Sixty Nine Percent of Americans are for M4A until they find out that they would have to PAY for it with higher taxes. Elizabeth Warren's support among Democrats plummeted when she started trying to explain how she was going to pay for M4A.
"But above all, Warren seemed to get bogged down in the politics of health care. Instead of creating her own proposal from scratch, Warren attempted to win over the left wing of the party by wholeheartedly embracing Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan. But while Sanders freely admitted during debates that he would raise middle-class taxes in order to pay for his legislation, Warren awkwardly danced around the question of how to finance it. As a result, the issue dogged her. There was that cringey Stephen Colbert interview and a wince-inducing debate performance in which she would only say that overall costs for families would go down. Eventually, Warren released a detailed plan for how to pay for single payer without any middle-class tax hikes, but few experts or pundits found it particularly realistic. By mid-November, she backpedaled entirely and released a new plan, dropping single payer in favor of an ambitious public-option bill that she claimed would help “transition” the country to Medicare for All. Amid all the waffling, her poll numbers sank and sank.
Why was Medicare for All such a quagmire for Warren? The simple, obvious answer is that it shredded her core pitch to voters. Warren was supposed to be the candidate with a plan to fix America. Her catchphrase was actually “I have a plan for that.” Except on health care—the single most important policy issue for most Democrats—she evidently did not. It was a glaring oversight that disillusioned some Democrats and sent her campaign’s early momentum to a screeching halt."
When you run on a platform that most people don't want, you lose elections. Like most of the people on Wonkette, I think you get caught up in a very left wing bubble, and lose touch with reality. When you vote in a primary for people who have no chance of winning, and you insist on trying to make people pay for things they don't want, you DO help elect Republicans. That's just a true statement, it's not meant to be an insult to you personally. I was one of the dumb moderates who voted for Biden in the SC primary, and helped the Dems not nominate Bernie, because Biden was the only candidate we had who would actually beat Trump in a general election. You're welcome.
PS - it was Bernie's supporters who won the election for Trump in 2016 in WI, MI, and PA because they were mad that the moderate Hillary Clinton beat him with her tricky math.https://www.newsweek.com/be...
As of January 20 2009, there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate, including two independents (Lieberman and Sanders). So really only 56 people who had the party loyalty to vote as Democrats.
Arlen Specter switched to a Democrat in April 2009. Al Franken was finally declared the winner in his race in July 2009, and it is only then that the Democrats had their so-called filibuster-proof majority, which again really included 2 independents.
Now there's a certain amount of hair-splitting there, in terms of the specific date at which the Democrats achieved alleged filibuster-proof status (although, you were the one who specified the date, and you told me to correct you if you were wrong, so). However, the fact that there were two independents in the mix -- one of whom was exceptionally conservative and the other had long been in the pocket of the NRA -- really calls the following statement into question:
"What's ON-TOPIC is that when the Democrats had the chance to take any and every gun they wanted"
The Democrats really never did. Not that the Democrats have ever enforced strict party loyalty, but even if they did with guns, there was still the matter of the two independents who each would have blown up any serious gun control measures for their own purposes.
True, totally. Of course, the anti- "reform" arguments would've been couched in the same language as the anti- "defund" language, and, so, WTF ?? Or, WAFM?? (Wut A Fuckin' Mess??)
Well, a counterfactual is that apparently our fellow citizens aren't very smart and if 7% of them believe that a satanic cabal of demoncrats are trafficking babbies to eat them then just saying that the police have been defunded probably has had as much effect on low information citizens as actual disappearance of patrol officers from the force. I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who believe that the police have already been defunded and act accordingly. FFS just look at the loons who believe the sovereign citizen crap and land themselves in all kinds of trouble, or the multitudes across the planet who subscribe to the long running Sky Gods fantasy series.
In fact, Rep. Lesko is probably part of the rise in the crime rate bc her and her ilk have been screaming to the heavens that the police are under attack and have been defunded, creating the public perception that it is a thing already.
TL:DR - People in general are dumb as bricks and that's why sociology is so hard because in human behavior 1+1=NULL
Bowling Green's premiums must be prohibitively expensive. The Massacre?? Never forget.
Well, since you say I'm wrong then tell me where I'm wrong.
Sixty Nine Percent of Americans are for M4A until they find out that they would have to PAY for it with higher taxes. Elizabeth Warren's support among Democrats plummeted when she started trying to explain how she was going to pay for M4A.
"But above all, Warren seemed to get bogged down in the politics of health care. Instead of creating her own proposal from scratch, Warren attempted to win over the left wing of the party by wholeheartedly embracing Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan. But while Sanders freely admitted during debates that he would raise middle-class taxes in order to pay for his legislation, Warren awkwardly danced around the question of how to finance it. As a result, the issue dogged her. There was that cringey Stephen Colbert interview and a wince-inducing debate performance in which she would only say that overall costs for families would go down. Eventually, Warren released a detailed plan for how to pay for single payer without any middle-class tax hikes, but few experts or pundits found it particularly realistic. By mid-November, she backpedaled entirely and released a new plan, dropping single payer in favor of an ambitious public-option bill that she claimed would help “transition” the country to Medicare for All. Amid all the waffling, her poll numbers sank and sank.
Why was Medicare for All such a quagmire for Warren? The simple, obvious answer is that it shredded her core pitch to voters. Warren was supposed to be the candidate with a plan to fix America. Her catchphrase was actually “I have a plan for that.” Except on health care—the single most important policy issue for most Democrats—she evidently did not. It was a glaring oversight that disillusioned some Democrats and sent her campaign’s early momentum to a screeching halt."
https://slate.com/business/...
When you run on a platform that most people don't want, you lose elections. Like most of the people on Wonkette, I think you get caught up in a very left wing bubble, and lose touch with reality. When you vote in a primary for people who have no chance of winning, and you insist on trying to make people pay for things they don't want, you DO help elect Republicans. That's just a true statement, it's not meant to be an insult to you personally. I was one of the dumb moderates who voted for Biden in the SC primary, and helped the Dems not nominate Bernie, because Biden was the only candidate we had who would actually beat Trump in a general election. You're welcome.
PS - it was Bernie's supporters who won the election for Trump in 2016 in WI, MI, and PA because they were mad that the moderate Hillary Clinton beat him with her tricky math.https://www.newsweek.com/be...
I always assumed that was Ohio.
They're animals in Ohio
They say that God works in mysterious ways...
As of January 20 2009, there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate, including two independents (Lieberman and Sanders). So really only 56 people who had the party loyalty to vote as Democrats.
Arlen Specter switched to a Democrat in April 2009. Al Franken was finally declared the winner in his race in July 2009, and it is only then that the Democrats had their so-called filibuster-proof majority, which again really included 2 independents.
Now there's a certain amount of hair-splitting there, in terms of the specific date at which the Democrats achieved alleged filibuster-proof status (although, you were the one who specified the date, and you told me to correct you if you were wrong, so). However, the fact that there were two independents in the mix -- one of whom was exceptionally conservative and the other had long been in the pocket of the NRA -- really calls the following statement into question:
"What's ON-TOPIC is that when the Democrats had the chance to take any and every gun they wanted"
The Democrats really never did. Not that the Democrats have ever enforced strict party loyalty, but even if they did with guns, there was still the matter of the two independents who each would have blown up any serious gun control measures for their own purposes.
The bad actors do seem to skip from one jurisdiction to the next. Maybe it's just me...
I really, really hate gun violence.
True, totally. Of course, the anti- "reform" arguments would've been couched in the same language as the anti- "defund" language, and, so, WTF ?? Or, WAFM?? (Wut A Fuckin' Mess??)
They will blame the vaccines for the spread of COVID....oh they did already? Well never mind then!
Just cut off DEA and DHS funding of local cops. Let the Feds do their own work.LEO aren't their hired help.
You should make that T & wear it to the meet-up in August
And no goddamned PS5s.
Well, a counterfactual is that apparently our fellow citizens aren't very smart and if 7% of them believe that a satanic cabal of demoncrats are trafficking babbies to eat them then just saying that the police have been defunded probably has had as much effect on low information citizens as actual disappearance of patrol officers from the force. I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who believe that the police have already been defunded and act accordingly. FFS just look at the loons who believe the sovereign citizen crap and land themselves in all kinds of trouble, or the multitudes across the planet who subscribe to the long running Sky Gods fantasy series.
In fact, Rep. Lesko is probably part of the rise in the crime rate bc her and her ilk have been screaming to the heavens that the police are under attack and have been defunded, creating the public perception that it is a thing already.
TL:DR - People in general are dumb as bricks and that's why sociology is so hard because in human behavior 1+1=NULL
And now we are re-litigating 2016. Yeah, not doing it. Hard pass.
OK, thanks.