2020 US General Election Thread IV: The Battle Begins

[Kowani]

Exactly.

I would consider him if he dident have Medicare for all (as the only option).
They did it in Taiwan, but it’s expensive.

...Isn’t Taiwanese healthcare like, super popular over there?

[True Refuge]

Exactly.

I would consider him if he dident have Medicare for all (as the only option).
They did it in Taiwan, but it’s expensive.

Most of the money for M4A would come from revamping current government and insurance consumer spending on healthcare (which is monstrous for how shitty, inefficient and uncommunicative American public healthcare is.) People spend so much on private insurance that eliminating those costs is going to cancel out a lot of the cost of introducing M4A. Reversing years and years of tax cuts and streamlining the systems will pick up the rest.

The actual financial impact will be pretty small compared to the next few bundles of tax cuts funnelling more money to elites.

[Page]

Eight Democrats left.

Realistically, 5, and more likely only 3 - Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren. Biden has greatly underperformed and is close to being unable to recover, and while Klobuchar got a recent boost, it won't be enough.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I would consider him if he dident have Medicare for all (as the only option).
They did it in Taiwan, but it’s expensive.

Most of the money for M4A would come from revamping current government and insurance consumer spending on healthcare (which is monstrous for how shitty, inefficient and uncommunicative American public healthcare is.) People spend so much on private insurance that eliminating those costs is going to cancel out a lot of the cost of introducing M4A. Reversing years and years of tax cuts and streamlining the systems will pick up the rest.

The actual financial impact will be pretty small compared to the next few bundles of tax cuts funnelling more money to elites.

M4A to be paid for, among other taxes, buy an income tax surcharge and hefty payroll tax. Sell that.

[True Refuge]

Most of the money for M4A would come from revamping current government and insurance consumer spending on healthcare (which is monstrous for how shitty, inefficient and uncommunicative American public healthcare is.) People spend so much on private insurance that eliminating those costs is going to cancel out a lot of the cost of introducing M4A. Reversing years and years of tax cuts and streamlining the systems will pick up the rest.

The actual financial impact will be pretty small compared to the next few bundles of tax cuts funnelling more money to elites.

M4A to be paid for, among other taxes, buy an income tax surcharge and hefty payroll tax. Sell that.

I’m not making a PR pitch. I’m explaining.

I just pointed out the overall budgetary impact for the average person will be minimal due to eliminating the obscene costs of private healthcare insurance on both insured people and employers (who also pay huge amounts). Unless you expect me to believe that M4A, projected to save a little money for each average household overall, will end up increasing taxes on the average person (working and middle class) by more than $10,000 a year*?

*Average on private insurance, out-of-pocket healthcare costs, medications, etc.

Those taxes would be highly progressive anyway. The financial system survived and thrived under pre-starve the beast cuts. It’s only through the influence of the elites that the US’ low tax rates have been normalised.

Another poster also highlighted a while back how low income tax rates encourage short-term profiteering and chop shop management. Higher income and capital gains taxes means slightly reduced ROIs, and so a push back towards long-term management plans and sustainable commercial decision-making.

There’s also huge potential savings in scrapping the byzantine bureaucracy of the US’ split-up public healthcare system and replacing it with “yep government pays a previously agreed upon rate, there you go”.

[Ifreann]

That's Sanders. Won't shut up about how great the USSR was.

---

It must be terrible to be this trapped in a mind-prison.

Not really. Capitalism makes up 99/100 options. Meanwhile Socialism makes up 1/100 options.

Only because of the limits you have placed on your imagination.

[Thermodolia]

Oh, it definitely could happen. Warren is well liked among many, and is preferable to Sanders by the centrists, so if she does well, things can definitely go well for her.

However, Sanders is clearly the frontrunner now. If you basically win both Iowa and Nevada (Iowa essentially being a tie), it's difficult to say otherwise. The next two contests, however, I think will decide how strong of a frontrunner he is, and solidify who, other than Bloomberg, is his primary competition.

You are correct. Nevada is also very different demographically and it’s a closed caucus meaning independents cannot vote which is honestly how every primary ought to be in my view

Why? So you can cut out those dirty independents from having a choice in who their president will be?

[Thermodolia]

Because there's people who aren't just strict Democrats or Republicans in the electorate, and the input of independents can make it so that the party chooses the nominee most Americans want, doesn't result in the party choosing someone who conforms to only their values, can aid in lessening polarization, and makes it less likely people stay at home. And in my view, so long as you put yourself down as an independent, yes. You can vote in the Republican primary.

Register with your party if you want to vote in their primaries

What if my state has no registration?

[Lower Nubia]

You are correct. Nevada is also very different demographically and it’s a closed caucus meaning independents cannot vote which is honestly how every primary ought to be in my view

Why? So you can cut out those dirty independents from having a choice in who their president will be?

Why should someone outside the Democrat Party "membership" get to vote on the Democrat candidate?

[Thermodolia]

Why should someone not registered with the party be able to chose the nominee? Should I be able to vote in the republican primary?

I don't think people should be allowed to vote in BOTH primaries, but I also think Independents should be allowed to vote in the primary of their choice. If they're committed enough to go the polls then I trust them to vote in the primary that matters more to them (which will be the one with their favorite candidate in it).

At the polling place they'd give their name and be ticked off as voting, then they'd take either the D or the R ballot. The parties need not both agree to that of course: D could make their ballots only available to non-R, while R could make their ballots available regardless. Or vice versa. Third parties could of course set their own rules.

Actually that’s how it kinda works in my state. You go to the polls, give your name and ID, and then you either ask for the republican, Democrat, available third party or non-partisan ticket.

I’ve voted in republican and Democrat primaries before, not at the same time cause that’s illegal

[Thermodolia]

Ok, we can call it a stye if you wish.

No, chickens in Iowa, pigs in South Carolina. Get your apps straight!

Voter Barnyard: Iowa
Voter Range: New Hampshire
Voter Stye: South Carolina

I can't think of a domestic animal for Nevada tho

Why not an Ass?

[Thermodolia]

Why? So you can cut out those dirty independents from having a choice in who their president will be?

Why should someone outside the Democrat Party "membership" get to vote on the Democrat candidate?

Because those with democrat “membership” make up less than 20% of the population. It’s highly undemocratic to have only 20% of the people choose the nominee for the 80%

[Lower Nubia]

Why should someone outside the Democrat Party "membership" get to vote on the Democrat candidate?

Because those with democrat “membership” make up less than 20% of the population. It’s highly undemocratic to have only 20% of the people choose the nominee for the 80%

So Republicans should be able to choose the nominee too?

[Ifreann]

I don't think people should be allowed to vote in BOTH primaries, but I also think Independents should be allowed to vote in the primary of their choice. If they're committed enough to go the polls then I trust them to vote in the primary that matters more to them (which will be the one with their favorite candidate in it).

At the polling place they'd give their name and be ticked off as voting, then they'd take either the D or the R ballot. The parties need not both agree to that of course: D could make their ballots only available to non-R, while R could make their ballots available regardless. Or vice versa. Third parties could of course set their own rules.

Actually that’s how it kinda works in my state. You go to the polls, give your name and ID, and then you either ask for the republican, Democrat, available third party or non-partisan ticket.

I’ve voted in republican and Democrat primaries before, not at the same time cause that’s illegal

Why should that be illegal? If it's undemocratic to limit participation in a party's primary contest to members of that party, then surely it is just as undemocratic to bar people from participating in the Republican primary contest just because they participated in the Democratic primary.

[Post War America]

Why? So you can cut out those dirty independents from having a choice in who their president will be?

Why should someone outside the Democrat Party "membership" get to vote on the Democrat candidate?

Because most people are independents. What's more, this isn't a multiparty country so Democrats have a stranglehold on a far larger share of the political discourse than they otherwise would. A closed primary essentially means that a small part of the electorate gets to determine who a larger share even has the opportunity to vote for.

[Sougra]

Actually that’s how it kinda works in my state. You go to the polls, give your name and ID, and then you either ask for the republican, Democrat, available third party or non-partisan ticket.

I’ve voted in republican and Democrat primaries before, not at the same time cause that’s illegal

Why should that be illegal? If it's undemocratic to limit participation in a party's primary contest to members of that party, then surely it is just as undemocratic to bar people from participating in the Republican primary contest just because they participated in the Democratic primary.

I'm assuming restricting someone to one primary is to ensure that they're voting in good faith more than anything else. Also, I don't believe the third parties in the US hold their primaries on the same days that the Democrats or the Republicans in part because of that in the first place, but I could be wrong there.

[Northern Morik]

Bloomberg victory in every state moving forward.

[Ifreann]

Why should that be illegal? If it's undemocratic to limit participation in a party's primary contest to members of that party, then surely it is just as undemocratic to bar people from participating in the Republican primary contest just because they participated in the Democratic primary.

I'm assuming restricting someone to one primary is to ensure that they're voting in good faith more than anything else.

So what if people aren't voting in good faith? It's their vote and their prerogative to decide how they'll use it.

Also, I don't believe the third parties in the US hold their primaries on the same days that the Democrats or the Republicans in part because of that in the first place, but I could be wrong there.

If it's undemocratic for American voters who aren't Democrats to be denied a vote in the Democratic primary then all party nomination decisions at all levels should be open to the whole electorate.

[Sougra]

I'm assuming restricting someone to one primary is to ensure that they're voting in good faith more than anything else.

So what if people aren't voting in good faith? It's their vote and their prerogative to decide how they'll use it.

Also, I don't believe the third parties in the US hold their primaries on the same days that the Democrats or the Republicans in part because of that in the first place, but I could be wrong there.

If it's undemocratic for American voters who aren't Democrats to be denied a vote in the Democratic primary then all party nomination decisions at all levels should be open to the whole electorate.

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

It's undemocratic since it prevents people who have a good chance of voting for the nominee in the general election from voting without having to officially state they're a member of that party, when, frankly, they may very well only like one candidate that's on the ballot or don't want to be a member of that party for whatever reason. That, and it's an unnecessary hurdle since lots of people don't have the time or at least political know how to know to change their registration every time they want to vote in a new primary or caucus.

You can blame the voter certainly, but I believe it's better to blame the system that makes it much more difficult to know than not know, and then amend it.

By allowing independents to vote, you get the vast majority of people who would vote in the general to weigh in, while also preventing members of the opposing party from having a significant say in who your nominee is in bad faith, or simply because it's unlikely they'd vote for a member of a party opposed to them in the general election anyways. And having one ballot a person must choose, arguably, further prevents bad faith voting from occurring.

[San Lumen]

So what if people aren't voting in good faith? It's their vote and their prerogative to decide how they'll use it.

If it's undemocratic for American voters who aren't Democrats to be denied a vote in the Democratic primary then all party nomination decisions at all levels should be open to the whole electorate.

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

It's undemocratic since it prevents people who have a good chance of voting for the nominee in the general election from voting without having to officially state they're a member of that party, when, frankly, they may very well only like one candidate that's on the ballot or don't want to be a member of that party for whatever reason. That, and it's an unnecessary hurdle since lots of people don't have the time or at least political know how to know to change their registration every time they want to vote in a new primary or caucus.

You can blame the voter certainly, but I believe it's better to blame the system that makes it much more difficult to know than not know, and then amend it.

By allowing independents to vote, you get the vast majority of people who would vote in the general to weigh in, while also preventing members of the opposing party from having a significant say in who your nominee is in bad faith, or simply because it's unlikely they'd vote for a member of a party opposed to them in the general election anyways. And having one ballot a person must choose, arguably, further prevents bad faith voting from occurring.

And what’s to stop non members of the party from choosing the weakest candidates?

[Sougra]

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

It's undemocratic since it prevents people who have a good chance of voting for the nominee in the general election from voting without having to officially state they're a member of that party, when, frankly, they may very well only like one candidate that's on the ballot or don't want to be a member of that party for whatever reason. That, and it's an unnecessary hurdle since lots of people don't have the time or at least political know how to know to change their registration every time they want to vote in a new primary or caucus.

You can blame the voter certainly, but I believe it's better to blame the system that makes it much more difficult to know than not know, and then amend it.

By allowing independents to vote, you get the vast majority of people who would vote in the general to weigh in, while also preventing members of the opposing party from having a significant say in who your nominee is in bad faith, or simply because it's unlikely they'd vote for a member of a party opposed to them in the general election anyways. And having one ballot a person must choose, arguably, further prevents bad faith voting from occurring.

And what’s to stop non members of the party from choosing the weakest candidates?

Nothing really. But it's better than the alternative of letting about 60% or so people who might vote for your candidate from not being able to vote without officially becoming a member of that party. And as a voter, technically, that's their right to choose the weaker candidate if they so choose, even if it's highly unfortunate that they'd exercise their right to do something harmful for their country and neighbour.

But I'm of the opinion that very few people would be that spiteful or vindictive to do that. There'll be some probably, but in exchange, you'll get a lot more votes, make the process more accessible, have your candidate better reflect the electorate, and in my mind, probably foster some more critical thinking on the part of voters (since if you're an independent, and are able to vote in either primary/caucus, but only one, you're more likely to be informed of the choices available to you from all parties, and look at who's best among them) and decrease polarization by not making people have to specifically state that they're a member of a specific party, who is in direct opposition in most cases to the other.

To me, the benefits of it far outweigh the negatives.

[Page]

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

It's undemocratic since it prevents people who have a good chance of voting for the nominee in the general election from voting without having to officially state they're a member of that party, when, frankly, they may very well only like one candidate that's on the ballot or don't want to be a member of that party for whatever reason. That, and it's an unnecessary hurdle since lots of people don't have the time or at least political know how to know to change their registration every time they want to vote in a new primary or caucus.

You can blame the voter certainly, but I believe it's better to blame the system that makes it much more difficult to know than not know, and then amend it.

By allowing independents to vote, you get the vast majority of people who would vote in the general to weigh in, while also preventing members of the opposing party from having a significant say in who your nominee is in bad faith, or simply because it's unlikely they'd vote for a member of a party opposed to them in the general election anyways. And having one ballot a person must choose, arguably, further prevents bad faith voting from occurring.

And what’s to stop non members of the party from choosing the weakest candidates?

As seen with Trump and the Pied Piper strategy, it might tend to backfire.

[Ifreann]

So what if people aren't voting in good faith? It's their vote and their prerogative to decide how they'll use it.

If it's undemocratic for American voters who aren't Democrats to be denied a vote in the Democratic primary then all party nomination decisions at all levels should be open to the whole electorate.

There are such things as preventative measures. You could argue that's one of them.

And one could reasonably state that someone of the opposite party, would want to vote for someone from the opposing party that would be easy to beat or fits their view more, but since they're not the base of the party, you'd end up with a bunch of people who aren't really representative of the party's base, and could just be a Frankenstein's Monster of political opinions by those of their party and those of the opposing one made in good and bad faith. If one were only voting with one ballot, it lessens the chance of that happening significantly. Presumably, at least.

But as I said, so what if someone is voting in bad faith? It's their vote. You can't stop someone from voting in bad faith in the actual election in November, so why should there be any measures taken to prevent that in the primaries?

And in regards to all political nominations being open to the whole electorate, that's a completely different argument. It's the extreme end of it, and is arguably a slippery slope fallacy, although I can't be certain.

I'm taking the argument that Thermodolia has presented, that it is undemocratic to limit participation in a party's primary only to members of that party, to its logical conclusion. That all party nominations should be open to the whole electorate. Personally I think this is ridiculous, you may as well say that the local wine mom book club should have to let the whole state decide what they're going to read next. Private clubs should get to make their own decisions on their own terms. If they don't want to poll then general public then they don't have to.

[Ifreann]

And what’s to stop non members of the party from choosing the weakest candidates?

As seen with Trump and the Pied Piper strategy, it might tend to backfire.

America must tell a very different version of the Pied Piper of Hamelin than what I am familiar with.

[The Emerald Legion]

As seen with Trump and the Pied Piper strategy, it might tend to backfire.

America must tell a very different version of the Pied Piper of Hamelin than what I am familiar with.

What's your version like?