The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,478
The notion that you will lose your health care under M4A. Maybe I'm wrong and its not a Republican talking point, as its been mostly Dems I've heard saying it. I just don't like the way it comes off as if people would have no health care coverage when you say "you'll lose your health care."
If the Republicans had their way, tens of millions of people would have no healthcare.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,825
If the Republicans had their way, tens of millions of people would have no healthcare.
Yes and that is the problem I have with Democrats attacking each other with claims that "candidate x's plan will kick you off your health insurance" which is actually one of things that has been said. If its M4A (and it passed which it won't) candidate X's plan will replace your current health insurance plan with government run health insurance.

That's a hard sell in and of itself of course. People would like to have the opportunity to buy into Medicare but a lot of people don't want to have no choice but government run health insurance.
 

Dragonlady

Sew Happy
Messages
10,351
The Culinary Union seems to have not addressed Sanders and Warren the same but in any case, I'm reading about this fight all over and it seems like Bernie's rabid supporters may be causing him some real problems now:

From Daily Kos:



I find this whole thing extremely painful. Democrats should be united for expanding access to health care not fighting each other.

I'm not a particular supporter of Medicare for All but seeing a union characterizing it from Republican talking points makes me think, now more than ever, we are completely screwed.
I think the candidates are united in wanting to expand health care, but there is a lot of disagreement on how to go about it. Biden wants to rebuild and improve the ACA. Others want a public option. And still others want Medicare For All. The Unions been frightened into thinking that they'll be left bare bones coverage, with huge copays and all of the other scare lines that Republicans have made come true with Obamacare. Republicans are chipping away at Obamacare by doing away with the mandate, cutting the taxes which pay for it, reducing the subsidies. It death by a thousand cuts, but something similar could happen again if Republicans get back in power.

Realistically, I can't see that Medicare For All is even feasible at this point, without having all those with vested interests sitting down and talking. Anything the candidates are proposing should be taken with handfuls of salt at this point.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,825
Hmm saw an interesting suggestion that Biden could get the Culinary Union endorsement in Nevada. Although there is not a new SC poll since NH, he was still 18 points up in SC in the Feb 6 poll.

If he were to win NV and SC, would his campaign still be dead?
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,446
Hmm saw an interesting suggestion that Biden could get the Culinary Union endorsement in Nevada.
And the winner is... no one!
Biden is mentioned in the second tweet though.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,825
And the winner is... no one!
Biden is mentioned in the second tweet though.
well poo
 

rhapsody

Well-Known Member
Messages
886
Bloomberg is buying his way to the top though he hasn't been put to the test on stage; hopefully the other candidates don't hold back at the next debate. I'm more Bernie at this point and until recently I would've said that I will support whoever wins the nomination despite my feelings about those that I'm not a fan of like Pete, Joe, and Amy.

Bloomberg however crosses that line. I really have no idea who I would vote for if he's the nominee. Is Trump worse than Mike, a party outsider who is in truth a Republican and would have the support of the democratic party? Not to mention the whole fall of American democracy optics (what's left of it) perpetuated by an oligarch buying the presidency. Yikes.
 

FunnyBut

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,971
I think Bloomberg has been quite well vetted in his 3 terms as NYC Mayor. Some of the ‘highlights’ have been posted in a link by agalisgv upthread. It’s not new info, but probably very salient to folks just getting to know him. Maybe I’ve been desensitized by Trump, it’s not what I like but I can stomach it. My guess is he’ll be our Dem Nominee. Then we’ll just have to see how many progressive dems can also accept him enough to show up at the polls, considering the alternative.
 

PrincessLeppard

Holding Alex Johnson's Pineapple
Messages
26,488
My Trumper friends have started attacking Pete. The first is a fake claim that he strangled five dogs as a teenager, and it claims to show the newspaper article. It's fake.

And the gay jokes have started. But it's okay because "they're just jokes and you know I really like gay people." :wall:
 

BittyBug

Wishing it weren't so
Messages
22,194
Is Trump worse than Mike, a party outsider who is in truth a Republican and would have the support of the democratic party?
Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat who switched to the Republic party when he ran for Mayor of NYC. Is Trump worse than Bloomberg? I suppose that depends on your priorities, but here are few contrasts:

Bloomberg: gun control / Trump: sucks up to the NRA
Bloomberg: believes that we need to take radical action to stem climate change (and has been advocating or this for the past several years) / Trump: sucks up to fossil fuel companies
Bloomberg: pro-environment / Trump: is slashing every environmental regulation that he can
Bloomberg: supports the rule of law / Trump: thinks he is the law
Bloomberg: financially independent / Trump: has ripped off taxpayers for millions and millions of dollars by charging the Secret Service market rates to stay at his properties while they are protecting him

I could go one, but do you need me to do so?
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,268
The onslaught of attacks on Bernie Sanders seems to have started in earnest now:
Better late than never.


Bloomberg however crosses that line. I really have no idea who I would vote for if he's the nominee. Is Trump worse than Mike, a party outsider who is in truth a Republican and would have the support of the democratic party?
After Trump retaliated against witnesses and told the DOJ what to do twice, I can't believe that you're seriously asking that question. The separation of powers and checks and balances crumbles before everyone's eyes, giving Trump more and more unchecked power and you wonder if Bloomberg is really better than Trump? What more does Trump have to do until the last person understands/accepts that US democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and his Republican enablers?
 
Last edited:

Dragonlady

Sew Happy
Messages
10,351
Bloomberg is buying his way to the top though he hasn't been put to the test on stage; hopefully the other candidates don't hold back at the next debate. I'm more Bernie at this point and until recently I would've said that I will support whoever wins the nomination despite my feelings about those that I'm not a fan of like Pete, Joe, and Amy.

Bloomberg however crosses that line. I really have no idea who I would vote for if he's the nominee. Is Trump worse than Mike, a party outsider who is in truth a Republican and would have the support of the democratic party? Not to mention the whole fall of American democracy optics (what's left of it) perpetuated by an oligarch buying the presidency. Yikes.
That Bloomberg commerical which is mostly Obama saying nice things about Mike is highly misleading. It makes it appear that Obama has endorsed him, which simply isn't true.

If I had a vote in this, I would never vote for Bernie or Bloomberg. Neither one of them is a Democrat. They just want to use the Democrats for money and organization. Well, Bloomberg doesn't need the money, but he does want the credibility of running for a major party. And quite frankly, I wouldn't for for Biden or Warren either because of age. And it kills me because I really like Warren, but the Boomers need to step aside. Biden and Sanders have been in government for generations and voted for a lot of the policies that produced the current mess.

Younger, fresher ideas are needed.
 

BittyBug

Wishing it weren't so
Messages
22,194
Younger, fresher ideas may be needed but in the short term we most urgently need to get Trump out of office, and I'm not going to let party labels and affiliations get in the way of my vote towards that end.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,446
She's barely a Boomer.

Bernie isn't a Boomer even technically and neither is Biden. They are from the Silent Generation
How is someone born in 1949 barely a Boomer? Warren was a child in the 1950s and came of age in the 60s, that's pretty much peak Boomer.

I don't find it disqualifying, though - if someone is physically and mentally able to do the job and has good ideas and policies, why not vote for them?
 

MacMadame

My G.O.A.T is better than your G.O.A.T.
Messages
31,162
The boomer age range starts at 1945 and she was born in 1949. So only 4 years in. I think the boomer age range is too wide to be meaningful.

But I agree with you about judging by the ideas and fitness. My mom is 82 and still works and also works out. She's sharp as a tack. (And would probably make a good President :lol:)
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,539
Generations are so weird. Someone born in the beginning of it may feel like they don't quite belong since they were only a few years from being part of the older one, but their upbringing is different, and their experiences can be vastly different from those born near the tail-end of it. Like me and a good proportion of my siblings are millennials but as the oldest I feel like my references and the types of things I enjoy are so different and have more in common with my Gen X cousins who were born near the tail end of that generation but then I don't quite fit in with them either. I was old enough to truly remember life before the Internet and having a computer in the house while my younger ones though lived that life too were only kids, so their young and late adolescence was defined by the first era of YouTube and online life. They seem to have more in common with my even younger siblings who are Gen Z or Zoomers, but my youngest siblings are born in the near beginning of that and their experiences vastly differ from many of my younger nieces and nephews (from my older cousins) who grew up with an iPad/iPhone attached to their hand and don't watch TV at all but YouTube, TikTok, and streaming services and speak Fortnite.

Speaking of Gen X, growing up I always attributed them to the teenagers of the 90s who were born in the late 70s-early 80s who were into gangsta rap and Lollapalooza and were so cynical and sarcastic and have a sense of "meh" so it's weird when I see people born in the mid-to-late 1960s and early 70s as being Gen X although I guess technically they're all the MTV Generation. MTV vastly differed within a decade and Gosh I don't think it's close to being the same now as it was when I watched it but then thinking back I was there when it gradually evolved from being a music channel to one with reality and shock tv programming aimed to attract what the demographics they are catering to are interested in watching like with the first seasons of The Real World and Jack Ass, Tom Greene, Singled Out, etc.
 
Last edited:

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,446
Imagine if Katarina Witt had skated to this:
 

Michalle

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,147
Speaking of Gen X, growing up I always attributed them to the teenagers of the 90s who were born in the late 70s-early 80s who were into gangsta rap and Lollapalooza and were so cynical and sarcastic and have a sense of "meh"
Whoa I have never felt more “seen” thank you!
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,825
And it kills me because I really like Warren, but the Boomers need to step aside. Biden and Sanders have been in government for generations and voted for a lot of the policies that produced the current mess.

Younger, fresher ideas are needed.
taken literally, you are saying everyone in the race needs to get out except Pete. Well not taken literally, since Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders are NOT Baby Boomers, but taken to mean everyone who is a Baby Boomer or older.

I'm for younger leadership, for people in their 70s not holding on forever to their seats in Congress etc, but we have the field we have now. This was how it was winnowed. I don't think people should judge just on age here. Its one thing to certainly take into account but a blanket assertion that people should reject all candidates born before 1964 just is extreme.

On top of that, sometimes older candidates may have newer ideas and certainly a younger candidate doesn't necessarily have new ideas at all.

(okay I left out Tulsi Gabbard again, she can sue me ;) )
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,697
The boomer age range starts at 1945
We discussed this on here somewhere once before. Doesn't it go to 1964 or something like that? I don't understand how such a wide range can be one generation. If you were born in 1945 and had a kid at 18, you'd be in the same generation?
Bloomberg is buying his way to the top
Remembering that I don't understand politics...........why is this bad? You don't have to vote for him just because you've seen his ads. Hasn't he done other good things with his money? At least he's not asking poor people to send $5 to his website every time he is interviewed.
Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat who switched to the Republic party when he ran for Mayor of NYC.
...............Agree with your whole post. And Trump "was" a long-time Democrat. There is still an (I) next to Bernie's name on every banner.

I like Bloomberg. I wish he wasn't taking votes away from Biden though. Disclaimer for every post - I am still undecided. But I don't think a woman or Mayor Pete can stand up to trump. Doesn't leave a lot of room there. I will vote in the primary for whoever looks like they can win it. And I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
(okay I left out Tulsi Gabbard again, she can sue me ;) )
Why in the world is she still in the race? She should switch to Republican.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
54,825
Remembering that I don't understand politics...........why is this bad? You don't have to vote for him just because you've seen his ads. Hasn't he done other good things with his money? At least he's not asking poor people to send $5 to his website every time he is interviewed.
Think about the fact that number of donors was used as a criteria for qualifying for all the debates until now. Why was that? Because it shows widespread support for a candidate. I wish we had public financing of campaigns but we don't and when you raise money from a large number of people you show you have wide support. Further, when you get your funding from hundreds of thousands of small donations, you have a much larger and more diverse group to whom you owe your campaign's ability to function than if you depend more on a smaller number of large donors.

I do not like a democracy of dollars, I think it should be votes that matter not contributions ultimately, but it is a little like votes and someone who has a million contributors has won the support of all those people and is answerable to all of them.
 

BittyBug

Wishing it weren't so
Messages
22,194
@BlueRidge just as a point of information because you have previously said that you think Bloomberg "bought" your mayor (and others). I learned last night that Bloomberg sponsors a "Bloomberg University" for mayors, teaching them leadership and managements skills. So it may be more that Bloomberg, as a former mayor and through this program, has built relationships with other mayors.

I know you still have a lot (let's say, billions ;) ) of reasons you are not in favor of his candidacy, but I wanted to add the above information to respond to your previous suggestion / allegation.
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
61,158
LOL at the idea that anyone’s employer-sponsored healthcare is such a good deal. Virtually all employers limit networks, have moved to high deductibles and restrict access in some way to try to control costs.
Exactly. Unions use this scare tactic to keep people paying union dues. Case in point: our hospital has merged with another in town. The other is union, we are not. Both have paid all the insurance premiums, but as of the first of the year, we are now having to pay part of the cost (it was inevitable). The other hospital's union contract runs out in two years. There was a flurry of employees joining the union to "save their insurance." Which isn't going to happen. Senior management is firm that all employees will start paying part of the premium. The union can't stop that from happening. They will concede the point. If the employees elect to strike, patients will simply be rerouted to the other part of the network. The unions will walk away and leave the employees to their own devices. This has happened over and over and over across the country. Employers will shift healthcare costs away from their profits whenever they can. Unions will flat out lie to people to get them to sign up and pay dues which is all that matters.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,969
Speaking of Gen X, growing up I always attributed them to the teenagers of the 90s who were born in the late 70s-early 80s who were into gangsta rap and Lollapalooza and were so cynical and sarcastic and have a sense of "meh" so it's weird when I see people born in the mid-to-late 1960s and early 70s as being Gen X although I guess technically they're all the MTV Generation.

LOL. I am on the early side of Gen X. Well before gangsta rap and Lollapalooza. :)

There's a distinctiveness to our time cohort, and a certain set of attitudes, but it's hard to explain. A woman I know who was in my high school class, but whom I wasn't close with, wrote a memoir recently, and I read it, and there were many little things in it that I identified with. Things that she had the same set of thoughts and feelings about that I did--even though we'd never talked. Is that a generational thing? I don't know. Boomers and their references feel quite distant, though. I don't relate to them. Sometimes I almost kind of feel like we're the anonymous generation.

Politically speaking, us early Xers grew up during the 70s gas crisis and the angst of the 1980 election, which was at the time fairly bitter and divisive. The Reagan/Wall Street 80s were seminal and we all absorbed it, and you kind of went one way or another politically/culturally.

----

Just realized I was getting pretty off-topic with the above. Sorry.

Getting back on topic, Twitter has been interesting reading following the poll that had Bloomberg at 22% with African-Americans. That prompted a day- or two-long series of tweet rants and and an anti-Bloomberg column from Charles Blow, opinion columnist for The New York Times, whom I follow. Blow is outraged that Bloomberg is apparently a viable candidate in this race after his stop-and-frisk policies, and is also outraged at white people tweeting to him that we need to get behind the eventual nominee and that Bloomberg's apologized, etc. I've seen similar tweets from some other prominent AA politicians/columnists. Meanwhile there is also this rather eyebrow-raising list of past Bloomberg comments:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/a-list-of-things-bloomberg-actually-said-about-fat-people-rape-george-w-bush-and-j-lo/

Maybe it's hyperbole, but Bloomberg's presence in the race keeps making me think of 1941 and the people we had to make alliances with to win the war. :eek:
 
Last edited:

Dragonlady

Sew Happy
Messages
10,351
taken literally, you are saying everyone in the race needs to get out except Pete. Well not taken literally, since Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders are NOT Baby Boomers, but taken to mean everyone who is a Baby Boomer or older.

I'm for younger leadership, for people in their 70s not holding on forever to their seats in Congress etc, but we have the field we have now. This was how it was winnowed. I don't think people should judge just on age here. Its one thing to certainly take into account but a blanket assertion that people should reject all candidates born before 1964 just is extreme.

On top of that, sometimes older candidates may have newer ideas and certainly a younger candidate doesn't necessarily have new ideas at all.

(okay I left out Tulsi Gabbard again, she can sue me ;) )
You also left out Amy Klobishar and Tom Steyer who is 62. So there are other choices. But my larger concern is that Sander is NOT a Democrat, has never been a Democrat and a lot of people won't vote for him because of that. And then there's Bloomberg who is a old Republican billionaire.

Even worse is that Biden harks back to the good old days when there was bi-partisanship. Those days are done and you're not going back. If Biden was so good at bi-partisanship, why wasn't he able to get Congress and the Senate to work with Obama?

If your going to go with an older candidate, the best choice is Warren, who is the youngest of the old farts and one with good ideas. But running a candidate who isn't even a Democrat is a really poor idea. In fact, a lot of real Democrats are angry that Sanders keeps trying to co-opt the party every four years but is unwilling to be a part of it when he's not running for President.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 32, Guests: 16)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information