2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[Brontoburglar]

yeah, I'm not referencing Warren's projected ability here at all

[P.D.X.]

Maybe the oracle will enlighten us since it's fair to assume that in 4 years women will be more electable than they are now given the general rise of progressiveness and acceptance of female leadership.

[Joe K]

Maybe the oracle will enlighten us since it's fair to assume that in 4 years women will be more electable than they are now given the general rise of progressiveness and acceptance of female leadership.

Also, I think it’s fair to say from the last few election cycles that age is not the liability it used to be, as long as you pick a competent VP (i.e., not Sarah Palin). It’s more important to have a national political brand than to be 40-60 years old. Warren has that, and few other Democrats do. I also think the Biden campaign and/or DNC will really try to play ball with Warren (if she stays in the 3rd-5th range) because her endorsement is by far the most significant one that Sanders could realistically get during the primary contest. He’s definitely not going to get endorsed by Obama, the Clintons, Klobuchar or Buttigieg.

[degenerasian]

I found this panel discussion interesting. In the end, what does Bernie do?

[Steve of phpBB]

So it looks like after being a nationally prominent public figure for four-plus years, Bernie is getting about half the support he had in 2016 in Iowa. (And about one-third of his 2016 support in Utah.) I just don't see significant numbers of Democrats coalescing around him as others drop out.

Assuming Sanders gets around 25% of the vote in Iowa, he should step down and endorse Warren. That is so clearly the most likely way to accomplish his stated goal of seeing laws and regulations enacted that are as progressive as the electorate and Congress will support.

Otherwise it's a world where Biden is the Dem nominee. Or maybe Buttigieg?

[Joe K]

Why should Bernie be the one to drop out when he’s polling ahead of Warren in Iowa, NH and nationally, and consistently does better than her in head-to-head polling versus Trump?

ETA:

[Steve of phpBB]

Why should Bernie be the one to drop out when he’s polling ahead of Warren in Iowa, NH and nationally, and consistently does better than her in head-to-head polling versus Trump?

ETA:

Because polls like that are irrelevant when he hasn't been through the national wringer yet, and because he's a 79-year-old non-Democrat who just had a heart attack who hasn't grown his support within the Democratic party despite four years of prominence.

[mister d]

Seeing how he polls better nationally too, what if he wins the nomination then beats Trump then turns it over to Warren to avoid any age of President concerns?

[The Sybian]

Because polls like that are irrelevant when he hasn't been through the national wringer yet, and because he's a 79-year-old non-Democrat who just had a heart attack who hasn't grown his support within the Democratic party despite four years of prominence.

Can we say Bernie's support is lower than 4 years ago when we had a 20+ candidate field, and 2016 was really just Hillary and Bernie from the jump?

[Johnnie]

Bernie dropping out when he's currently leading in some very important polls and Warren has been on the decline? That sounds ridiculous.

ETA

Lol. Oh yea. I forgot. The millisecond Trump is no longer president Republicans that have been criticizing him will somehow emerge as heroes of a New Right. This guy, Flake, Ryan..etc. (Hopefully not Rick Wilson. I actually like him.)

[Joe K]

I forgot. The millisecond Trump is no longer president Republicans that have been criticizing him will somehow emerge as heroes of a New Right. This guy, Flake, Ryan..etc. (Hopefully not Rick Wilson. I actually like him.)

This thread is spot on with respect to “anti-Trump Republicans,” by far the most overrepresented group in the media.

[Johnnie]

Right? It's just so weird. While we're watching a clown show on the major media networks, those same major media networks are rubbing elbows with these Never Trumpers as some sort of "hey, these guys are ok" buddy buddy bullshit.

They aren't ok. They enabled and facilitated the rise of Trump and when the collective ass of the Republican party showed, they could cut and run and be not as scumbaggy comparatively.

[Johnnie]

Gotta love this article from Politics about an existential breakdown in the Democratic party:

‘They let him get away with murder’: Dems tormented over how to stop Bernie

Love the phrasing.

And it shows just how pathetic Democrats truly are that their lack of a spine to stand up to Republicans has forced the base farther left than they liked. Oh well.

Maybe Obama should've forced through judges and Merrick Garland when he had the opportunity instead of playing a game only he followed the rules for?

[Joe K]

Gotta love this article from Politics about an existential breakdown in the Democratic party:

‘They let him get away with murder’: Dems tormented over how to stop Bernie

Love the phrasing.

And it shows just how pathetic Democrats truly are that their lack of a spine to stand up to Republicans has forced the base farther left than they liked. Oh well.

Maybe Obama should've forced through judges and Merrick Garland when he had the opportunity instead of playing a game only he followed the rules for?

What a bunch of absolute whiners. Also amazing how many Democratic operatives don’t understand the simple facts that: 1.) there is a big unmet need for a political movement that actually tries to help poor and working class people; and 2.) politics is a lot more appealing to people when it’s framed in moral terms rather than technical terms. Those two principles get you like 90% of the way to understanding Sanders’ appeal. But the Democratic professional class just doesn’t get it because they view politics as a puzzle game for affluent, well-educated technocrats.

[degenerasian]

People away from the coasts and DC are either voting Bernie or Trump.

[A_B]

I don’t agree with that at all.

[Giff]

[Steve of phpBB]

Because polls like that are irrelevant when he hasn't been through the national wringer yet, and because he's a 79-year-old non-Democrat who just had a heart attack who hasn't grown his support within the Democratic party despite four years of prominence.

Can we say Bernie's support is lower than 4 years ago when we had a 20+ candidate field, and 2016 was really just Hillary and Bernie from the jump?

I think we can, because (i) it is lower, as a matter of math, (ii) Bernie has kept his public profile during the past 4 years - so people who supported him in 2016 haven't forgotten about him, they've just decided they prefer others, (iii) I don't think it's likely he will get much of that support back - he's divisive enough, and resented by enough folks, that as the field narrows others are more likely to pick up support than he is.

I think Sanders is the least likely to beat Trump in the fall. I don't think these head-to-head polls matter so much because he hasn't been through a national wringer. And I think that as soon as folks realize his election means higher taxes for them personally, and they don't actually *know* anyone who's been deliberately abused at the border or lost out on asylum or refugee status, they will decide Trump isn't so bad. Those people make up a big part of the Dem Congressional vote in 2018.

In all honesty, I think Warren is pretty risky on that front too. I wanted Kamala Harris because she was dishonest enough to promise no tax increases even though we clearly need tax increases.

[mister d]

So even though he polls better than any Dem against Trump, you personally believe him to be least likely to beat Trump.

[Steve of phpBB]

So even though he polls better than any Dem against Trump, you personally believe him to be least likely to beat Trump.

Yes. Because I don't think head-to-head polling in this situation - where Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right, and where the polling differences are slight anyway - really tells us much.

That kind of polling this far out and in this situation certainly isn't reliable enough to predict a difference between 52 percent support and 48 percent support. If he polled 15 points better than someone else, I'd find it more relevant.

Quite frankly, I feel the Dems would be taking on a big risk even by nominating Warren. I really think that a safe white guy will probably have a better shot. But I can't bring myself to advocate for Biden or Buttigieg.

Edit: To me, it's like saying that Player A is better than Player B because on May 15, A had a batting average of .320 and B had a batting average of .295.

[Joe K]

So even though he polls better than any Dem against Trump, you personally believe him to be least likely to beat Trump.

This also seems significant:

[mister d]

Yes. Because I don't think head-to-head polling in this situation - where Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right, and where the polling differences are slight anyway - really tells us much.

...

Edit: To me, it's like saying that Player A is better than Player B because on May 15, A had a batting average of .320 and B had a batting average of .295.

Its also like saying "Player A's batting average will go below Player B's because pitchers get stronger in the summer months", no? Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right in the same way every other Dem candidate hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right.

[Joe K]

Yes. Because I don't think head-to-head polling in this situation - where Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right, and where the polling differences are slight anyway - really tells us much.

...

Edit: To me, it's like saying that Player A is better than Player B because on May 15, A had a batting average of .320 and B had a batting average of .295.

Its also like saying "Player A's batting average will go below Player B's because pitchers get stronger in the summer months", no? Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right in the same way every other Dem candidate hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right.

Yeah, I don’t know how you square that argument with saying that Buttigieg is a safer pick. Hardly anyone votes in South Bend elections and he got destroyed the one time he ran for statewide office. And a Biden run would absolutely turn into a referendum on Hunter Biden and Burisma.

[mister d]

Also, wasn't Tim Kaine the epitome of the "look, he's just like you" safe white guy that appeals to the purple states theory? How'd that work?

[Joe K]

Also, wasn't Tim Kaine the epitome of the "look, he's just like you" safe white guy that appeals to the purple states theory? How'd that work?

Better analog is 2004 John Kerry. And Kerry was much sharper than Biden is now.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yes. Because I don't think head-to-head polling in this situation - where Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right, and where the polling differences are slight anyway - really tells us much.

...

Edit: To me, it's like saying that Player A is better than Player B because on May 15, A had a batting average of .320 and B had a batting average of .295.

Its also like saying "Player A's batting average will go below Player B's because pitchers get stronger in the summer months", no? Bernie hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right in the same way every other Dem candidate hasn't been the subject of national attacks from the right.

Warren has been the subject of national attacks from Trump, and thus from others on the right. Biden has been through national attacks from the right.

But for what it's worth, I don't necessarily think the national attacks from the right will be the problem for Sanders. I think they will affect his polling somewhat - enough to make January head-to-heads less predictive - but really it will be his own stated positions on things like taxes and regulation. I agree with him on those positions, but most people don't. Only 25 percent of the public identifies as liberal, as I understand it.

Anyway, I think climate change is a more urgent issue than single payer health care or the cost of college. (Universal health care is very important. Single payer must less so.) I don't really think either Sanders or Warren will make that a priority.

[Steve of phpBB]

Also, wasn't Tim Kaine the epitome of the "look, he's just like you" safe white guy that appeals to the purple states theory? How'd that work?

Better analog is 2004 John Kerry. And Kerry was much sharper than Biden is now.

And Kerry did better than the models would have suggested running against a then-mysteriously-popular wartime president, and came within 60K votes in one state of winning.

Didn't Kaine get three million more votes than Pence?

[degenerasian]

Also, wasn't Tim Kaine the epitome of the "look, he's just like you" safe white guy that appeals to the purple states theory? How'd that work?

he could speak Spanish!

[tennbengal]

Because polls like that are irrelevant when he hasn't been through the national wringer yet, and because he's a 79-year-old non-Democrat who just had a heart attack who hasn't grown his support within the Democratic party despite four years of prominence.

Can we say Bernie's support is lower than 4 years ago when we had a 20+ candidate field, and 2016 was really just Hillary and Bernie from the jump?

I think we can, because (i) it is lower, as a matter of math, (ii) Bernie has kept his public profile during the past 4 years - so people who supported him in 2016 haven't forgotten about him, they've just decided they prefer others, (iii) I don't think it's likely he will get much of that support back - he's divisive enough, and resented by enough folks, that as the field narrows others are more likely to pick up support than he is.

I think Sanders is the least likely to beat Trump in the fall. I don't think these head-to-head polls matter so much because he hasn't been through a national wringer. And I think that as soon as folks realize his election means higher taxes for them personally, and they don't actually *know* anyone who's been deliberately abused at the border or lost out on asylum or refugee status, they will decide Trump isn't so bad. Those people make up a big part of the Dem Congressional vote in 2018.

In all honesty, I think Warren is pretty risky on that front too. I wanted Kamala Harris because she was dishonest enough to promise no tax increases even though we clearly need tax increases.

WOULD his election mean higher taxes for people, personally? I thought the main aim of he and Warren was folks making a fuckton more than even those who might be considered "upper middle class" at this point...

[Steve of phpBB]

Because polls like that are irrelevant when he hasn't been through the national wringer yet, and because he's a 79-year-old non-Democrat who just had a heart attack who hasn't grown his support within the Democratic party despite four years of prominence.

Can we say Bernie's support is lower than 4 years ago when we had a 20+ candidate field, and 2016 was really just Hillary and Bernie from the jump?

I think we can, because (i) it is lower, as a matter of math, (ii) Bernie has kept his public profile during the past 4 years - so people who supported him in 2016 haven't forgotten about him, they've just decided they prefer others, (iii) I don't think it's likely he will get much of that support back - he's divisive enough, and resented by enough folks, that as the field narrows others are more likely to pick up support than he is.

I think Sanders is the least likely to beat Trump in the fall. I don't think these head-to-head polls matter so much because he hasn't been through a national wringer. And I think that as soon as folks realize his election means higher taxes for them personally, and they don't actually *know* anyone who's been deliberately abused at the border or lost out on asylum or refugee status, they will decide Trump isn't so bad. Those people make up a big part of the Dem Congressional vote in 2018.

In all honesty, I think Warren is pretty risky on that front too. I wanted Kamala Harris because she was dishonest enough to promise no tax increases even though we clearly need tax increases.

WOULD his election mean higher taxes for people, personally? I thought the main aim of he and Warren was folks making a fuckton more than even those who might be considered "upper middle class" at this point...

Single payer health care alone would require a sixty percent increase in the overall federal budget. Not a sixty percent increase in the *deficit*, but that large of an increase in total federal spending. Plus we're going to give everyone free college, pay off college loan debt, rework the entire economy to combat global warming, and increase social security and disability benefits.

There are nowhere near enough people making over $250K per year to fund that. So yes, these policy agendas would require massive tax increases for lots of people.

[mister d]

Is that single payer alone without factoring in increased corporate taxes and decreased personal spending on health care?

[tennbengal]

I mean, the government hands out a trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there to the military every time someone sneezes and taxes don't go up - how does that work but actually spending on people rather than tanks mean that taxes go up?

[tennbengal]

I mean, quite literally the GOP and Trump just exploded the deficit with that massive tax cut for the top 1% - how about we simply claw that back and start there?

[Steve of phpBB]

I mean, quite literally the GOP and Trump just exploded the deficit with that massive tax cut for the top 1% - how about we simply claw that back and start there?

Sure, we start there. That gets you about 1/30th of the way. Because when they talk about a "trillion dollar tax cut for the rich," they are using a ten-year estimate. So that's $100 billion per year. Single payer requires additional federal spending of $3 trillion per year.

That's why the "endless spending for war" thing doesn't work. A generally anti-war group estimated that the Middle East wars have cost something like $2 trillion since 9-11. That includes direct spending, medical costs, extra benefits for individual soldiers, etc. That's two-thirds of one year of single payer.

The implication of Mr. D's question is correct - that $3 trillion annual cost does not include decreased personal spending on health care. On balance, I do think *overall* spending on health care would be lower with single payer. But still, single payer will require government spending to go way up - which means receipts (taxes) have to go way up.

On balance, there won't be "extra" spending. You'll have the government spend shitloads more, and the private sector and individuals spending shitloads less. For example, right now a huge chunk of the private money being spent on health care is by employers covering their employees' health insurance. Employees don't see that. Those employers will get a massive tax break if single payer goes through. But there's no way to make sure all that extra money goes to the employees to account for the increased taxes they will need to pay under a system.

In 2019, I personally paid more than $45,000 on health insurance premiums for my firm's employees. That's my share of my firm's overall bill - it does include other partners and myself. I'll make out like a bandit from single payer, because I won't have to spend nearly that much. But even though we've been very generous with our employees on this issue (we haven't raised the employee contribution to health insurance since I got here in 1998), I can't promise that every dollar I save on health premiums will get passed to my employees. And there's no way to ensure that it would get passed onto them in such a way that each person comes out even compared to our current system.

This is why I think the current left-blogosphere focus on single payer is foolish and possibly self-destructive. There are literally tens of millions of people with employer-provided health insurance. I think it's 140 million people. Those folks don't want to risk losing their coverage. That's a big reason why reform failed in 1993. And they have reason to be skeptical, since no country has ever done the kind of transition we're talking about. So if we go into the election promising to take away their insurance and double their taxes to pay for it, they might not be as thrilled as we are on here.

There are other ways to get universal coverage that don't require single payer, that require much less disruption.

So, in other words, the answer to your question is yes.

[degenerasian]

Using Steve's example above... what does single payer mean and what parts of healthcare is it covering?

Using the Canadian example that everyone like to use... I get covered under single payer for lab visits, doctors visits and hospital visits. That's pretty much it. My employer's healthcare insurance covers drugs, dental, eyes and physical body stuff (massage, chiro, physio etc..). There are some exceptions but that's it in general.

So how much of Steve's $45000 would be going to a hypothetical single payer system? 100% of it? 50% of it? 20% of it?

[mister d]

I can't promise that every dollar I save on health premiums will get passed to my employees. And there's no way to ensure that it would get passed onto them in such a way that each person comes out even compared to our current system.

Isn't your "promise" simply higher corporate taxation earmarked for healthcare expenses? You don't see a windfall here, you see a different expense line item.

[mister d]

In a far more macro view, it seems like the difficulty of unwinding the current system is intentionally obfuscated by shifting the focus solely on the payers. "How will you pay", "who might pay more", etc. That in large part wouldn't change, individuals would still contribute (taxes rather than paycheck deductions/deductibles/co-pays) and companies would still contribute (increased taxes, decreased employee benefits). What massively changes is the payees. Right now, what percentage of individual/company payments get siphoned off by private insurance companies before reaching actual health providers? And why is that deemed either necessary or too difficult to fix? Because it actually is too difficult or "harmful" to the people, or because the middleman lobbying has a louder voice than the people?

[Steve of phpBB]

I can't promise that every dollar I save on health premiums will get passed to my employees. And there's no way to ensure that it would get passed onto them in such a way that each person comes out even compared to our current system.

Isn't your "promise" simply higher corporate taxation earmarked for healthcare expenses? You don't see a windfall here, you see a different expense line item.

No.

First, like pretty much every small firm, we rarely pay corporate income tax. All the money we take in over the year, we pay out to ourselves as bonuses. So the corporation makes $0 every year. Instead, the seven or eight owners get income that we pay individual income tax on.

Second, I have yet to see a proposal for a corporate tax that would reflect the amount the corporation would have paid for employee health insurance premiums if single payer had not been adopted. Any such formula would be massively complex, rife for abuse, would almost certainly penalize employers like us who provide good benefits, and would probably disincentivize hiring more employees in the future.

[Steve of phpBB]

In a far more macro view, it seems like the difficulty of unwinding the current system is intentionally obfuscated by shifting the focus solely on the payers. "How will you pay", "who might pay more", etc. That in large part wouldn't change, individuals would still contribute (taxes rather than paycheck deductions/deductibles/co-pays) and companies would still contribute (increased taxes, decreased employee benefits). What massively changes is the payees. Right now, what percentage of individual/company payments get siphoned off by private insurance companies before reaching actual health providers? And why is that deemed either necessary or too difficult to fix? Because it actually is too difficult or "harmful" to the people, or because the middleman lobbying has a louder voice than the people?

It's too difficult to fix because we aren't starting from scratch. We have had a system evolve in response to various incentives for seventy-five or eighty years, thus entrenching a system that basically works for tens of millions of people who have a lot of clout.

Plus, when you talk about money being siphoned off, health insurance companies are not the biggest problem. As a percentage of revenues or investment capital, they are not inordinately profitable. And when they are "too" profitable in a given year, they are required to under the ACA (and actually do) issue rebates to their customers. (When it comes to overall costs, the problem is the providers. They are the ones charging $1800 for a month's supply of a drug that costs $6 to make, or $3500 for an MRI that takes a couple hours.)

(Also, note that when most of the western European countries voted to tax themselves to pay for huge government health care subsidies, they had mostly been pounded to dust by the war and ethnically cleansed for a hundred years. They didn't have a built-in resentments of large minority groups that we have, in part because they had found a "final solution" for one of those groups and others were forcibly kicked from one country to another.)

Anyway, single payer is just not necessary. Many countries have universal coverage without single payer. You can take the ACA, add a public option, make half a dozen other modifications, and solve 80 percent of the remaining problems. And then the rest can be covered by public funding and tax increases, at a much lower order of magnitude than the universal single-payer no-cost-to-the-user plans being offered by Sanders or AOC or now Warren.

And whatever else we say, single payer will almost not be adopted by the next Congress or the one after that. The best-case scenario is Joe Manchin being the deciding vote.

So I'm seeing the left blogosphere forcing candidates into taking a largely symbolic position in favor of single payer, one that is far more likely to lead to four more years of Trump than to single payer actually happening any time soon.

[mister d]

To the first point, isn't that all still part of the same equation? If its not taxed on one side, its taxed on the other. That $45K becomes part of a higher personal income tax, as does every other dollar paid to every partner and employee over the course of the year. No one is or should be pretending single payer means your future income is your present day income plus your out-of-pocket health, just that your overall costs from all angles will decrease and you'll be shielded from a worst case scenario.

To the second point, any system, be it the current corporate tax structure or a hybrid income/profit or a headcount is as open to abuse, and moreso the more complicated that system is made. Has every other first world country not figured out that you can get money from A to C without necessitating a well-paid B without any redeeming societal value in the middle? The reflexive "you haven't solved everything in detail yet" ignores that the problem is strings out is lots of people dying and/or going bankrupt to maintain status quo.