Good analysis but I feel like he isn't really a spoiler candidate, or if he is, he isn't a good one. His crossover support is shared more with Biden I feel than it is with Bernie. Him being in the race might actually take away enough support from Biden in Iowa for Bernie to clinch it. Which would be sweet revenge for all of us having to deal with him being a candidate in the first place
Spoiler candidate in the sense that he's trying to siphon undecideds, not Biden's or Bernie's base. The type of people that know Biden is full of ****, but are hesitant to the whole "socialism" thing. Basically, people who want change but are afraid of it at the same time.
Pete's marketing himself as the compromise candidate between the two. You can have Medicare, but also keep your private insurance. You want government to run your healthcare, but you don't want government to control your healthcare. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too.
This is a fantasy. If insurance runs on the idea of everyone paying into a risk pool and then taking from that pool when needed, then having the private and public sharing the same pool is naturally going to create competition between them and one is going to eventually eat the other. Private health insurance will market attractive plans that will attract young, healthy people, which is what health insurance relies on to pay the bills, while simultaneously pushing the sick and the old onto the public system. Thereby overburdening it until collapses. Then they can turn around and say "I told you it wouldn't work!" and then we will be right back where we started, with it being even harder to reform healthcare.
That's why Bernie's plan explicitly bans duplicative care, meaning the private industry cannot offer similar plans, like other single-payer systems do. Private health insurance does not have responsibility to public well being like the government does. They can turn away who they please, but the government can't.
This is why a public option will ultimately fail and why Pete is a lying sack of ****. You cannot have both of them sharing the same pool, one will get screwed and that will most likely be the public option. "Medicare for those who want it" is not Medicare for all. It borrows the name, because Pete knows Medicare for all is popular, but twists into a fantasy that those who are afraid of change can believe.
Biden already has the same name recognition boost that Hillary did at the start of 2016. That's part of why he can still maintain his lead. If Pete can sway enough undecideds, then Biden can pull early wins and the media can run with the narrative that Biden is the "most electable" and that Bernie couldn't even win the states he won last time.
That's what I mean by being a spoiler. Not siphoning from those who already support the two, but those who have yet to support anyone at all. If Trump is relying on Democrats to fail to turn out new voters and to coast on his current base, then the Dem establishment is also relying on the same.
Biden's support is exactly where it was 12 month ago, and he's had the best odds against Trump in basically every poll done since he announced he was running. There was the Announcement Surge in April, but it calmed back down after some time (and possibly Debate #1, the first and last time anyone cared about Harris this election).
I'm talking about the primary as a whole, including the individual states. It's been pretty clear that Biden has been dropping while the gap has been closing between his opponents. He doesn't enjoy the huge lead he once had and the media and the Dem establishment that was behind him at the beginning, has since moved onto other candidates. That sounds like tanking to me.
Warren has always been two-faced, but accusing her of not being articulate is nonsense. She's an incredibly well spoken politician, excluding when she gets angry on stage.
The issue was when she uncharacteristically refused to actually explain what her healthcare plan for entail; as you said, she needed to be open and honest about it, just like Sanders was. The "issue" as it were was her tightrope of a position where she was attempting to effectively be the unity candidate between the progressives (Sander's area) and moderates (Biden's area); a progressive in public who in private would be assuring the establishment that she wasn't going to burn the country to the ground like Sanders will.
Yes, she was so articulate she royally flubbed the one thing that was supposed to separate her from the rest, her amazing and detailed plans. It's not like she didn't let Pete get away with
dishonestly comparing their fundraising strategies or push back on any of the utter horse**** he was spouting and allow him to completely distract from his walk back from his no billionaire money promises.
Being articulate in politics isn't about knowing words, it's about being clear on your policies and values and not letting your opponents twist them into something else. That video was just straight up embarrassing for her and showed that Pete is more articulate than her. Because she's bad at what she does.
Having a public and private position is literally what cost Hillary the election last time. Voters were so tired of that dual face that they voted in Donald Trump. She's too far left for "moderates" and not as left as Sanders for "progressives", so there is no being a compromise candidate in the first place. Her trying to be Hillary 2.0 is part of why she's tanking in the first place.
Also, lol at Sanders burning the country to the ground. It's not like all of his policies haven't been implemented in many other countries for decades now and have yet to catch fire (except Australia).
That once she released a plan it was torn to shreds by economists also didn't help matters.
Well yeah, when you claim it doesn't raise taxes and then it turns out you are hurting the poor instead, while not being proper Medicare for all, then that's going to happen.
Well
Americans want Medicare for All … who want it
Share of respondents who agreed that these versions of a Medicare for All plan were a good idea
is already an outright lie. "Medicare for those who want it" is
not Medicare for All, version or otherwise. Medicare for All is a rebranding of "
Single-payer" meaning only one entity pays for healthcare. Private health insurance is banned in these systems from anything but supplemental and cosmetic plans. You can't have both.
Medicare for All, replacing private insurance
Medicare for All who choose it, allowing private insurance
It's really no surprise that support wouldn't be that high, with that horrid of framing. Of course the "Medicare for All" that allows for private insurance would be more popular than the one that doesn't. One's giving you more while the other is giving you less. Setting aside of course, that one isn't actually Medicare for All.
Take a look at this
poll instead. Note how when the question is made specifically clear that people will get to keep their doctor and hospital that support significantly increases, compared to simply saying the role of private insurers will diminish. People tend to confuse "private health insurance" with "private healthcare" which is why question framing is so important in this matter.
I'd also stay away from """political analysis""" by fivethirtyeight. They might be considered data kings or whatever, but they are horrid pundits and political hacks.
And a failed Warren plan is doubly bad for Sanders, given that if Warren can't sell her plan through Congress, how is Sanders supposed to be able to? Besides sending his "movement" to kick out everyone who disagrees with him out of office, as he's said in the past.
In contrast, people flooded town halls for weeks during the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We still have the ACA, despite the Republican super majority.
Given that he's explicitly said so before, I imagine he'd attempt to create the movement described in my quote to kick everyone who disagrees with him out of office. Or force them to actually govern the way their constituents want.
"He's not Sanders, so I hate him" sure is a hot take.
Ya know this is why progressives are increasingly thought of as a fringe left-tea party at best, right? What precisely do you plan on doing with the majority of the population if Mayor Pete fills you with utter contempt?
Not really, I already said that I hate him because he pretended to be a progressive and then did a 180 when it was expedient for him. As opposed to Klobuchar, who was honest about her position on progressives upfront. Which you would know if you actually read my post, especially the paragraph you quoted.
You realize this "fringe left-tea party" has in its ranks the most popular politicians in the country like Bernie and AOC, of which the former has been breaking individual contribution records, right? Meanwhile, the other candidates individual contributions at their best, can't match Bernie's at his worst.
Nor does Pete represent the majority of the population, which I don't hold in high regard either.
Might help you to contextualize your numbers, yeah?
According to
CNN, Trump got 46.4% and Hillary got 48.5% of the vote. But due to the electoral college, she lost certain states, so she lost the electoral race. According to that graph I linked above, Trump's approval rating was roughly 45% during inauguration. It's now roughly 42%. This is before potential war and impeachment acquittal boosts, mind you.
Hillary however, had every card stacked in her favor. She had a unified Democrat and media support, had her name and record, and had the fear of the unknown Trump bogyman helping her. Everything that could possibly help a candidate coast to victory, except actual political talent, was in her possession.
Of the three main establishment candidates in 2020, one is a snake that's managed to piss off a good chunk of the party base, one is a pompous but irrelevant senator that has consistently polled in the single digits, and the last's entire platform and reason for being is that he stood next to the previous president everyone liked.
Of those candidates, Biden is the only one with a real shot at the nomination. Or "Sleepy Joe Biden" as he will be known in that hypothetical. What exactly has Biden done, that the average uninformed voter would know, that wasn't being a former VP? Hillary had a seemingly impressive record and storied history, would anyone even pay much attention or remember Biden if he wasn't Obama's VP? And who is he supposed to appeal to exactly? These supposedly majority of the country centrists? Where were they in 2016 exactly? Was Hillary not centrist enough for them?
Biden is supposedly the "moderate" candidate that will work (read:fold to) with Republicans and will reject the "far left". There goes the Progressive vote. Biden is going to continue Obama's "legacy". There goes the midwestern voters disgruntled with Obama not living up to his promises. Biden is a Democrat. There goes the Republican vote, including the so-called never Trumpers and the moderate Republican unicorn.
Where exactly is Biden's coalition? And how does that beat someone with almost half of voters?
Well, if you actually read the article
That puts Trump in an unenviable but ambiguous position for reelection. Since Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidents with a FiveThirtyEight average approval rating
2 of 48.4 percent or higher on Election Day all won their reelection campaigns, and presidents with a FiveThirtyEight average approval rating of 43.6 percent or lower all lost.
If, in 10 months, Trump’s approval rating is
still in the same range it has occupied for the past two years (roughly, between 39 percent and 43 percent), he would obviously fit into the latter group. And that would not bode well for his chances of being reelected; he’d have to hope for a Harry S. Truman-caliber upset. (The owner of a 39.6 percent approval rating on Nov. 2, 1948, Truman was
widely predicted to lose the election but ended up narrowly defeating Thomas “
Your Future Is Still Ahead Of You” Dewey.)
On the other hand, even a modest, Obama-esque improvement would put Trump in the purgatory between the presidents who won and the presidents who lost — between 43.6 percent and 48.4 percent. So in the end,
Trump’s current approval rating doesn’t sound a clear signal one way or the other on the question of his reelection — but it does maybe hint that he starts off the new year at a disadvantage.
So in other words, if Trump's approval rating doesn't rise by election day, he likely loses. But if it does, he likely wins. It doesn't take a team of genius data boys to figure that one out. I wonder what happens if the Dem approval tanks when Biden gets elected in a nasty primary like 2016. Does Trump's approval rating really need to rise, if his opponent's is also terrible?
It's almost horrifying how much you had to reach to rationalize away a 79 year old man having a heart attack and argue it shows he's more suited for the most stressful job in the world.
I wasn't trying to rationalize anything in the first place, you completely made that up. I'm saying that while everyone else has been circlejerking about how bad a man Trump is and using the election to boost their careers, Sanders was the only one doing four rallies a day and generally working his ass off, which is what caused the heart attack and prompted him to scale things back to a normal pace.
My post already answered almost all of your replies here, do to take a moment to actually read it next time. And don't link to a site that is doing its best to prove the adage "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Linking directly to their data is fine, but those "articles" are beyond horrible.
Qualk
this comment was insufferable. You just copied and pasted debunked article the guy above you said and you are an obvious hardcore democrat. There’s literally no point in addressing those points, I’d be talking to a blue brick wall. The bigger question is what is it personally you don’t like about trump?
Sucumbio
I’ve made my case for trump numerous of times. You just support dems because of Obama loyal factor. I can’t blame you. I used to admire Obama and to some extent still do....but I’ve seen how the deep state has corrupted him a little.
