zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

y problem is that Trump sees Bernie as an easy target.

Trump’s illusions about that shouldn’t be taken seriously, W.

The center has shifted. Sanders and his FDR style policies just don’t sound extreme.

But they do sound extreme to Trump supporters. Believe me-I talk to them every day ! It just seems so very simple to me: this is a contest. The idea of a contest is to win. Sanders will not win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania-game over.

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

“That aside…W’s central point is to encourage us to vote blue no matter who because…Trump.”

Of course that is my point ! Can’t see how that was missed. Once the Democrats pick a nominee ideology becomes irrelevant in my mind. It could be Bernie, Ho Chi Minh, or Mr. Magoo for all I care. That is how dangerous I see Trump. My problem is that Trump sees Bernie as an easy target. Less so for the others. And I think he is right. If he’s the nominee I pray I’m wrong.

========================

Nah, I wont vote for a pro-one-percent-Dem, if he is the nominee because the pro-one-percent-DNC cheats Bernie, AGAIN. I’m sure a lot of progressives will go ahead and hold their noses and vote for a pro-corporate-dem, but a lot of progressives will just stay home, vote Green Party or….move to Thailand.

w
v

And by doing so you are actually equating any democrat except Sanders to Trump ! That’s just being silly. (“if you can’t play by my rules I’m taking the ball and going home”). You simply do not see how dangerous Trump is and will continue to be when it comes to the protection of the environment, the plight of the less fortunate, the health and safety of minorities and disabled, the continued destruction of our judicial system, the widening of the economic inequality,etc. You simply do not appear to care about these things.

“That aside…W’s central point is to encourage us to vote blue no matter who because…Trump.”

Of course that is my point ! Can’t see how that was missed. Once the Democrats pick a nominee ideology becomes irrelevant in my mind. It could be Bernie, Ho Chi Minh, or Mr. Magoo for all I care. That is how dangerous I see Trump. My problem is that Trump sees Bernie as an easy target. Less so for the others. And I think he is right. If he’s the nominee I pray I’m wrong.

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

… But in reading these comments about Trump, the Dems, and the upcoming election, I can only think of one thing: Nikita Khrushchev may have been right. The socialists will bury us….

=======================

If ONLY.

That would be a dream come true for me. 🙂

Mega-Global-Gangster-Corporate-Capitalism is destroying the entire Bio-Sphere….and you are worried about…what?….a National Health Care system that would allow poor people to get the same health wealthy people get?

w
v

Agree with all of that, WV. I don’t get it either. Why the anger and freakout over the possibility that everyone can get health care, and public universities no longer crush students with six-figure debt?

Oh, the horror!!

We’re the richest nation on earth, and we can’t make sure every America can pursue their dreams? We can’t make sure everyone has an equal shot at higher ed and health care? Three Americans now hold as much wealth as the bottom half of this country combined — Sanders said tonight — and that is why we can’t do what any sane nation would do. That’s the reason. You can’t have that kind of obscene inequality and expect a decent society as well. We need to choose.

. . . .

ZN,

Can you check the spam que again? I posted earlier and made the mistake of adding two links to books. Great books. But, apparently the mayor of spam city hates them.

;>)

” Why the anger and freakout over the possibility that everyone can get health care, and public universities no longer crush students with six-figure debt?”

Billy: It’s not that “they” are angry over people getting health care or student debt relief. It’s that they “believe” they will have to pay for it-either in tax increases or in losing their own private doctors and care. It doesn’t matter that they may or may not be right but that is how the Trump machine will force them to look at it-his way. I keep harping back to Kennedy’s innauguration

Billy_T wrote:

Why the anger and freakout over the possibility that everyone can get health care, and public universities no longer crush students with six-figure debt?

Billy: its not that people don’t want others to have health care and student debt relief. Its that they don’t want to have to pay for it-either with increased taxes or loss of their personal health care. It doesn’t matter if any of this is true but the Trump machine will make it true to the voters-believe me. We no longer live in a society where-as Kennedy once declared-we should ask ourselves of what we can do for the country. Unfortunately, the Republicans have convinced us that the Country owes us-not the other way around. I won’t vote for Sanders to be the nominee because I believe he will be an easy prey for Trump but if he should become the nominee and wins I will be thrilled because it will -hopefully-be the end of the King. Moreover, I will be thrilled because it will show me that I am wrong about the -its all about me-selfishness of the American people.

It’s my opinion that there is only one person who can go toe to toe against Trump-and not flinch-and that person has yet to even be on the stage with all the others.

Zooey wrote:

My thoughts:

1. Trump IS formidable, and the election will be close unless the Dems screw up everything somehow with a debacle of some kind in the primaries/convention.

2. The GOP accused Obama of being a socialist. They are going to throw everything they can at the nominee, no matter who it is. And some of those things will be real, and some of them will be made up.

3. The difference, imo, will be voter turnout. And the enthusiasm is deeper and wider for Sanders than for any other candidate. I know he repels a lot of people, and that will cost him some votes. But the early indications are that he will bring in a lot of the Obama voters who sat out 2016, and his popularity among the largest voting block (the youngsters) outstrips every other candidate by a wide margin. And that is a tough group to get to the booth.

4. Trump is going to get all the deplorable ignorants out of their beds, into their trucks, and down from the hills into the voting booths no matter what. We have to outvote them.

Bernie doesn’t repel me. I seem to like the guy. But I do get the sense he’s like the Trump for the progressive left. He speaks in great sweeping generalities with little substance in terms of just how to get where he’s headed. Once again this coming election will be decided by electoral votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. And that is where the danger lies with Sanders.

Today’s L.A. Times:

Op-Ed: The winning 2018 Democratic playbook: Avoid talking about ‘Medicare for all’
Voting booths in Minneapolis in 2018.
Democrats who won in swing states in 2018 talked about improving the Affordable Care Act, not replacing it.(Steve Karnowski / Associated Press )
By SETH HILL
FEB. 6, 2020 3 AM
To retake the presidency in November, the Democrats will need to win the electoral college. The clearest path to do that is to win the swing states that had the closest margins in the 2016 election. Fortunately, the Democrats have a playbook to follow from the 2018 midterm election.

There are many factors that led to Democratic victories in the crucial swing states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2018, and it’s always hard to isolate any single cause. But the successful Democrats all talked about healthcare — with a focus on fixing the Affordable Care Act and reinforcing Medicare.

I looked at the congressional districts in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin where Democratic House candidates picked up the most votes in the 2018 election relative to the 2016 presidential election. (I excluded Pennsylvania from the analysis because it drew new congressional district lines in 2018.)

Healthcare was the most prominent message of the Democrats who won those House seats. They focused on creating an option to buy in to Medicare, building upon the Affordable Care Act, and lowering costs of prescription drugs. Those campaign messages seemed to resonate with voters in the upper Midwest states.

ADVERTISING

Ads by Teads
Across these three states, 12 Democratic House candidates received more votes than did Hillary Clinton in 2016 in their districts. This feat was impressive because turnout is lower in midterm elections. In these districts, there were between 35,000 and 60,000 fewer votes cast in each, yet these candidates received between 3,900 and 116,000 more votes than Clinton.

For example, Democrat Ron Kind in Wisconsin’s 3rd District received 187,888 votes in 2018. Hillary Clinton received 160,999 votes in 2016 in that district — even though 48,000 fewer total votes were cast in 2018 than in 2016. Kind and these other candidates were able to capture more votes than Clinton without increasing turnout, which suggests they were able to win the votes of many who had not voted for Clinton in 2016.

The results in the 12 districts I examined — the 1st, 5th, 7th, 8th and 11th in Michigan; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th in Minnesota; and the 3rd and 6th in Wisconsin — may be able to offer some insight into the policy platforms that can generate stronger voter support. Ten of these 12 districts cast more votes for Trump than Clinton in 2016 and six were close enough in 2016 that the two presidential candidates were within 10 percentage points of each other. These are not solid Democratic districts.

For my analysis, I examined the campaign web pages from the morning of the election, Nov. 6, 2018. Ten of these 12 websites presented a list of issue priorities, showing how the candidates chose to present themselves to voters seeking information.

For the winners in the 12 districts, healthcare was a top issue. Eight of the 10 candidates’ websites listed healthcare first or second in their issue priorities, the remaining two listed healthcare third. Other important issues listed were supporting veterans, the Flint water crisis, education, protecting working families and campaign finance reform. This focus on healthcare was not limited to these districts. Among all Democratic candidates, healthcare was a central theme in their 2018 campaign ads.

Among these 10 Democratic candidates, seven proposed allowing those aged 55 to 65 the option to buy in to Medicare, six wrote of fixing and building upon the Affordable Care Act, six supported having a government policy to lower the cost of prescription drugs, and four expressed opposition to Republican efforts to repeal the ACA.

None of the candidates’ campaign sites mentioned “Medicare for all.” This suggests Democratic presidential candidates should be cautious about departing from the messages and policy platforms of the 2018 midterm winners, without good reason and careful discussion.

Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at UCLA, argued in “The Message Matters” that a presidential candidate challenging an incumbent during a strong economy must come up with an “insurgent issue” on which to run the campaign. The insurgent issue should have two characteristics. First, the challenger’s position must be more popular than the president’s. Second, the president must be constrained from changing course and adopting the challenger’s position to co-opt the challenger’s advantage.

With the strength of the economy in 2020, Vavreck’s argument suggests that any Democratic nominee needs an insurgent issue to win. The 2018 outcomes make a good case that healthcare could be that insurgent issue. The Democrats’ position is likely to be more popular than President Trump’s, and he is constrained by the Republican effort to repeal the ACA. The healthcare agendas of Democratic winners in 2018 demonstrate the kinds of policy proposals that work with voters in critical swing states.

Seth Hill is an associate professor of political science at UC San Diego and studies how citizens motivate politician behavior.

zn wrote:

Those right centrist types always say that kinda stuff.

Yes-w/ damn good reasons.

Cal wrote:

And a lot of that money gets spent on attempts to take make sure kids who have serious problems–behavioral, learning disabilities, or kids who don’t speak English–get a quality education.

You sound like you might be a disgruntled public education teacher/administrator? Speaking to your comments re students with learning disabilities you are aware of the IDEA requirement that students with qualified disabilities are entitled to Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) pursuant to federal and analogous state law. The Rowley decision (U.S.Supreme Court) was decided long before Obama’s election and is still law. It requires that the term “appropriate” means only that the disabled student receive a “meaningful” education. Simply stated a “serviceable Chevrolet” not a “Cadillac”. Moreover, the entire purpose of a public education is to prepare all students-including those with a disability-to become a productive member of society. Finally, not all students with learning disabilities are behavioral problems. Those that are and affect classroom studies can under the law be more isolated. I am curious as to how you would solve issues you perceive above-go back to the days of isolating all disabled students into sequestered centers much like orphanages in the face of all the evidence that educating these students in a general education environment provides them with the tools to become “productive member of society”.

As a personal anecdote: My wife is a retired public school superintendent who now advocates for children with qualified disabilities in the public schools. Her specialty is in the autism field and can attest to the fact that her clients with the programs she has obtained via IDEA have become and actually gone on to higher education leading to successful lives.

BTW: IDEA was enacted back in 1975. With all of its changes and amendments it cannot be said to be a “leftist” program. It simply provides children with disabilities the same opportunity for education as those students who do not have a disability.

Billy_T wrote:

waterfield wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Run on climate change, economic equality, an end to war, mass incarceration and the surveillance state (public and private). Run on peace, justice and ice cream for breakfast, and they’ve got it!

Billy: I hate to sound so cynical (its my very worst quality) but do you really think people today-right here in River City-actually care about these things-as opposed to whats in their own little lives and self interest ?

The great thing about leftist proposals? They deal with the Big Picture and individual concerns. Both/and. Centrist to conservative proposals don’t. They ignore the Big Picture, and when they deal with individual concerns, they focus almost entirely on rich people. By definition, that leaves the vast majority of voters out.

You live in a state overwhelmed by fires right now. That’s primarily a result of climate change and a failure to deal with it. Dealing with economic inequality means helping the vast majority of voters with their everyday, kitchen-table issues, instead of the desires of the rich. An end to war means an end to early death for those same voters, and it means money can go to their direct concerns, none of which are helped via war.

Etc. etc.

Only the left offers huge improvements to the quality of life for all citizens. Only the left has that tradition. Not the center and certainly not the right.

The above, of course, is my own two cents. My take on the way of things. Others may well disagree.

Hope all is well, W.

Oh, I understand the “arguments” Billy. My question is do you think people today “care” about them. My observations are that people simply want to “gather” and then protect what they’ve gathered. If true the bigger question in all this is how did we get that way. I continue to reference Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”. We’ve somehow turned that on its head.

Billy_T wrote:

Run on climate change, economic equality, an end to war, mass incarceration and the surveillance state (public and private). Run on peace, justice and ice cream for breakfast, and they’ve got it!

Billy: I hate to sound so cynical (its my very worst quality) but do you really think people today-right here in River City-actually care about these things-as opposed to whats in their own little lives and self interest ?

wv wrote:

Well, the mainstream-corporate-capitalist -LA-Times is owned by a South African Billionaire who made his money in the Health Care Biz. I dont know much about him, but I “imagine” the Times’ views on many big-econ-power issues are influenced by Mr Soon-Shiong.

Well said-“imagination”. Neither you nor I have any facts to support the notion that Times ownership is dedicated to preventing universal healthcare-at least in the sense of medicare for all as visioned by either Warren or Sanders.

I find it interesting that Trump and the Republican Party -as now constituted-look at the L.A. Times as a “rag” full of “fake news” and just a bit north of the Communist party. I also find it interesting that the Times publishes many articles that argue in favor of a Sanders or Warren type of universal health care. In that respect I find coverage of the subject balanced -which in my mind means that it is more educational to the interested but possibly uninformed reader. Reading nothing but stuff that supports what you want to believe is IMO the very least educational process one can undertake when it comes to a critical analysis of any issue.

Nevertheless, I am glad you see this through your “imagination”.

zn wrote:

ER’s right, W. That’s not “scholarly,” it’s the product of a dedicated right-wing think tank.

The fact that a think tank is right or left does not immunize it from a scholarly piece of work. Your response is like so many right wing responses that cast doubt on any research by left leaning scholars as simply biased because “it’s the product of a dedicated” left leaning think tank- and not to be taken seriously. Rather than look at the author’s base one might instead look at the FACTS and then argue them as opposed to the researcher’s uniform. What always gets me is the failure of the right to listen to anything the left says and the left’s unwillingness to listen to anything the right says.