I mean, that’s Brooks’s act. He agrees that the Republicans are monsters, then wrings his hands about how maybe the Democrats are worse and they might force him and other people like him to vote for those Republicans after all. It is literally the only thing he says.
Enidigm
4299
Is it though? Maybe it’s just by degree, or i’m tuned differently.
I think part of the issue is that, much like the debates, it’s hard to talk about “rational authotarianism”. The strange thing about Trumpism and the larger GOP in general is that they’re immune to your disdain* and no longer have any intersection with facts or rational policy. So, basically, there is nothing left to say. Trump declares and the GOP nods. And that’s a problem for talking heads / pundits because it’s pointless to talk about what the GOP should or could do because there’s nothing anyone can say that will direct that now.
It’s less useful to ask “This is what the GOP should do” and more useful to ask “What did Trump have for breakfast, and did it upset him?” at this point. The recent round of resignations across the GOP show that, although there are certainly some retirements just by age, anyone with a brain sees the writing on the wall for an GOP independent of FOX News, and it’s going to be FOX writing their value statements from now on.
But, i’ll take it under advisement that’s how he’s perceived.
points for reference*
Disgruntled Trump voters are not going to be the key to victory is that a election. Whichever side does the better job turning out their base will win.
A candidate who is tolerable to everyone but exciting to no one will not win.
But this is the primary, not the general. Isn’t this the appropriate time to hash out a Democratic platform? They all agree Trump is awful.
But they should. Because Trump is terrible, and dangerous, and anti-American in deep and fundamental ways.
I know that’s not the reality we live in, but the reality we live in is fucking stupid, and I don’t let the American electorate off the hook for it.
It’s called negative partisanship and it’s a thing. Contra Silver, elections are not just about persuasion.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12479 So yes, trump hatred can absolutely drive turnout.
Yes, it is. What happens though is that polling data show that medicare for all with removal of private insurance is far less popular among Democrats then M4A for those who want it. The problem with that poll though is the question: Do you agree with banning private insurance?
I’d love to see the question phrased:
Do you agree with banning private insurance if you can keep you doctor/hospital?
There are a lot of benefits from removing private insurance: Decouples insurance from employers, frees up employers from the cost (in time and resources) from providing it, it might result in higher wages (stop laughing!), it can hopefully address the spiraling health care costs and have the added benefit of reducing government debt long term. Furthermore, no surprise bills, no networks to worry about … well you get the idea. The downside isn’t as currently being pushed (("but people like their insurance! (no they don’t)) but rather the economic disruption that is likely to occur. What we do know is that status quo isn’t working. If the discussion is based on the broader picture I think it might result in a better outcome instead of this incessant drone and distraction of “but people want to keep their insurance!”
(Just for the record I’m fine with either solution, it just irks me that somehow we employees just looove our insurance. We like that it allows us to get health care but the insurer carrier is meaningless. Anyway.)
Edit: I forgot taxes. My monthly insurance bills just doubled after our small company got bought out by a larger one from FL (need a PPO since HMO’s from FL are out-of-network.) The yearly cost is ~$2500. The deductible is $10k. That doesn’t count prescriptions (60% if non-generic. Lucky for me at my age I don’t need any prescriptions but that’s probably not common.) I can almost guarantee my tax burden will not rise anywhere near those amounts.
Menzo
4306
OK, now we’re talking.
Candidates who have qualified for the September debates in both polling and fundraising:
- Former Vice President Joe Biden
- New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
- Mayor Pete Buttigieg
- California Sen. Kamala Harris
- Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
- Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke
- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
- Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Let’s lock this list and let the others go about their business.
Gonna bang the Inslee drum a bit more. He has a lot more to contribute at this stage than Klobuchar or possibly Beto, IMO. Not that any of it is in my control.
Enidigm
4308
Honestly i’d rather have X than O’Rourke at this point. I’m not sure how he’s still relevant - mainly because he so middle of the road. I’d rather have Yang personally, or even Williamson keeps the news wheels spinning. O’Rourke is going to be a wallflower they occasionally question to remind viewers he exists.
I would drop Pete, Beto, Klobuchar, and Booker based on polling. They’re not going anywhere, and they’re just using up time others could use to greater benefit.
Also, no Inslee. He’s got no chance, really.
Enidigm
4310
At least Yang, Inslee and possibly Williamson would say thing the other candidates would not. I don’t see O’Rourke saying anything other than “i’m the younger, more Texan Biden”.
They would all be bad Presidents, and they’ve go no chance.
Enidigm
4312
Like triggercut said though, if they “winnow” out the cadidates too fast it looks like they’re tipping the scales. With that in mind if you have to have more candidates, there’s little point in Beto, imo.
RichVR
4313
I’m interested in seeing how numbers change once the winnowing commences.
Well, there’s no real mechanism to winnow them, so I’m only saying what I would do if I were in charge.
The polls:
Maybe keep Pete around another round, I guess. At 6% you could argue he’s doing almost as well as Harris at 10%. But the rest can go. It looks like no better than a 3-person race at this point.
Edit: Also, too, the biggest factor in second choice polling seems to be gender, so assume most of Bernie’s support would go to Biden, and most of Harris’s support would go to Warren. Never mind the wide gulf on policy, that’s what people say. Harris seems more likely to me to drop out before Bernie, so Warren might suddenly be in 2nd if that happened.
This sort of thing makes me think Bernie won’t quit until he is dragged off the stage at the convention.
He speaks truth, though, and IMO that continues to have value on the debate stage.
They would all be bad Presidents
I’ll bite. Why would Inslee be a bad President? Is there something in his record as governor of Washington to indicate this? I hope it’s not something like “he’s too fixated on climate change,” because IMO one cannot actually be too fixated on climate change at this particular moment in history. Or if they can, I don’t know what that would look like because it’s so far from our mainstream political discourse.
