despite alienating many when he turned out to be more moderate than initially portrayed. You're right that Bernie would lose some of the hardcore, but while it's possible he'd bleed support a lot more than Obama, it's also not improbable that he'd retain much of his base too.
 
Oct 27, 2017
281
On the transition to M4A: there are technical questions on top of political ones, and the answers to those technical questions may be counterintuitive (so it's important to keep an open mind). I mentioned this in a previous thread, and more recently Jayapal explained some of the relevant concerns/considerations to an understandably skeptical Sarah Kliff, over at Vox:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/28/18244547/jayapal-medicare-for-all-ezra-klein-show
Sarah Kliff
You envision a two-year transition to Medicare-for-all after a bill passes, which I believe is faster than Sen. Sanders’s bill, which has a four-year transition. How do you envision moving that quickly — and why that faster transition period?

Pramila Jayapal
This was another area where we looked very carefully. John Conyers in HR 676 actually had a one-year transition. Sen. Sanders has a four-year transition. But the problem is if you take too long to transition, then you have a marketplace that knows it’s not going to continue. Therefore, they can hike up prices even more in the interim because it’s sort of operating as a bridge. So we think that having too long of a transition is actually really detrimental for most Americans. And, and the reality is we already have Medicare and Medicaid. So, you know, a lot of people are already in the system. The systems have to be merged. So one of our plans is merging all the systems, setting up the administration to bring in new people.

Sarah Kliff
That feels very optimistic to me, mostly just from my experience covering the Affordable Care Act and Healthcare.gov. I’m sure you remember when Healthcare.gov launched, it didn’t really work. And they had had a four-year window to set it up.

Pramila Jayapal
The thing is they didn’t combine everything. They still had multiple plans out there. Every state had different procedures. These separate insurance commissions in different states had to be set up. I mean, there were so many things about the Affordable Care Act that were incredible. It expanded access for tens of millions of Americans. But the reality is it didn’t take on that broken marketplace. You don’t achieve the efficiencies, you don’t achieve sort of the speed of transition unless you’re willing to push those things out and really have everything come to one point of contact.

Sarah Kliff
Tell me a little bit about what you’re expecting in terms of the fight over this. I saw you tweeting earlier about a New York Times article about a coalition of folks gearing up to oppose the bill you’re rolling out.

Pramila Jayapal
I think Americans are ready to stand up for something that is a basic human right. And I think there are tens of millions of Americans across this country who want to take on this fight. I think many of my colleagues are ready to take on this fight. We are setting up an unprecedented coalition this time. Obviously we have the presidential candidates and multiple presidential campaigns have endorsed this idea. So we will have a whole different platform, again, to take us to the next level.

Sarah Kliff
There was this theory that President Obama had around the Affordable Care Act that you needed buy-in of industry to pass something in health care. I remember how the White House made sure to get the hospitals and the doctors and the drugmakers all on board with Obamacare before moving forward. Do you operate under that theory? Do you think you need the buy-in of those key players?

Pramila Jayapal
Small businesses are going to be absolutely with us. We have the largest nurses union with us. We have the union that represents long-term care workers. which takes care of a lot of our nurses also, but long-term care workers.

So we will have a number of people — I have had, I will tell you, I’ve had some hospital folks come up to me and say, look, I can’t come out and say this publicly, but you know, we absolutely think this is the way to go. And I think honestly, uncovering a lot of that and allowing it to be okay for people to speak up to have health care as a right and not a privilege is part of what all of this is going to be.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,506
I'm not like the most informed about the supreme court. But I'm fairly certain that even if single payer were to pass congress, some asshole in Alabama is going to sue because the government is forcing him to have insurance, or something. I'm sure there will be a ton of technical and legal hurdles. not sure why I wouldn't still support the person most likely to push for it, though.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,671
The counter to your point though is Obama remained incredibly popular despite alienating many when he turned out to be more moderate than initially portrayed. You're right that Bernie would lose some of the hardcore, but while it's possible he'd bleed support a lot more than Obama, it's also not improbable that he'd retain much of his base too.
Obama started out popular but his approval rating dropped to the low 40s fairly quickly, just in time for both of his midterm elections.

Being moderate had nothing to do with it. In fact, Gallup polling in 2012 only found about 10% of the population that said Obama was too conservative, compared to 35% that pegged him as "just right" and 51% as too liberal:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4729/presidency.aspx

The dip in Obama's popularity was mainly due to the sluggish pace the economy recovered at. In 2014 it was a coordinated hatchet job between the GOP and the media that sought to blame him for ISIS and the ebola crisis, which they conveniently stopped talking about the day after the GOP swept the Congressional elections in 2014.

Ideology does not matter to most voters, at least not as much as you think it does.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,467
The counter to your point though is Obama remained incredibly popular despite alienating many when he turned out to be more moderate than initially portrayed. You're right that Bernie would lose some of the hardcore, but while it's possible he'd bleed support a lot more than Obama, it's also not improbable that he'd retain much of his base too.
Obama was as left as congress allowed him to be. And his approval ratings absolutely tanked.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,122
WAPO on Beto.

EL PASO — Before Beto O’Rourke became the darling of liberal online donors, his top financial backers hailed from a different set entirely — wealthy businessmen who have sought political influence by collectively donating millions of dollars to Republicans.

Several of El Paso’s richest business moguls donated to and raised money for O’Rourke’ s city council campaigns, drawn to his support for a plan to redevelop El Paso’s poorer neighborhoods. Some later backed a super PAC that would play a key role in helping him defeat an incumbent Democratic congressman.

For his part, O’Rourke worked on issues that had the potential to make money for some of his benefactors. His support as a council member for the redevelopment plan, which sparked controversy at the time because it involved relocating low-income residents, many of them Hispanic, coincided with property investments by some of his benefactors.


As a congressman, he supported a $2 billion military funding increase that benefited a company controlled by another major donor. That donor, real estate developer Woody Hunt, was friends with O’Rourke’s late father. Hunt also co-founded and funds an El Paso nonprofit organization that has employed O’Rourke’s wife since 2016.
“O’Rourke, because of his charisma, can kind of pull off some of this behind-the-scenes power peddling,” said El Paso historian and activist David Romo, who has long opposed the business community’s push to redevelop downtown. “He was the pretty face in the really ugly gentrification plan that negatively affected the most vulnerable people in El Paso.”

....

The plan initially called for seizing land in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods through eminent domain — the same tactic that O’Rourke has opposed as part of the Trump administration’s plan to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Faced with accusations of a potential conflict of interest, O’Rourke eventually agreed to recuse himself from city council votes on the plan, which was later shelved as real estate struggled during the 2008 recession.
Hunt Companies’ employees, including Hunt, gave $60,300 to O’Rourke in the 2014 and 2016 cycles, more than the employees of any other business, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

O’Rourke worked in Congress to promote a military funding issue that directly affected Hunt’s business. Hunt Companies boasts of being the nation’s largest builder and manager of privatized military housing in the country. In 2015, the Obama administration persuaded Congress to cut troop stipends for those units.

Until then, troops who lived in the privatized units on bases would receive a monthly stipend equal to their projected rent. But when the cuts became law in 2014, the stipend was to be gradually reduced. As a result, providers of base housing were faced with either reducing their rents and losing revenue or risking the loss of tenants by asking soldiers to pay out of pocket.

In response, Hunt Companies’ lobbyists billed $380,000 in 2017 and 2018 for work that included contact with Congress on military housing and defense appropriations issues. During this period, O’Rourke’s office listed restoring the money for privatized housing as the 13th of 15 priorities in an internal database shared with Republican leaders, according to a person familiar with the work of O’Rourke’s congressional office.

With the support of Republican leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, who had opposed the initial housing stipend cuts, the defense spending bill that passed in 2018 included an increase in funding for privatized housing that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost taxpayers an additional $2 billion between 2019 and 2023. O’Rourke voted for the bill, which President Trump signed.

O’Rourke’s spokesman said Hunt played no role in O’Rourke’s support for the measure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6121f5582b21
 
Sep 28, 2018
60
On Twitter, Harris has twice the followers Beto currently has but only half the number of likes on the tweet. I don't know if it means anything.

edit: Nevermind I guess not, Bernie's 'likes' are low too but I know people want to hear what he has to say. Pointless metric.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2017
2,250
🇨🇦🌎🌌
I mean, I kinda ruled her out because, well... Spirtualism. Not to mention that I don't really count that as a concrete or realistic policy. Also never said that reparations policy will play a major role in determining the winner of the primary. I suspect, especially based on polling of the issue, that it will have 0 impact when all's said and done. I just find it amusing that Booker of all people has the most realistic plan for bringing about reparations but would never call it that.
Many would dismiss people because of their atheism and that would be just as much a mistake.
There are a lot of policies being discussed that are not worked out in much detail in how they would be achieved. It's something that would happen in office when the resources are available and legislators directed to find a solution from the studies.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,417
Oct 25, 2017
1,138
Chicagoland
E̴̲̣̝̹̯̞̹̪̦̔͊x̴̧̨̛̬̺̲̻͓͋̽̊̒̎͗͜p̶̛̫̍͐̾̍̑̈́̉ë̵̛̛̻͓͖̖̝̳̱̎̽̈́̉͛̉̈́̊͠r̸̹̘̓t̵̛̘͎̖̘͎̲̋̇̕ ̴̢̧̱͔̱̼̞͕̤̏͊̒̑̾̏̂̂̓͐̽̚@̶̢̨̛̲̭͚̪̹̩̞͔̆́͛̓̄ ̵̧͔̭̈̈́͌ţ̵͚́̂̇͗̆̓̆̍̚͝ḩ̵̻͍̝̻̭̦̱̙͖̱̔̏̀͑́̀̾̇͊̃̀̕͝͝e̸̢̺͕͊̋ ̸̡̢͙̟̬̥̭̺͉̯̣̰̾̂͊͗͂͛͌͒̄͋̿̆̈̋͊̚͜͝C̷̱̼͙͈̼̰̙̄̏̅́̈́̌͆̇́͆͒̇̆͊͂͑̒͠Ý̸̠̝͙̱̹͈͍̝̗̐̆̈́͑͊͊̌̚͝B̸̦̬̘̩̹̺̱͍̘̙̀̂̏̓̋́͑̎̄̌́̃̉ͅË̸̡̳͕̳̥͕̼̭̜̳͖̪͓̣̭͙́͛̈́̍͌̓̇̈́̿͜͝Ŕ̸͖͕͕̉.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,633
Denver
Instead of counting demographics in a random picture, here’s the Monmouth’s poll by race.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_031119.pdf/

Non white:
Biden - 31%
Sanders - 23%
Harris - 14%
Warren - 4%

White:
Biden - 25%
Sanders - 25%
Warren - 12%
Harris - 7%

The one with 2 to 1 ratio of non white to white is going to have more diverse audiences than a 1 to 1 ratio candidate does, but that doesn’t mean the 1 to 1 candidate is failing on outreach.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
281
I'm not like the most informed about the supreme court. But I'm fairly certain that even if single payer were to pass congress, some asshole in Alabama is going to sue because the government is forcing him to have insurance, or something. I'm sure there will be a ton of technical and legal hurdles. not sure why I wouldn't still support the person most likely to push for it, though.
That may not be quite so problematic, relative to the ACA:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20120329.018323/full/
MARCH 29, 2012
Early in the arguments, in an exchange with the Solicitor General, Justice Kennedy raised the idea that one alternative available to Congress may be to “use the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single payer.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/activist-judges-on-trial/2012/03/28/gIQAKdE2gS_story.html
March 28, 2012
The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const..._and_Affordable_Care_Act#Follow-up_litigation
In March 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled against the imposition of a federal tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funds, ruling that while the tax was lawful, the regulation implementing it violated the nondelegation doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act.[55][56]
https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/the_case_for_medicare-for-all_-_february.pdf
February 2019
...Meanwhile, opponents of the ACA have perpetually sought to overturn the law or, short of that, to sabotage it at every opportunity. They have ended a requirement, initially proposed by conservatives and sought by insurance companies, that all Americans carry some form of health insurance or face a financial penalty. Because a federal judge in Texas used the end of that requirement to strike down the Affordable Care Act entirely, including the universally popular prohibition against insurance companies discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, health care for millions of Americans remains under threat as we wait for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court...

Despite recent reforms, many Americans continue to struggle to get the care they need. In addition, we
continue to trail behind comparable countries in both access to care and health outcomes. Recent
Congressional and Administration efforts to end the individual mandate and weaken ACA protections
have only made things worse. And with a federal judge in Texas striking down the Affordable Care Act,
setting up the likelihood of case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, health care for millions of Americans
remains under intense threat, including extremely popular provisions of the law such as protections
against discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

Thankfully, momentum for a better system is growing. The public outcry for a fairer system that allows
everyone access to the care they need will only get stronger as costs continue to rise.

Medicare-for-All would improve the current Medicare program and expand it to everyone in the United
States. Such a health care system would provide better access to care and would be far more efficient than
our fragmented health care system. The successful experience of other nations implementing similar
programs for their citizens shows what great potential such a system has for improving the lives of
everyone in the United States.

Though a single-payer health care system should have been implemented decades ago, as was suggested
shortly after the passage of Medicare, the current political and legal battles over our existing health care
system provide us the perfect opportunity to create a system that will stand the test of time. By ensuring
that everyone in the U.S. has access to high-quality health care throughout their lives, including
preventative services and consistent treatment for chronic illnesses, Americans will be able to live
healthier and more fulfilling lives.
Some additional articles were collected here:
...This is merely a sampling of the plethora of new articles that suggest that single payer may be the answer to the constitutionally-challenged Affordable Care Act. They represent the views of enthusiastic liberals, reluctant conservatives, and everyone in between. If you read only one entry, I would suggest the very last one, which is my response to today’s New York Times Economix blog by Uwe Reinhardt. Although at times it seems like we single payer activists are hollering in the wind, the profusion of responses demonstrates that single payer is now widely recognized as a model that would work for all of us...
But yeah, as I mentioned, academics & wonks have certainly been involved with crafting the House and Senate single-payer legislation, and Jayapal said their team looked very carefully at the issue of the transition period in particular, before deciding to go with a shorter transition period than the Sanders bill.
 

John Dunbar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,205
Instead of counting demographics in a random picture, here’s the Monmouth’s poll by race.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_031119.pdf/

Non white:
Biden - 31%
Sanders - 23%
Harris - 14%
Warren - 4%

White:
Biden - 25%
Sanders - 25%
Warren - 12%
Harris - 7%

The one with 2 to 1 ratio of non white to white is going to have more diverse audiences than a 1 to 1 ratio candidate does, but that doesn’t mean the 1 to 1 candidate is failing on outreach.
just goes to show that biden has his finger on the pulse of black america.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,933
just goes to show that biden has his finger on the pulse of black america.
It’s funny because people in here constantly harp on Bernie by saying he doesn’t make much black support (not even true) because he’s bad on race and yet the candidate leading with black Americans is the one with by far the worst record of anyone running.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,233
It’s funny because people in here constantly harp on Bernie by saying he doesn’t make much black support (not even true) because he’s bad on race and yet the candidate leading with black Americans is the one with by far the worst record of anyone running.
It's the Obama association. Well that and older black voters. The other 2020 candidates would do well to run attack ads on Biden's past positions re: his 94 crime bill, his comments on busing, etc.
 

guek

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,177
Obama started out popular but his approval rating dropped to the low 40s fairly quickly, just in time for both of his midterm elections.

Being moderate had nothing to do with it. In fact, Gallup polling in 2012 only found about 10% of the population that said Obama was too conservative, compared to 35% that pegged him as "just right" and 51% as too liberal:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4729/presidency.aspx

The dip in Obama's popularity was mainly due to the sluggish pace the economy recovered at. In 2014 it was a coordinated hatchet job between the GOP and the media that sought to blame him for ISIS and the ebola crisis, which they conveniently stopped talking about the day after the GOP swept the Congressional elections in 2014.

Ideology does not matter to most voters, at least not as much as you think it does.
What I meant was that his base stayed pretty solid despite all that. There wasn't some massive party backlash like you seem to be suggesting will happen if Bernie can't deliver everything he's campaigning on. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though.