Fundraising complete, next renewal is August 2022. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 8601
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Max Peck »

Wow, two whole people have floated the idea? I guess both sides are equally lawless after all. :think:
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 15766
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by pr0ner »

Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:51 am Wow, two whole people have floated the idea? I guess both sides are equally lawless after all. :think:
:roll:
Hodor.
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:43 am It's always good to see both sides are up for trampling on Constitutional rights whenever it suits their policy goals.
Bothsidesism is not a great take on this one.

Edit: Oops see someone else pointed this out already. Not meant to pile on but when I literally see both sides in a sentence it usually is going to be a problem.
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 15766
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by pr0ner »

Considering the nature of this particular topic, it's best I don't comment any more.
Hodor.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo »

Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:51 am Wow, two whole people have floated the idea? I guess both sides are equally lawless after all. :think:
I'm going to go both sides super meta and both sides you in the middle of the both sides discussion! You and pr0ner BOTH have good points here. It's true that both sides are not equally lawless re: the constitution, and what Harris is saying here has a ways to go before it can be considered mainstream democratic policy.

ON the other hand, neither Harris nor Buttigieg are exactly fringe figures in the Democratic Party at this point. Buttigieg is a fairly plausible nominee at this point, and Harris is both a senator, still has a shot at the nomination, may be VP, etc. It's fine to dismiss Gabbard as fringe, but Buttigieg and Harris's views carry some weight in the Democratic Party.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 19292
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant »

Looks like Bloomberg is officially in:

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo »

Voters have Bloomberg-mania!
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kurth »

pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:11 am
Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:50 am Well, there have always people on all sides with fringe views, but I'm not sure that you can point to Harris on this issue and say that "both sides" have no respect for the Constitution any more than you can point to Gabbard and say that "both sides" are abject Putin-fellating russophiles.
Buttigieg has espoused the same views.
Shit. I didn’t know that. That sucks.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 8601
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Max Peck »

Kurth wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:20 am
pr0ner wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:11 am
Max Peck wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:50 am Well, there have always people on all sides with fringe views, but I'm not sure that you can point to Harris on this issue and say that "both sides" have no respect for the Constitution any more than you can point to Gabbard and say that "both sides" are abject Putin-fellating russophiles.
Buttigieg has espoused the same views.
Shit. I didn’t know that. That sucks.
This is the best info I've been able to dig up on the issue.

How Pete Buttigieg would lower drug prices
The government would be empowered to negotiate prices, starting with the most expensive medicines and those that are much cheaper overseas. Medicines for diabetes, asthma, arthritis, HIV and cancer would be prioritized.

The Department of Health and Human Services would use four criteria to negotiate: the benefit offered by the drug, the cost of bringing the medicine to the market, the costs of treating the disease the drug addresses, and international prices charged for similar drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies that refuse to negotiate or don’t reach an agreement with the government will pay a 65 percent tax on the company’s gross sales of the drug. The tax will increase by 10 percent each quarter the company is out of compliance, until it reaches 95 percent.

The federal government could revoke a company’s patent rights and let others make a drug at an affordable price if the manufacturer refuses to lower the price or in cases of a natural disaster or public health emergency.

Monthly out-of-pocket drugs costs would be capped at $200 for seniors and at $250 for public option enrollees. Low-income patients in government plans would pay nothing for generics and biosimilars, copycats of complex biologic drugs.

To increase access to low-cost generic drugs, Buttigieg would ban “pay-for-delay” deals, in which a brand drug company pays a generic drug company to keep competition off the market. He also would stop brand drug companies from withholding samples that generic makers need to get a copycat medicine approved.
How Kamala Harris would address rising drug prices
If elected president, Harris said she would have the Department of Health and Human Services set a “fair price” for any prescription drug whose price increases annually by more than the cost of inflation — or which is sold for less money in any comparable country in the 36-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Any profits pharmaceutical companies make from selling a drug above that set price in the United States would be taxed at a rate of 100 percent, with proceeds going directly to consumers as rebates.

Harris said she would also work to close a tax loophole for pharmaceutical companies’ direct-to-consumer advertising expenses.

Harris said that if Congress does not act on her proposal within 100 days of taking office, she would take executive action to investigate price gauging and would appoint an attorney general who will prioritize investigations of abusive drug pricing.

She said the Department of Health and Human Services could also import drugs from Canada or other countries directly if they are available more cheaply there.

In egregious cases and if other efforts to control prices fail, Harris said she would use the government’s “march-in” rights to license a drug company’s patent to a lower-cost competitor.

Harris’ proposal is in line with what many Democrats in Congress and in the presidential primary campaign have floated.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker, among others, support international reference pricing. In addition, Warren has proposed creating a government-run pharmaceutical manufacturer to produce generic drugs in cases where the free market is determined to have failed.
I will leave it to those more qualified than myself to determine whether any of this actually amounts to wiping their ass with the Constitution, a la Trump.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor
User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 8601
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Max Peck »

BTW, the legal basis for "grabbing them by the patent" seems to be derived from the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act:
The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980) is United States legislation dealing with inventions arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by two senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200–212, and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401 for federal funding agreements with contractors and 37 C.F.R 404 for licensing of inventions owned by the federal government.
The government's march-in right is one of the most contentious provisions in Bayh-Dole. It allows the funding agency, on its own initiative or at the request of a third party, to effectively ignore the exclusivity of a patent awarded under the act and grant additional licenses to other "reasonable applicants". This right is strictly limited and can only be exercised if the agency determines, following an investigation, that one of four criteria is met. The most important of these is a failure by the contractor to take "effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention" or a failure to satisfy "health and safety needs" of consumers.

Though this right is, in theory, quite powerful, it has not proven so in terms of its practical application—as of January, 2015, no federal agency has exercised its march-in rights. Five march-in petitions have been made to the National Institutes of Health.
That appears to limit its application to cases where the patented drug was developed from federally-funded research.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor
User avatar
gilraen
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:45 pm
Location: Broomfield, CO

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by gilraen »

Oh, cry me a river. Pharma patents are broken as a system. Only about a quarter of drug patents filed since 2005 have anything to do with actual innovation.
Evergreening:
And unfortunately, while patenting is an important mechanism for incentivizing and rewarding invention, pharmaceutical companies have figured out how to game the system—prolonging monopolies, claiming newness where there often is none, and taking patients on a ride they can barely afford.
[...]
Instead of going to new medicines, the study finds that 74 percent of new patents during the decade went to drugs that already existed. It found that 80 percent of the nearly 100 best-selling drugs extended their exclusivity protections at least once, and 50 percent extended their patents more than once—with the effect of prolonging the time before generics could reach the market as drug prices continued to rise.

The strategy is called “evergreening”: drug makers add on new patents to prolong a drug’s exclusivity, even when the additions aren’t fundamentally new, non-obvious, and useful as the law requires.
This is setting aside drugs that aren't under patent at all - like insulin, albuterol, or epinephrine. Where people literally die when they have to ration or skip doses, because the price has been artificially inflated.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 10957
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Jaymann »

Touche'
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 19292
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant »

No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo »

Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm
Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?
Mahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.

Edit: There is a story - good chance he is a dumbass who had all kinds of 'vulnerabilities'. So he was open to attack and the Republicans thwarted Democracy again. Sounds about right.
Last edited by malchior on Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35630
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:24 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm
Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?
Mahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.
Yeah, I mean the expected value of a Democratic Senate candidate in Arkansas is pretty low, and if there were someone who had a plausible shot, they would've been running regardless of any shenanigans here. But still, there's some value to having *a* candidate, as at least then there's a remote chance of catching lightning in a bottle, or some sea change that suddenly causes the race to be competitive (say, the Republican candidate turns out to be a pedophile).

So probably doesn't matter, but still looks bad.
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

I edited my post above but apparently the Arkansas GOP dug up tons of dirt on the guy and then threatened to turn him in to the FEC right around the filing deadline. The GOP is ruthless and the Democrats are hopeless. As has been said - we are fucked.
Last edited by malchior on Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49662
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies
LawBeefaroni OO’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by LawBeefaroni »

El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:27 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:24 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:22 pm
Defiant wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:09 pm No Democratic candidate for 2020 Arkansas U.S. Senate race, party officials announce
Just hours after the filing deadline had passed, Mahony announced on Nov. 12 that he was dropping out of the race due to family health concerns.
*Hours* after the deadline. Is there an explanation for that that doesn't involve shenanigans?
Mahony could be a fucking dumbass. Reading about the whole thing...it feels like this is the best explanation. Though possible someone had kompromat on him. Who knows but I can't imagine it would have been all that competitive, right? Cotton isn't super popular but he isn't unpopular with folks there.
Yeah, I mean the expected value of a Democratic Senate candidate in Arkansas is pretty low, and if there were someone who had a plausible shot, they would've been running regardless of any shenanigans here. But still, there's some value to having *a* candidate, as at least then there's a remote chance of catching lightning in a bottle, or some sea change that suddenly causes the race to be competitive (say, the Republican candidate turns out to be a pedophile).
Or at least force the state GOP to spend some money and manpower, however little, on the race. Don't give them a freebie.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 24088
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Holman »

Something interesting and nuanced has happened in Pete Buttigieg's relationship to race issues.

Yesterday, a article by Michael Harriot (of The Root) went viral largely because he called Buttigieg a "Lying MF" about issues around race and education. He called out the candidate on his cluelessness about black issues both as a candidate and a mayor.

Today, Buttigieg called Harriot and they discussed the article. Harriot wrote up the conversation, and he does say Pete listened.

Both pieces are short and worth a read. Don't read the first without the second (or vice-versa).
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18901
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Grifman »

I am not really excited about any of the Democratic nominees at this point. I initially like Biden but he just doesn't seem to have it any more. I also liked some of Warren's early proposals regarding corporate governance but I am not fond of Medicare for all (I think it is a terrible campaign issue and her funding plan has huge holes in it), and this whole "seizing patent" thing doesn't thrill me either. I sort of like Mayor Pete but he seems a bit inexperienced, and polls indicate that 50% of American voters aren't prepared for a gay president, and I don't think he can turn out African-Americans in numbers to win (the African American community isn't very gay friendly either). All said and done, I still come back to Biden because even a slow Biden is 10x smarter than Trump who can't even put together English sentences in a coherent manner. But I am worried that Trump still might overcome all and win :(
Last edited by Grifman on Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 14382
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Zarathud »

Warren will be a planner and builder. She will make my life difficult and my job harder. My clients do not like her. But we need a policy person to repair the damage and neglect from Trump.

Warren also has moments of standing up to Trump. More than anyone else.

I trust the realities of governing and Republican opposition will prevent her more radical plans. And Warren wants more than she can possibly achieve.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

I'd be all for candidates who made outlandish policies if it got them the win against Trump; however these are promises that'll help them *lose* against Trump. I'm not too thrilled with any of them and these weaknesses are causing other weak candidates to pile in only exacerbating the problem. .
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 14382
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Zarathud »

I also get screwed hard by high insulin prices, so fuck those greedy assholes who have gone way too far under Republican rules.

When government reinstates university research, the drug companies can profit from new drugs rather than price gouging.

It’s more populist than outlandish. I say it probably helps Warren overall. Anyone worried about confiscation is crying SOCIALIST! anyway.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 43465
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B »

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:57 pm But I am worried that Trump still might overcome all and win :(
I haven't seen anything on the (D) front that would suggest Trump is in trouble. If Joe Biden is truly the best answer they have? Get ready to see red hats for another 4 years. I want to believe otherwise and that the silent majority will vote him out, but in my heart I just don't.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 36926
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Kraken »

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:22 am
Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:57 pm But I am worried that Trump still might overcome all and win :(
I haven't seen anything on the (D) front that would suggest Trump is in trouble. If Joe Biden is truly the best answer they have? Get ready to see red hats for another 4 years. I want to believe otherwise and that the silent majority will vote him out, but in my heart I just don't.
Biden's weakness is the reason Bloomberg and Patrick jumped in. Not that I think Democrats want a billionaire capitalist, but the big money establishment types have no confidence that Biden is their man. There is no killer centrist, and both Warren and Sanders threaten TPTB.

I still like Warren for all the same reasons I've always liked her. I'll hold my opinion on her electability, though. Americans do not have a good record of choosing the best-qualified candidate, and I have a long history of supporting losers. The only winner I ever voted for was Bronco Bama.
Blue Hills Editorial Services
Black Lives Matter!
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 19292
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant »

Michael Bloomberg's presidential run could be part of a strategy to pay the cheapest rates possible to air anti-Trump ads
On the surface, it might seem like it would make sense for Bloomberg to just start a PAC to buy ads instead of going through the trouble of running for president.

But for a billionaire who plans to spend exorbitant amounts of money shaping the 2020 race, filing to run as a candidate and pay for ads through a campaign instead of simply starting a political action committee carries some significant financial advantages.


The Sunlight Foundation said in 2016 that the price of airing TV ads varied significantly by media market, but it's almost always cheaper to buy ads as a political candidate than it is for PACs and super PACs — which can spend unlimited sums of money on electioneering.

Federal Communication Commission regulations require TV stations and networks to offer a price referred to as the "lowest unit rate" possible to presidential candidates based on the timing of their ad spot and how likely it is to be "pre-empted" or bumped by a higher-paying advertiser during "political protection" periods, which take place 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, according to the veteran TV sales rep Mike Fuhram.

But none of those considerations apply to PACs' and super PACs' ad purchases, meaning stations can charge virtually as much as they want to PACs and aren't required to offer them the lowest price possible in the weeks leading up to an election.

For someone, like Bloomberg, who plans to purchase a lot of anti-Trump ads, this means he could save a lot of money by buying ads as a presidential candidate instead of through a PAC.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18901
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Grifman »

To me this is just the wrong year for the "progressive agenda". A strong left/centrist candidate would crush Trump because they would be palatable to many Republicans that are tired of Trump and his antics. And beating Trump is far more important than any item on the progressive agenda, IMO. But it will be hard pill for many Republicans to vote "progressive" no matter how much they despise Trump. It is interesting to see Warren's huge drop in the polls - perhaps the Dems are not as far left/progressive as much as some of the louder voices have led us to believe.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

I think Warren made a calculated guess on M4A. That plan is flawed and this isn't the year to run on it. You almost can't blame her though because healthcare has continued to be a big issue and was in 2018. It is probably too early to figure out the why of her fall yet but I think her playing games about how to pay for it was a massive mistake.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 43465
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B »

I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman. The fact that old white men continue to surge in popularity tells me we're still not there yet as a society, accepting a woman being in charge. That's not me lamenting PC culture or the ethics in gaming either, I'm just saying at the end of the day no one is agonizing over policy stump speeches while standing behind the voting booth curtain. My gut is that people are (1) voting single issues and/or (2) voting for the person they think embodies what a President of the United States should look like. And apparently it's still overwhelming old white man.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 63520
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by LordMortis »

Saw a clickbait headline and teaser from politico that stated something along the lines of "democratic establishment are counting on Obama to stop Trump and perhaps stave off Bernie as well..."

Is that prudent? In these last six or maybe even ten years of throwing normal to the wind, is this another normal we toss? Are we conceding politics needs to be a constant state of disruption? If the answer is yes, can someone show me where this is beneficial? (Short of the possibility that GOP corruption may get exposed, ousted, and if fate truly smiles, punished. I'm yet to see anything that give confidence this will happen.)
Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman.
I have no doubt it's a factor. I mean it took us until the actions of president sociopath to have a photo op of women praising him forthe centennial coin act to commemorate women's suffrage. No president before him was capable of such a thing.
malchior
Posts: 13270
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman. The fact that old white men continue to surge in popularity tells me we're still not there yet as a society, accepting a woman being in charge. That's not me lamenting PC culture or the ethics in gaming either, I'm just saying at the end of the day no one is agonizing over policy stump speeches while standing behind the voting booth curtain. My gut is that people are (1) voting single issues and/or (2) voting for the person they think embodies what a President of the United States should look like. And apparently it's still overwhelming old white man.
It is definitely a part of it. Her performance on M4A was pretty bad though and I don't think you can discount it. It didn't help that everyone including Bernie were willing to knife her over it either. The downsides of a clown car primary. Whoever is near the top gets clobbered. Though Joe's staying power is definitely old white man because he should be sunk.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 43465
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B »

I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now. To Grifman's point, I'd like to believe any (D) candidate running on a platform of trying to right the ship and unwind the damage that's been done over the last 3+ years (if that's even possible) would be gaining traction. But with only the extreme ends of the party voting, apparently it's going to be the Red Hats vs the Bernie Bros again.

I feel like there's probably a German word for the specific type of despair I'm experiencing.

EDIT: Kummerspeck is close, but not quite right. Maybe Weltschmerz.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23704
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog »

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 am I'm probably just retreating into cynicism, but my gut feeling is that Warren's popularity is dropping because she's a woman.
It's because she's way left. The more she talks the more obvious it is. Hillary Clinton was WAY more unpopular that Warren and she came very close to winning the presidency.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 43465
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B »

And yet we're still talking about Bernie Goddamn Sanders running for President in 2020.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 26633
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by YellowKing »

Smoove_B wrote:I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now.
If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral. But they have other options, and those other options aren't up there saying they're going to abolish your private health insurance.

I'm all for health care overhaul, but I have REALLY good insurance through my job. I have ZERO faith the government could swoop in, take it away, and replace it with something better. I'm all for helping people with no insurance get insurance. I'm all for helping people with overpriced insurance get affordable insurance. I draw the line, however, at fucking up my good insurance to achieve those goals. It's not that I'm unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good; it's that I think there are other ways to accomplish those goals without breaking half the country to do so.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 43465
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Smoove_B »

Health insurance does not equal health care. More specifically, having a "Cadillac plan" only (mostly) guarantees what you pay out of pocket. It in no way means you're going to get a quality evaluation, treatment and/or care. Decoupling that is part of the master plan (I think) to elevate care nation wide. Also, it promotes socialism.

By way of example, we have entire populations of people lacking care or reliant on charity care because their local or available health care providers won't accept their government-sponsored health insurance. People that don't have basic dental needs, the ability to get eye glasses or hearing aids because they're poor. I can feel myself spiraling down this morning; probably comes with being up since 5:30. I should probably take a walk somewhere. :D
Last edited by Smoove_B on Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 19292
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by Defiant »

For me, single payer that bans private insurance would be a huge change to a large section of our economy into a system that's untested, and I would rather see the country transition into a hybrid system along the lines that Germany has, because a) plenty of countries have successful hybrid systems that deliver universal healthcare and b) the german system is probably the closest to our own, and so would be the easiest to transition to.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23704
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by noxiousdog »

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:16 am And yet we're still talking about Bernie Goddamn Sanders running for President in 2020.
That's because the far left has had a candidate for the last 6 years. There's a reason that AOC endorsed him and not Warren.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 63520
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by LordMortis »

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:13 am

If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral.

I hope you are right. My faith is broken.

Defiant wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am For me, single payer that bans private insurance would be a huge change to a large section of our economy into a system that's untested, and I would rather see the country transition into a hybrid system along the lines that Germany has, because a) plenty of countries have successful hybrid systems that deliver universal healthcare and b) the german system is probably the closest to our own, and so would be the easiest to transition to.

I'm a fan of the Canadian system but there is HUUUUUUGGGGGE room for discussion for something that absolutely needs to get better.
User avatar
rittchard
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:16 pm
rittchard’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Post by rittchard »

YellowKing wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:13 am
Smoove_B wrote:I just find it incredibly hard to believe people are or are not voting for Warren over her position on healthcare. Is the healthcare issue in the United States important? Absolutely. But we're on fire and in a death spiral right now.
If she was the only candidate, I'm sure people would vote for her over the flaming death spiral. But they have other options, and those other options aren't up there saying they're going to abolish your private health insurance.

I'm all for health care overhaul, but I have REALLY good insurance through my job. I have ZERO faith the government could swoop in, take it away, and replace it with something better. I'm all for helping people with no insurance get insurance. I'm all for helping people with overpriced insurance get affordable insurance. I draw the line, however, at fucking up my good insurance to achieve those goals. It's not that I'm unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good; it's that I think there are other ways to accomplish those goals without breaking half the country to do so.
Totally agree with YK here. I don't love my insurance, but my company has somehow worked it out the past two years that they pay for it entirely. So in order for another system to be better for me, it would have to give me all the same benefits and PAY me lol. I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

As for Warren, I don't think it's being a woman that hurt her, to me it's more that she was campaigning so hard early on being the smartest one in the pack that has a plan for everything (and implying everyone else was lagging her on big bold ideas). And then having perhaps the most important plan of all her plans being called out for not being fully thought out, dodging to answer questions about it, and then having to backtrack on some of the biggest ideas in it. It's the old "wishy washy" "flip flop" thing, as well as the evasiveness, that I think really turns some people off.
Post Reply