I am curious too, how much of Trump’s claims during the debates with Clinton will become fodder for ads?
“She doesn’t have the stamina to be president” caption: x amount of days at golf resort.
I don’t think reminding voters about Hillary is going to be a major part of Democratic strategy in 2020.
No.
But I bet how many days he was at the golf course will.
“I won’t have time to take a vacation” (narrator: he found plenty of time).
Sharpe
1812
So, Warren has been the candidate with the policies I prefer for a while now, but I have withheld picking a preferred candidate to give me time to check folks out and also b/c I have a pretty open mind for many of the candidates. However, her decisive reaction to the Mueller report has convinced me to support her. Boldness is absolutely a key quality IMO, and when coupled with her strong policy chops, she is the candidate I want. Sure, she has flaws and weaknesses but all the candidates do. She is strong substantively both in terms of being the kind of liberal I prefer and also doing the work to have actual fact based policies that IMO have a strong shot at working. And, also willing to blow past the historic timidity of moderate and mentally-beaten Dems that has plagued the party for decades. It’s the combo of substantive quality and rhetorical boldness that I like.
I reserve the right to change my mind, but she IMO has broken out of the pack into first place for me.
Miramon
1813
Not to mention that these are always “Christians” who somehow prefer the Old Testament to the New despite the fact the old laws of Leviticus and so on don’t apply to Christians anyway, only the basic covenants and ten commandments. And the Gospels spend infinitely more time on socialist things like how wealth is fundamentally bad than they do on sexual “morality”, which is really only a deal at all because Paul was so repressed.
abrandt
1814
And if they are mirroring anyone in the New Testament, it’s the Pharisees, who are pretty much the antagonists for most of Jesus’ ministry.
JonRowe
1815
Ah yes, bring on the private schools then too? Certainly the private sector could handle education better than the bureaucracy that is our public schools system?
Warren’s proposal makes the most sense to me, extending our public school service to cover children from birth.
At the same time, Warren’s plan would create new, national quality standards for child care centers and raise child care workers’ wages to look similar to those of local public school teachers. All these changes would almost certainly raise both the quality and the cost of American child care, but Warren’s idea is to have the government bear those costs (especially for low-income families).
Is a solution, a refundable tax credit is a band aid.
I haven’t really said as much anywhere, I am vote any democrat in 2020, but I am pro-Warren all the way.
Alstein
1816
I want Warren to win, but she has to show a shot of winning first. I don’t want to waste a vote if it can be put to stopping Biden. (I’m sick of politicians from that era who aren’t Bernie)
I mean, I’ll suck it up and vote for him in the general, but I’d want anyone else among the viable or semi-viable candidates.
kedaha
1817
Markets work poorly where there’s a relatively inflexible demand and a strong moral hazard.
I’m curious how someone can say they don’t work in healthcare but turn around and say markets work fine in education, particularly kindergarten which needs to be tightly regulated with minimum standards.
Having a government regulated + inspected + funded ECCE system that uses private kindergartens to provide the service isn’t a ‘market’.
Wrt kindergartens, the Nordic countries have the best kindergartens in the world. This is - IMO - not up for dispute: feel free to give an example of another country with better, but I think you’ll find it hard - the kindergartens are a big reason why the Scandinavian countries consistently fill out all the top spots in “best countries to have children” indexes - and why the Scandinavian countries have the highest coverage of children in kindergartens (~90+%) in the world.
That is achieved through government regulated childcare all the way - even for private day care where you take care of your own child. Norway has ~50% private institutions, btw, but most of the latter are subsidized by up to 80% since parental fees are capped at ~$250 per month.
Warren’s plan looks to be borrowing a lot from the Nordic model. Saying that doesn’t work… is just rubbish. Of course it works. You need to be willing to spend money on it (the Nordic countries spend up to around 2% of GDP). It costs. But if you think “children are the future”, then you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is. Kudos to Warren for being willing to do so.
I wanted to pop in here because I had a duh moment today about a post I made earlier. Apologies in advance for random musings / ramblings.
So I mentioned ranked voting for the primary given the clown car we have for a primary this year. Trig noted that it is essentially impossible to implement something like that for 2020 given all the state-level changes that would be needed to make that happen. Bummer. I’m still a little bothered, honestly, and I hope the sheer number of candidates this year will influence rules towards handling ranked voting for future primaries. I mean, there are 20 candidates so far! Seth Moulton (who?) even announced just today, so it’s still happening! And that 20 doesn’t include Richard Ojeda who withdrew and Biden!
But I was thinking about prior primaries and how candidates release their delegates and endorse another candidate. So why not put that in the bylaws, which I imagine they could still do? Specifically say that a candidate can “rebind” their delegates who are bound to vote for them and make them bound to another candidate of the withdrawing candidate’s choice, as long as the candidate they are endorsing is still active in the race and a “valid” candidate by whatever measure (no write-ins, for instance). The withdrawing candidate could also choose to simply release their delegates rather than “rebind” them. It’s a far shot from real ranked voting, but it’s certainly a lot better than whatever wild west thing could very well happen at the state and national conventions this year.
Sure, maybe it could cause some gnashing and wailing from certain candidates who think they might benefit from the clown car splitting other parts of the vote… and they might complain that it’s “late” in the game to make this change, but I think it’s important. I know this could also generate a myriad of conspiracy theories about horse trading or money changing hands etc with who the withdrawing candidate decides to “rebind” to, but who cares? The DNC is already seen by those people as a shadowy cigar-smoke-filled backroom who anoint the candidate of choice, so… fuck them anyways? It would be better if those people just stopped voting in the primary in my opinion.
I totally support ranked voting but this one of those things that’s going to have be tried at a state-level and then for primaries for lower level offices. I think 2028 or 2032 is possible, if it works in places like Maine.
I love sounding fancy and throwing around the statement “But that’s just a tautology!” at work meetings. Really gets people to look at me weird or sigh loudly or otherwise be moderately bemused that I bother speaking.
Which, to be fair, is my main goal for most meetings. :D
The US ain’t Scandinavian. Individual Nordic countries are the size of small to medium sized states collective with a population of 27 million much lower than CA. More importantly they until recently very humongous country, Sweden is 92% white. I’d be happy to try Warren’s Kindergarten proposal or education proposal, after its been shown to be successful in MN, WI, MA, VT, or CA or any other state, but I honestly don’t give a shit about what works in Norway.
Ugh, he’s still running?
That line worked great for Obama 15 years ago. I don’t think we’re quite in the same place now…
Two interesting polls today, both by pollsters with kind of terrible records, even so.
In Iowa, Gravis finds Bernie and Biden leading, but both only have 19%. Buttigieg is the clear 3rd choice at 14%. Beto and others in single digits.
It’s Gravis, though.
In New Hampshire, UNH gives Bernie his best poll in the state yet, at 30%. Biden falling bigly, at 19%. Buttigieg the solid 3rd place at 14%. All others single digits.
It’s UNH though. They’re…not great.
(And Warren should be pretty concerned about pulling 5% in NH, even given UNH’s bouncy nature.)
This makes just about zero sense, and reflects the conservative urge to defer any substantial improvement. It is certainly possible that the US might fuck up such a program, but there isn’t any doubt whether such a program can work.
Or you can look at it like “Warren is in fourth place in the poll!” which isn’t that bad. :D
