I'm not sure Medicare is a bad word. Medicaid? Yes. For dumb ass reasons.
But Medicare is actually fairly popular with one of the most active voting blocks.
If anything I think if the Dems can drive home a talking point about M4A ensuring the continued funding of Medicare they could possibly pick up a not insignificant number of votes.
+13
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I still think the main thing that will turn off Obama-Trump voters from Sanders/Warren is their healthcare proposals, which invoke Medicare in a country where that's a bad word. Propose the exact same thing with a different name and they'll get way more people on board.
I guess climate change could be Biden's number one priority or something, but his proposals on the subject are sad and weak compared to what Warren and Sanders are suggesting.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I still think the main thing that will turn off Obama-Trump voters from Sanders/Warren is their healthcare proposals, which invoke Medicare in a country where that's a bad word. Propose the exact same thing with a different name and they'll get way more people on board.
Medicare is extremely popular!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There are a ton of people who are both LGBTQ and have religion/faith.
Having a democrat talk about christianity and how that isn't exclusively the domain of conservatives is kind of important. 65% of americans identify as such. It is shitty that people think that the only home open to folks who are christian is the republican party because it just plain is not true and cannot be true if we want to win stuff nationally.
As someone who is Jewish and exclusively not Christian
I don't want to hear a godamn thing about how Christian a presidential or fucking ANY political candidate is
He doesn’t give a shit about black people so whether or not they go to church wouldn’t matter to him
I’m going to go to my deathbed screaming this, but nobody who went to Harvard and worked at McKinsey gets to call themselves, “Midwestern,” anymore. Everything about those two institutions eschews traditional Midwestern values in any shape or form.
+6
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
pete found jesus after somebody told him black people go to churches a lot, i'm pretty sure
This is intensely weird, mean-spirited, and not at all how he has been since he has been on the national stage at all.
You can definitely make a case that he has pivoted on some issues and some of it may be focus tested (surprise! He’s a politician!) , a significant message in his plank has been that the left, that being progressive, doesn’t mean you have to allow the right to own patriotism, faith, or other planks that have majority support in the country. This has been Pete from day one and honestly it was one of the best things about his campaign. You don’t have to be ashamed of your faith because you believe the Democrats have a good vision for the country you want to support. You don’t have to hate your country to hate what it has done and want to
Support policies that push us towards a more perfect union.
Like, the vitriol being thrown at him just because he mentioned his faith, in a totally not-aggressive way, with the same level of strength he mentions his husband by way of the wedding ring he is wearing that would have been impossible a decade ago... it proves his point. We as a party need to figure out how to include more people while pushing for our goals. If a Christian believes in charity and taking care of the worst of us and wants to support expanding healthcare to all as a right? Welcome aboard.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
pete found jesus after somebody told him black people go to churches a lot, i'm pretty sure
This is intensely weird, mean-spirited, and not at all how he has been since he has been on the national stage at all.
You can definitely make a case that he has pivoted on some issues and some of it may be focus tested (surprise! He’s a politician!) , a significant message in his plank has been that the left, that being progressive, doesn’t mean you have to allow the right to own patriotism, faith, or other planks that have majority support in the country. This has been Pete from day one and honestly it was one of the best things about his campaign. You don’t have to be ashamed of your faith because you believe the Democrats have a good vision for the country you want to support. You don’t have to hate your country to hate what it has done and want to
Support policies that push us towards a more perfect union.
Like, the vitriol being thrown at him just because he mentioned his faith, in a totally not-aggressive way, with the same level of strength he mentions his husband by way of the wedding ring he is wearing that would have been impossible a decade ago... it proves his point. We as a party need to figure out how to include more people while pushing for our goals. If a Christian believes in charity and taking care of the worst of us and wants to support expanding healthcare to all as a right? Welcome aboard.
Those people are already Democrats. It's the others ones that don't believe in that stuff, aren't real Christians, and won't ever join the Democratic party.
Buttigieg's faith isn't what I have an issue with. It's not a selling point to me, but whatever politicians talk about god all the time and that's not going to stop any time soon.
My issue with him is basically summed up by how in one of the first debates he had that line about how republicans are going to call us socialist no matter what we do so why not actually push progressive policies, but now he just seems opposed to anything too far left of what he considers the mainstream including stuff he has previously endorsed.
I don't think he's necessarily a bad guy or anything, but like somebody said earlier in this thread, it feels like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth and it leaves me wondering what his actual convictions are. I just find it had to put my trust in him right now when there are other candidates available that I'm able to point to and say "I know what this person believes and is willing to fight for."
FFXIV: Agran Trask
+7
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Pete will probably tank before the Iowa primary, which is . . . . Christ! Three months out still. Probably what we're seeing is the idiot donor class trying to prop up someone that will let them continue doing the same old shit. So right now Pete is probably polling well because he has been built up as the next Biden (likely never-Warren) and people haven't really looked much into his record. Once people start looking into his record they are likely going to decide they don't like him. One he is a phony and changes his position to whatever he thinks will get him votes, dude doesn't strike me as having any convictions other than what gets him votes, which has some similarities to Trump's campaigning style, so likely going to turn a ton of people off.
Pete might be media-blasting the Iowa electorate to try to prop up his numbers just long enough. Mailers, TV ads, Facebook targeting at old people, whatever. Steyer has been doing that in New Hampshire. Remember that even most Democrats aren't keeping up with the news as hard as us political junkies are (and yes, we are all political junkies if we're this deep in the weeds) and Iowa is full of oblivious old white people who are now just being introduced to this clean looking young white dude.
Ultimately Iowa's outsized importance to the primary system needs to go. The whims of a couple million oblivious old white people terrified of it not being the 1950s shouldn't dictate what the rest of the country has to deal with. It might almost be good for Buttigieg to win Iowa and ultimately not become the candidate so more people/pundits realize that Iowa sucks and fuck their opinions.
+3
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited November 2019
Reasonable or not, decades of Republicans using Christianity and faith as a cause and justification for all of their heinous shit, and to try and claim a moral high ground they have no right to, has for some Democratic voters caused a negative perception of politicians who reference their Christianity. It might not be totally fair, and certainly it's not true of all, or perhaps even most Democrats. But it's not like it's coming from no where. Personally, as an atheist, while I can understand both the political realities and personal reasons why faith might come up as often as it does, that doesn't mean I don't find it tiresome at times, and that I don't get annoyed at specific examples if they feel egregious in some way.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I still think the main thing that will turn off Obama-Trump voters from Sanders/Warren is their healthcare proposals, which invoke Medicare in a country where that's a bad word. Propose the exact same thing with a different name and they'll get way more people on board.
I guess climate change could be Biden's number one priority or something, but his proposals on the subject are sad and weak compared to what Warren and Sanders are suggesting.
Yeah it's the exact opposite. Their proposals are bolstered by calling them Medicare which people assume is the public option
(Political writer for Bloomberg)
Booker's good night led to some money but he needs support to get in the December debate. Gabbard Yang and Steyer are closer, Castro is about the same as Booker (ok on donations, need polls).
Reasonable or not, decades of Republicans using Christianity and faith as a cause and justification for all of their heinous shit, and to try and claim a moral high ground they have no right to, has for some Democratic voters caused a negative perception of politicians who reference their Christianity. It might not be totally fair, and certainly it's not true of all, or perhaps even most Democrats. But it's not like it's coming from no where. Personally, as an atheist, while I can understand both the political realities and personal reasons why faith might come up as often as it does, that doesn't mean I don't find it tiresome at times, and that I don't get annoyed at specific examples if they feel egregious in some way.
There's also the fact that going on too much about Christianity is not only alienating to every who is not one, but it is also a common shield that racists use to purposefully single out and exclude those who are not Christian. The line between honest expression of faith and nasty little dogwhistle is very thin.
I would vote for Pete when the time comes but I find him very sneaky in the same way Biden orchestrated predatory student loans and anti bankruptcy law's during his Heyday. I feel that Pete will be doing the bidding of banks and corporations and that he is very much that brand of Democrat.
I went through his website and his stance on student loans is to actually enforce loan forgiveness for public workers : note this was already a plan but it never paid out for anyone enrolled and was a gigantic scam. I think that's great and he wants to forgive loans for people who were enrolled in predatory colleges. But his plan for the rest of us is just an auto enrollment in income driven repayment plans with forgiveness after 20 years. The math on this is still financial servitude for Millennials and I think it doesn't provide the relief we deserve. But I'm a near single issue voter: student debt relief and universal healthcare.
Also I bought real hard into him at the start when he was running progressive and gay but I looked into it and he isn't actually progressive and his personal gay politics are very Log Cabin and that's fine and a legitimate identity to have but I don't think it helps people of color or trans individuals or LGBT folk below a certain income. Ironically for how much Boomers complain about Identity Politics it is from them that I hear the most praise for Pete: young! Gay! Christian!
People see him as a moral rebuke to everything Trump stands for and that excites them.
Also I bought real hard into him at the start when he was running progressive and gay but I looked into it and he isn't actually progressive and his personal gay politics are very Log Cabin and that's fine and a legitimate identity to have but I don't think it helps people of color or trans individuals or LGBT folk below a certain income. Ironically for how much Boomers complain about Identity Politics it is from them that I hear the most praise for Pete: young! Gay! Christian!
People see him as a moral rebuke to everything Trump stands for and that excites them.
By Trump's standards I think Warren is a pretty great rebuke as well, especially since he took the time to demean her.
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
Dang this is really good. It really shows how hard Booker has flopped that (admittedly without watching the debates) I thought he was only slightly more progressive than Buttigieg, and that is, uh, not the case. Also Buttigieg and Biden representing criminal border crossings, ffs
Coinage on
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
And from that quiz I learned that Warren only supports 12 weeks of paid family leave. Weird.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
Same, though if I were to weight the questions Warren would win.
Like, the nuke question? We should be building more modern, and safer, plants. Our current ones are outdated tech and could be much safer. I'm for that. The problem is I don't think the economics really work out with the way renewables have come along and I don't have some ideological attachment to nuclear power. It's something the government should allow but probably not subsidize.
Rank that against our health care system? I don't care if Warren wants us to raze all of the nuclear plants into the ground if we bury the engine of human suffering that is our current health care system right next door.
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
Neat. I ended up with Biden as most agreement and Warren as least agreement. Not exactly a surprise. Although I am surprised that they didn't have a question for cannabis legalization on there.
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
Same, though if I were to weight the questions Warren would win.
Like, the nuke question? We should be building more modern, and safer, plants. Our current ones are outdated tech and could be much safer. I'm for that. The problem is I don't think the economics really work out with the way renewables have come along and I don't have some ideological attachment to nuclear power. It's something the government should allow but probably not subsidize.
Rank that against our health care system? I don't care if Warren wants us to raze all of the nuclear plants into the ground if we bury the engine of human suffering that is our current health care system right next door.
Yeah like in a perfect world, we'd have the industry to engage with nuclear power now while renewables develop further. But we've actively dismantled that industry so, yes to expand, no to it being something I think should sway votes. Health care? That should sway votes.
I guess Warren only supports 12 weeks of paid family leave cause she figures her childcare plan is more important? Idk, that one's a weird one.
Warren and Booker 8-8, Bernie 7 and Klobuchar, Gabbard and Biden at 1-1-0 respectively.
Weighing the questions as mentioned though and I'm still a heavy Warren lean compared to Booker - a candidate whom I personally dislike quite a bit.
Booker is the Carcetti of this race to me, I'd say it's Mayor Pete on most merits but Carcetti actually did things to attempt to win black votes so the comparison doesn't hold.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Surprised with how many candidates support expanding/packing the Supreme Court honestly.
The Garland thing was a coup. It went mostly unnoticed in the general public but it was absolutely a government breaking move.
Yup once this happens things like court packing are explicitly on the table. Because weirdly it is easier to legally do court packing than it would be to remove a justice or do other reforms of the supreme court. Frankly it may have to get packed to the point it becomes so obviously stupid that both parties are willing to make the more logical long term fixes to it.
Surprised with how many candidates support expanding/packing the Supreme Court honestly.
The Garland thing was a coup. It went mostly unnoticed in the general public but it was absolutely a government breaking move.
Yup once this happens things like court packing are explicitly on the table. Because weirdly it is easier to legally do court packing than it would be to remove a justice or do other reforms of the supreme court. Frankly it may have to get packed to the point it becomes so obviously stupid that both parties are willing to make the more logical long term fixes to it.
Just turn it into the House of Lords - pack the unelected chamber until it becomes irrelevant.
Surprised with how many candidates support expanding/packing the Supreme Court honestly.
The Garland thing was a coup. It went mostly unnoticed in the general public but it was absolutely a government breaking move.
Yup once this happens things like court packing are explicitly on the table. Because weirdly it is easier to legally do court packing than it would be to remove a justice or do other reforms of the supreme court. Frankly it may have to get packed to the point it becomes so obviously stupid that both parties are willing to make the more logical long term fixes to it.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court that functions more like a legislature of judges than a small cohort of Old Wise Ones would probably be an overall improvement.
Posts
But Medicare is actually fairly popular with one of the most active voting blocks.
If anything I think if the Dems can drive home a talking point about M4A ensuring the continued funding of Medicare they could possibly pick up a not insignificant number of votes.
Both Medicare and Medicaid are generally popular programs.
I guess climate change could be Biden's number one priority or something, but his proposals on the subject are sad and weak compared to what Warren and Sanders are suggesting.
Medicare is extremely popular!
As someone who is Jewish and exclusively not Christian
I don't want to hear a godamn thing about how Christian a presidential or fucking ANY political candidate is
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Those fuckers love them some Jesus
He doesn’t give a shit about black people so whether or not they go to church wouldn’t matter to him
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I’m going to go to my deathbed screaming this, but nobody who went to Harvard and worked at McKinsey gets to call themselves, “Midwestern,” anymore. Everything about those two institutions eschews traditional Midwestern values in any shape or form.
This is intensely weird, mean-spirited, and not at all how he has been since he has been on the national stage at all.
You can definitely make a case that he has pivoted on some issues and some of it may be focus tested (surprise! He’s a politician!) , a significant message in his plank has been that the left, that being progressive, doesn’t mean you have to allow the right to own patriotism, faith, or other planks that have majority support in the country. This has been Pete from day one and honestly it was one of the best things about his campaign. You don’t have to be ashamed of your faith because you believe the Democrats have a good vision for the country you want to support. You don’t have to hate your country to hate what it has done and want to
Support policies that push us towards a more perfect union.
Like, the vitriol being thrown at him just because he mentioned his faith, in a totally not-aggressive way, with the same level of strength he mentions his husband by way of the wedding ring he is wearing that would have been impossible a decade ago... it proves his point. We as a party need to figure out how to include more people while pushing for our goals. If a Christian believes in charity and taking care of the worst of us and wants to support expanding healthcare to all as a right? Welcome aboard.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Those people are already Democrats. It's the others ones that don't believe in that stuff, aren't real Christians, and won't ever join the Democratic party.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
My issue with him is basically summed up by how in one of the first debates he had that line about how republicans are going to call us socialist no matter what we do so why not actually push progressive policies, but now he just seems opposed to anything too far left of what he considers the mainstream including stuff he has previously endorsed.
I don't think he's necessarily a bad guy or anything, but like somebody said earlier in this thread, it feels like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth and it leaves me wondering what his actual convictions are. I just find it had to put my trust in him right now when there are other candidates available that I'm able to point to and say "I know what this person believes and is willing to fight for."
Pete might be media-blasting the Iowa electorate to try to prop up his numbers just long enough. Mailers, TV ads, Facebook targeting at old people, whatever. Steyer has been doing that in New Hampshire. Remember that even most Democrats aren't keeping up with the news as hard as us political junkies are (and yes, we are all political junkies if we're this deep in the weeds) and Iowa is full of oblivious old white people who are now just being introduced to this clean looking young white dude.
Ultimately Iowa's outsized importance to the primary system needs to go. The whims of a couple million oblivious old white people terrified of it not being the 1950s shouldn't dictate what the rest of the country has to deal with. It might almost be good for Buttigieg to win Iowa and ultimately not become the candidate so more people/pundits realize that Iowa sucks and fuck their opinions.
Yeah it's the exact opposite. Their proposals are bolstered by calling them Medicare which people assume is the public option
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
(Political writer for Bloomberg)
Booker's good night led to some money but he needs support to get in the December debate. Gabbard Yang and Steyer are closer, Castro is about the same as Booker (ok on donations, need polls).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There's also the fact that going on too much about Christianity is not only alienating to every who is not one, but it is also a common shield that racists use to purposefully single out and exclude those who are not Christian. The line between honest expression of faith and nasty little dogwhistle is very thin.
Interesting way to phrase this. I feel like we dance around this extremely problematic issue too much around here.
People see him as a moral rebuke to everything Trump stands for and that excites them.
By Trump's standards I think Warren is a pretty great rebuke as well, especially since he took the time to demean her.
I ended up with a tie between Booker and Warren. Warren I expected but Booker was a surprise. My second place was Sanders. And Gabbarb and I agreed on 0 things.
It's populism without a grasp of the underlying policy.
Same, though if I were to weight the questions Warren would win.
Like, the nuke question? We should be building more modern, and safer, plants. Our current ones are outdated tech and could be much safer. I'm for that. The problem is I don't think the economics really work out with the way renewables have come along and I don't have some ideological attachment to nuclear power. It's something the government should allow but probably not subsidize.
Rank that against our health care system? I don't care if Warren wants us to raze all of the nuclear plants into the ground if we bury the engine of human suffering that is our current health care system right next door.
The Garland thing was a coup. It went mostly unnoticed in the general public but it was absolutely a government breaking move.
Neat. I ended up with Biden as most agreement and Warren as least agreement. Not exactly a surprise. Although I am surprised that they didn't have a question for cannabis legalization on there.
Because, obviously they should, but I don’t think it should come at the expense of other programs or objectives that are important.
Deeply personally offensive.
If Democratic politicians could learn to speak to the faithful without openly disparaging people of low or no religion that'd be great.
Yeah like in a perfect world, we'd have the industry to engage with nuclear power now while renewables develop further. But we've actively dismantled that industry so, yes to expand, no to it being something I think should sway votes. Health care? That should sway votes.
I guess Warren only supports 12 weeks of paid family leave cause she figures her childcare plan is more important? Idk, that one's a weird one.
I missed that part. Fuck you Pete.
Weighing the questions as mentioned though and I'm still a heavy Warren lean compared to Booker - a candidate whom I personally dislike quite a bit.
Booker is the Carcetti of this race to me, I'd say it's Mayor Pete on most merits but Carcetti actually did things to attempt to win black votes so the comparison doesn't hold.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yup once this happens things like court packing are explicitly on the table. Because weirdly it is easier to legally do court packing than it would be to remove a justice or do other reforms of the supreme court. Frankly it may have to get packed to the point it becomes so obviously stupid that both parties are willing to make the more logical long term fixes to it.
Just turn it into the House of Lords - pack the unelected chamber until it becomes irrelevant.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court that functions more like a legislature of judges than a small cohort of Old Wise Ones would probably be an overall improvement.