Eleanor Clift: SUICIDE - Embracing Medicare for All Will Put the Democratic Party on Life Support

[Kahuna7]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/embracing-medicare-for-all-will-put-the-democratic-party-on-life-support?source=twitter&via=desktop

Medicare for All is a nice catchphrase, but for a party seeking to unseat President Trump, it is a poison pill that the Democratic candidates should not swallow whole.

The popularizer of the idea, Bernie Sanders, conceded under questioning on the debate stage that the middle class would pay more in taxes, but said that any tax rises would be offset by savings on insurance premiums and deductibles.


Asked for a show of hands which Democrats support Medicare for All, Elizabeth Warren led the charge to declare, “I’m with Bernie.” New York Mayor Bill De Blasio joined her. On the second night, Kamala Harris raised her hand to back Sanders, then following the debate thought better of it, saying she misunderstood the question.

It was the second time Harris walked back her support, even though she is one of four senators running for president who have signed on to Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation. The others are Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and of course Warren, who leaned into the issue more than she has in the past, perhaps hoping to poach some of Sanders’ support.

[bluewater]

1. Didn't pundits and candidates, back in the day, say that about Social Security and Medicare too?

And the 5 day work week, and the 8 hour work day, and child labor laws?

Conservatives/moderates always drag their feet on social change.

[Kahuna7]

2. What's your point? Eleanor Clift didn't say it. If you're

unaware of Ms. Clift's many decades of being on the correct side of liberal punditry, just say so.

[bluewater]

3. Pundits have been saying this. It's been said here on DU too.

Haven't you seen the threads againts medicare for all?

[Kahuna7]

4. So now it's my turn. Do you mind???

[bluewater]

6. Not at all. And let me apologize.

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2019, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

When I mentioned pundits and DU threads before, I was just meaning to say that opposition to medicare for all is a current topic.
I didn't mean it as a negative comment on this thread.

Honestly, I didn't notice I was responding to the poster of the OP, I was commenting on the article itself.

I am sorry for how undiplomatic that sounded.



Thanks for the discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. There's pretty simple economic math at play here.

And it's not a complex conversation to make people understand item A (direct health care costs) cost less, and item B (taxes) costs a little more.

And Ms. Clift did say this:
"The most contentious part of Medicare for All is that in its purest form it would end all private insurance."

Neat, but you don't actually have to do anything like that. That's what Canada did. They made private insurance illegal, and they suffered for it. And being America's Hat, we heard all about the horror stories. They later walked it back, and we heard about that too. Germany on the other hand has a working system that looks like Medicare for All with supplemental private insurance. Works just fine (WAY better than the UK or Canada).

This 'poison pill' of supplemental insurance is actually a negotiation point, not a hard fact or requirement of the idea of something-single-payer-like. It can be adjusted in a number of ways to produce different costs/results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Compare Germany and the US.

[wyldwolf]

39. Bluewater is overly concerned about sources

[ehrnst]

54. Well, if they are not promoting MFA, anyway. (nt)

[Trumpocalypse]

11. Which pundits?

[ehrnst]

15. The great undefined "they" that prove how TOTALLY right someone who is in favor of "A" is

because "they" who disagree are as wrong as the "they" who said "Z" wouldn't work, and that proves whoever is in favor of "A" is right because "Z" worked. Because person one supports A and Z, so they are totally the same thing, and anyone who disagrees is totally wrong, just like in the past.

It's a circular argument.

[bluewater]

19. Make that Pundits, Candidates and critics actually.

Well, Ronald Reagan on Medicare comes to mind back in the day.

John Delaney is criticizing medicare for all in the news today.

Sally C. pipes is a political writer who is against medicare for all.

Honestly, just google "medicare for all", the number of pundits/politicians commenting on it are legion.

Google makes that very apparent.

Google "opposition to Social Security" if you want a real eye opener.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. I'm asking which pundits

were against Social Security in 1933 and Medicare in 1964.

[bluewater]

31. Google is your friend lol

Anyone can google it to see for themselves.

I would get carpal tunnel typing in all the references. lol

But here's some articles that discuss this and mentions some names:

Republicans' Public Opposition To Social Security And Medicare
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/#36053a4f4e71

Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
https://thinkprogress.org/flashback-republicans-opposed-medicare-in-1960s-by-warning-of-rationing-socialized-medicine-5b43ac3986d4/

Deja Vu: A Look Back at Some of the Tirades Against Social Security and Medicare
https://billmoyers.com/content/deja-vu-all-over-a-look-back-at-some-of-the-tirades-against-social-security-and-medicare/

“I Will Not Promise the Moon”: Alf Landon Opposes the Social Security Act, 1936
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8128/

If you don't want to google and read the scores of other sources, that's your prerogative, but it's unreasonable to expect me to type them all in.

Thanks for the discussion!

[ehrnst]

33. More googles...

Wouldn't want you to get carpal tunnel doing any more searches:

If you want to compare the Urban Institute to Ronald Reagan as a paid spokesperson...

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

If you want to call the Kaiser Family Foundation a GOP pundit...

https://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

If you want to call Ed Kilgora and/or NY Mag a Republican...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

But do keep on assigning horns and a BIG REPUBLICAN pointy stick to anyone who dares have an informed opinion that diverges one inch from THE DOGMA.

It's like talking to anyone in the GOP about how unfounded the idea in actual health care policy the claim is that if you got rid of Planned Parenthood, you would get rid of abortion.

But it's a very simple solution, and it exploits the anger and suspicion that many have, and allows them to swallow whole a "solution" that promises not only to banish a "greedy industry" it promotes itself as the only "moral" response to the problem.

[Trumpocalypse]

61. Those are not pundits

but republicans. Can you prove your statement that pundits back in the day were against Social Security and Medicare or not?

[bluewater]

81. Some pundits from back in the day...

pundit[ puhn-dit ]
noun
a learned person, expert, or authority.
a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.


On social security:

Manufacturers' Counsel Hits Social Security Bill Proposal
Evening star. [volume], February 07, 1935, Page A-3, Image 3
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?state=&date1=1789&date2=1963&proxtext=Manufacturers%27+Counsel+Hits+Social+Security+Bill+Proposal&dateFilterType=yearRange&rows=20&searchType=basic&x=17&y=13

The Washington Post. April 25, 1935 decrying it as socialism
^ "Finance, Business, Economics: Huge Old-Age Reserve Fund Under Doughton Bill Gives Treasury Extensive New Financial Powers; Could Be Used to Control Credit Also". The Washington Post. April 25, 1935. p. 23. The social security bill, in its present form, is thus not only a sweeping piece of legislation, but also a far-reaching financial measure. To have investments available for such large reserve funds, the Treasury will have to keep as much of its debt as possible in short-dated maturities, so that securities can be provided by the Old-Age Reserve Account. The existence of this huge reserve, furthermore, will constantly encourage resort to venture in State Socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States#cite_note-7

Security Tax Growing as an Issue by David Lawrence
Evening star. [volume], October 28, 1936,
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1936-10-28/ed-1/seq-11/#date1=1789&index=0&rows=20&words=editorially+security+social&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1936&proxtext=editorial+social+security&y=8&x=15&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

Medicare:

In 1965, Experts Warned of Medicare-Induced Crisis
John Knowles, general director of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, a Harvard teaching hospital and one of the top medical institutions in America, warned not just of a flood of patients but also of a staff overwhelmed by new rules and all the "red tape" necessary to process the influx.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/30/in-1965-experts-warned-of-medicare-induced-crisis

Edward Banks: Socialized Medicine needs Study
Arizona tribune., May 11, 1962, Page P.2, Image 2
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84021918/1962-05-11/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1789&index=3&rows=20&words=medicare&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1963&proxtext=medicare&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

There are more old newspaper articles opposing both Social Security and Medicare, but most archives are behind paywalls.

And of course, I already showed all the politicians and candidates from back in the day that opposed both.

And being really old, I personally remember the TV and newspaper articles opposing Medicare back in 1964 and 1965, but that's just anecdotal "evidence". lol

I think this is a wrap.

[Trumpocalypse]

82. Again not pundits

But operatives and partisans.

And I never questioned you comment about candidates.

[bluewater]

83. The dictionary disagrees with you.

pundit[ puhn-dit ]
noun

a learned person, expert, or authority.

a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.

pandit.

The last post had listed lawyers, technical experts and newspaper columnists (amongst others) -- who are all by definition pundits.

But you dismissed them all, even the newspaper columnists. Surely, newspaper columnists would meet the most stringent standard of what a "pundit" is? Right? As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon, man!"

But feel free to make finer and finer distinctions on terms, if you choose to.
(Notice that I didn't use words like quibble or hair-split, I have made a resolution to be more polite to everyone.)

But, seriously, it's a wrap!

Thanks for the discussion.

[Trumpocalypse]

84. They were not pundits

Please stop insisting that they were.

[bluewater]

85. They were too, of course.

But, feel free to keep insisting they aren't.

But I must say, I am surprised though...

Newspaper columnists are not "pundits" now? I thought you would at least accept them.



But, feel free to keep making finer and finer and yet even finer distinctions.

Thanks for the discussion.

Best regards!

[Trumpocalypse]

86. They were not pundits

The fact you repeatedly posted a generic dictionary definition shows that you know they weren’t too.

[thesquanderer]

100. Pundits are partisan more often than not.

Bringing this back to the OP, what makes his of interest on DU is that it's from left-leaning pundit Clift. If it was from a right-leaning pundit, few here would care.

[Trumpocalypse]

105. Very true nt

[ehrnst]

13. Demonizing all dissenting views on a particular bill takes all the effort out of

supporting that particular bill, doesn't it?

No critical thought needed! Just call anyone who has a point that doesn't support yours "dragging their feet on social change" and lump them in with baddies from the past.

[wyldwolf]

43. And baddies from the present, as well

The DUer in question has become overly concerned with 'sources,' discounting information she/he dislikes if it's from a writer or source that doesn't have pure progressive cred, and spinning information she doesn't like if it does come from a liberal source.

[ehrnst]

49. Like I said, it's sure easier than critical thinking. (nt)

[crazytown]

80. Shoot the messenger

[Gringoguapisimo]

103. But is it right

Democrats are all for all, correct?

[AlexSFCA]

5. BS - when they learn that no change in doctors and hospitals- majority supports

This is a long standing issue with democrats inability to market ideas that would make even a popular idea unappealing. Whereas gop are experts at marketing unpopular ideas. The reality is universal care such as medicare for all is the ONLY sustainable system long term, there are no alternatives to that. We need to learn from Canada and improve upon it to ensure no change in waiting times. Being a big country is a POSITIVE for insurance not negative - we can have one of the largest insurance pools in the world and with largest purchasing power in the world we can negotiate absolute best deals on drugs, medical equipment, test, service, etc.

Medicare as is right now is the worst possible pool - old folks over 60. No insurance company would ever wish for that pool. You must always make sure, the majority are younger and healthier people so the only way to do that is to mandate Medical for All. We can’t have healthcare based on income type of economy. It’s not competitive and demoralizing. The thing is I really think Obama belives in this too but he couldn't pass a public option and thus views this issue as politically impossible. Warren is willing to fight for it cause it is possible with senate majority and we now have nuclear option to do whatever we want with simple majority. Going against public option didn't quite work well for lieberman and would be suicidal in social media age.

[JudyM]

14. So true about the marketing. It is our huge Achilles heel, when will we improve?

[pangaia]

32. "democrats inability to market ideas "

democrats inability to market ideas
democrats inability to market ideas democrats inability to market ideas
democrats inability to market ideas
democrats inability to market ideas democrats inability to market ideas
democrats inability to market ideas
democrats inability to market ideas


rinse and repeat...

[ehrnst]

50. What poll are you quoting when you say

"When they learn that no change in doctors and hospitals- majority supports"

The reality is universal care such as medicare for all is the ONLY sustainable system long term, there are no alternatives to that.

Actually, no, there are alternatives to single payer for universal health care all over the industrialized world - in fact most countries are multi-payer, and some sort of hybrid.

It's very hard when one gets behind a slogan, and really wants to believe it's that simple, but politicians seeking higher office are not the most reliable sources of health policy data.

No one wants to hear that it's complicated, so politicians say that it's simple.

Medicare as is right now is the worst possible pool - old folks over 60. You must always make sure, the majority are younger and healthier people so the only way to do that is to mandate Medical for All.

Actually, that's the current situation: the vast majority paying into Medicare are not in the pool...they are far younger and healthier than those in the pool... that's how it's been funded from day one.... to put everyone in the pool at once would put a much larger strain on the system.

You don't seem to understand the workings of health care coverage - maybe you thought that up yourself?

[Voltaire2]

70. exactly.

The deliberate confusion here is that getting rid of your private insurance means you can't see your doctors anymore. The Health Industrial Complex has done its best to mislead people and spread the FUD.

[Recursion]

96. But some people absolutely will lose their doctors

We really need to stop lying about this. If we go to a universal Medicare system, lots of people won't be able to keep seeing their current doctor.

[thesquanderer]

102. re: "lots of people won't be able to keep seeing their current doctor"

Why?

This is, in fact, one reason advocates say that MFA must include abolishing private insurance that offers the same services. If there are multiple sources for the same coverage, some doctors may decline to take MFA patients (just as doctors can decline certain insurance plans today). But if the ONLY source of coverage for something is MFA, there is no way a doctor can turn it down, unless s/he restricts the practice to only those patients who are well off enough to pay all their bills without using any insurance. Not too many practices would be able to survive that way, the economics don't support essentially turning so many doctors into concierge doctors. Most people's current doctors will accept MFA precisely because there's nothing else, and there's no reason that "lots of people won't be able to keep seeing their current doctor."

[Recursion]

106. Because when you change how doctors get paid they change their patient loads

For one thing, Medicaid clinics will stop existing if everybody is on a single payer system, and everybody on Medicaid now floods the general physician market. The whole point is that people with private insurance have had better access to doctors than people without insurance or on Medicaid; they are absolutely going to lose that exclusivity and they know it.

That's why the GOP attack ad against Medicare For All practically writes itself: a white factory worker comes home and sees his young daughter is sick. He rushes her to the doctor's office in his F150. As he carries her towards the front door a luxury car parks in the disabled spot and a woman of color gets out and goes into the office in front of him. We lose 48 states in a General election from that.

[thesquanderer]

112. That's an interesting point.

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

A possible fix for that problem is something I don't think anyone is talking about... maintaining medicaid as separate from the public/medicare system for everyone else. While no one may be advocating for that, I could see that as a possibly necessary compromise in any final "single payer" bill, essentially creating a "two tier" public healthcare system, of those who can afford to pay at least some premium/tax and those who cannot afford to pay any. And providers might have to be obligated to accept a certain number of medicaid patients.

[oasis]

8. If Democrats swing and miss with MFA, we're out, Trump's in. nt

[Gothmog]

9. I agree that this would help re-elect trump and may cost Dems control of the House

[MineralMan]

10. There's one major primary candidate who is not pushing MFA.

Joe Biden. He's advocating for fixing the ACA, undoing what Trump did to it, and improving it to make healthcare more affordable for more people. The ACA has become popular, under that name, and with the addition of a public option, it has the potential to morph into Universal Healthcare over time.

Many voters are fearful of a huge change in healthcare coverage that threatens what they currently have. While that isn't an accurate assessment of MFA, the unknown quantities surrounding the MFA proposals are keeping it from being accepted by a lot of voters.

Biden is carefully avoiding the advocation of major changes that inspire fear. It's a campaign strategy, and is designed to calm those fears and help people decide to vote for a Democrat instead of voting again for Trump or not voting at all.

That's one of the reasons I support Biden at this time. We must win. Losing is not an option, but not everyone actually understands that. I will take a full four-year term just to fix what Trump has broken in just over two years. If we fail to recognize that, we could lose in 2020, and not just the White House.

[peggysue2]

24. x1000

If we fail to recognize that, we could lose in 2020, and not just the White House.

This, exactly. We're staring into the abyss whether we want to admit it or not. Which is why:

WINNING IS EVERYTHING.

[MineralMan]

25. Exactly. We get a chance in 2020.

It's far from being a sure thing, though.

[calguy]

27. This is why I suport Biden

[MineralMan]

29. I support Biden, in part because I think he has the best chance

to defeat Trump, but also because he has the political clout needed to build a coalition that will reverse everything Trump has done. And that's going to be the most important job for our next Democratic President.

It will take a full term just to return us to the state we were in in 2016. Some people don't think that's true, but it is.

Trump will have done enormous damage by Inauguration day in 2021. He's not finished yet.

It is going to take a huge effort to undo the harm Trump will have done by that time. Once that work is finished, we'll be able to begin new initiatives, but not until then.

Biden can handle the job. Nobody else has the experience, I believe.

[thesquanderer]

104. Also Buttigieg, if and when he crosses your "major candidate" threshold (n/t)

[NYMinute]

16. Yep ... MFA is political suicide indeed K&R nt

[onecaliberal]

17. Healthcare is a winner for democrats. This is a right wing talking point.

[Kahuna7]

23. There is nothing right wing about Eleanor Clift. She has a decades long

record of being a very astute political observer.

[onecaliberal]

26. Healthcare is a WINNER for dems. /end

[ehrnst]

52. Yep, preserving the ACA was what got us the Blue Wave in 2018.

[Cha]

90. That's exactly right, ehrnst! Nancy Pelosi

urged the candidates to run on Healthcare.. and it wasn't MFA.

[Voltaire2]

38. Clift is a thirdway relic from the 90s.

[ehrnst]

48. Wait... Didn't you call her the "health industrial complex?"

Which is it?

Whatever makes her sound worse, I guess.

[Demsrule86]

37. Healthcare but not MFA...Clift is correct.

[Cha]

89. No, Eleanor Cliff is Not RW as you assert.

[Skya Rhen]

18. I can't wait to see Kamala being pressed on her back and forth regarding private insurance, during

the next debate.

The CNN moderators are ready to pounce as she first began wavering at one of their townhalls and they have definitely taken note - they bring this up all the time...

[comradebillyboy]

46. I'd certainly like to see Harris back off her embrace of MFA.

It's foolish to think turning the entire health care industry on it's head won't be an extremely messy transition. Most European nations have a 20% value added tax on sales and much higher income taxes to support their welfare systems. That's going to be a pretty hard sale here in the US.

[ehrnst]

55. I'm thinking that Warren will do so as well. She's too smart an economist

to ignore what the non-partisan experts and numbers will tell her once she crunches them in an actual bill.

[comradebillyboy]

92. I'd like to see that as well. I'd certainly warm to her

if she did.

[ehrnst]

98. She could take the trajectory of Paul Wellstone

He was also an educator, and a lifelong learner.

Once he got in to office, he realized that some of the campaign promises that he had made were working against his ability to do the job.

He promised not to hire "beltway insiders" as staffers, until he realized that activists don't always do that job well, and he hired people who knew how things worked, and could get them done faster.

He also realized partway through his first term that he would be a much more effective Senator in a second term, so he broke a campaign promise to only run for one term.

He also ran on single payer health care. Then when he started talking to people who knew more about health policy than he did, he stopped supporting it, and looked at alternatives for universal health care.

He, like Warren, had the humilty and the good sense to say, "I need to change my way of thinking here, now that I have new data that shows what I had been thinking isn't the best way forward."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Mayor Pete had the best answer

I am in favor of Medicare for all who want it.

[ehrnst]

47. But that won't work, because then employers will drop any and all health benefits

because anyone can get on Medicare.

We need what HRC was planning - insure all of the youngest, and the oldest.

You allow people who are 55 to buy into Medicare at a higher rate than they would pay if they waited, but less than what they would pay on the individual market. You let the system absorb them, and tweak it for 10 years, then lower the age to 50..

You allow parents who don't have/ can't afford family coverage via an employer to get coverage for their under 18 kids via CHIP. You let the system absorb it and tweak it for 10 years then expand coverage to age 21.

[OKNancy]

21. Great idea in theory, but a disaster politically

It depends if Democrats want to win or lose. Making Medicare (or some improved plan) optional is a winner.

[ehrnst]

44. That's what the state exchanges and medicaid expansion were supposed to accomplish.

Medicare can't take a huge number of people into it all at once, and one would have to regulate who gets in, because employers would just drop their health insurance benefits altogether if anyone could sign up.

[Bradical79]

28. Got to go with my own interests here

I won't support any candidate in the primary that isn't for a Medicare for All like plan.

[Demsrule86]

40. I won't support any candidate in the primary who is for MFA...I want Trump gone.

[Celerity]

51. I agree, and even the public option that Biden, Buttigieg, Bullock and some others support

is going to be extremely hard to pass (for reasons I have laid out in the past).

If we run on abolishing private health insurance (even with a 5 to 10 year or so transition period) we are going to get roasted in the general.

[Demsrule86]

57. It would be hard but I think can be done in reconciliation...it would address the millions who have

been screwed out of the medicare expansion...but we have to win the Senate...and it is a tough hall I believe Biden has coattails and could help us out with the Senate. All these folks on this board who think this is our moment don't pay attention to the numbers....we will be damn lucky to win the presidency and winning the Senate is almost a miracle. But no matter what, we will be rid of Trump if we win the presidency regardless of the Senate.

[Celerity]

59. a fairly complete rundown of possible R to D Senate flips

It is 53-47 Rethug now

I will go ahead and posit that Paedo Moore may well win in the Rethug primaries, so I will give us a hold with Jones, especially if Biden has coattails and if he picks a VP like Abrams, who will energise th A-A voters in GA, AL (tough pull for POTUS but the Senate not so much if Moore is the opponent), NC, SC (tough pull), FL, TX (same dynamics as AL, probably a bridge too far, but Abrams might help in the Senate race, but less hopeful there) and VA (and obviously nationwide)

So we would then need to flip FOUR seats to take it cleanly back. There are 10 targets (Rethug held or open and were Rethug) Even if Paedo fails, and a 'normal' RWNJ Repuke beats Jones, we still just need to flip 5, and there are DEFFO 5 that are flippable, in fact I see 8 or 9.

We are not in any danger of losing any other seats (Jeanne Shaheen in NH would be the only one that isn't a pure lock, but she should coast to victory).

All the following are vulnerable Rethugs (10, unless you, like me, see little hope for TX)

MT Steve Daines (Bullock would beat him and he needs to give up on POTUS and get in the race for Senate) No Bullock makes it very hard unfortunately.

AZ Martha McSally Mark Kelly has a great shot at beating her

CO Cory Gardner, even if Hickenlooper refuses to run, we still have good candidates, Gardner should go down hard. This is the surest flip of all.

GA David Perdue (Stacey Abrams really should go for this seat (if she is not the VP for someone) she would be our strongest, but we have a couple others who could knock out Perdue, he is vulnerable.

IA Joni Ernst Cindy Axne was another big refusal, she would have probably beaten Ernst, who has shit approval ratings, but we have many other good candidates, although Tom Vilsack has also declined to run. Hopefully Axne or Vilsack changes their mind, or we find another great candidate, Ernst is really vulnerable, and Trump is becoming hated due to the trade war smashing the farmers.

KY Mitch McConnell His approval rating is for shit, hopefully we can find a person to give this fucker a real run, there are 3 or 4 good candidates, including Andy Beshear, Amy McGrath (the fighter pilot), and a true wildcard who may run, Ashley Judd. Judd could do it, I so hope she gets in, but the others have a shot too, as McConnell is going to be hated almost as much as Trump by November 2020.

ME Susan Collins Yet another BIG name refused to run against her (Susan Rice), but there are multiple other good candidates, especially the just-announced Sara Gideon, the current Maine Speaker of the House. Collins is finally dropping hard in the polls.

NC Thom Tillis this one we should win IF (and same old story, 2 big names refused to run already, Anthony Foxx (BHO's Sec of Trans and Josh Stein, NC AG) we get in a great candidate. Tillis's popularity is in the toilet, he is very vulnerable, and a weak campaigner. REALLY disappointed that Foxx turned it down. He is so popular (ex Charlotte mayor and Obama's Sec of Transportation)

TN Lamar Alexander (retiring) open seat, but still we will need a great candidate (and not some old conservadem like 2018, where Phil Bredesen was a really, really bad candidate, Marsha Blackburn was a RWNJ who ran a shit campaign, but Bredesen was even worse and got smashed, even though it was a Blue tide election). I so hope Tim McGraw (yes, the singer, lol) changes his mind and runs.

TX John Cornyn (the hardest of all, I do not think even Beto or Castro could beat him, as he is much more popular than Cruz, but still, maybe Beto jumps in, but I doubt it, as a big loss would end his career to a great extent) and we do have a great candidate in MJ Hegar. I unfortunately am not optimistic here, but who knows. Go MJ!



IF Paedo Moore wins the Rethug Alabama primary (and IF we get some of those big names to reconsider (or get great replacements)..... then there are easily 4 or 5 or 6 that can go our way, especially if Rump loses in a landslide.

[Demsrule86]

60. I don't see any sure bets...we haven't won Texas in decades, We lost a Sen. Seat in TN in 18,

North Carolina hasn't gone our way in the Senate in decades, Collins is above 50 % in the last poll,Mitch will win, I don't hold out much hope for Iowa either, we haven't won a seat in GA for decades, CO is a pick for us hopefully, I think McSally has a good chance as the gun issue will hurt our guy and I agree with you about Montana...please note we are playing on a red/ at best purple environment...because this is a center left country and the pukes have the Senate locked up and too many states too. Winning the Senate will be huge...and maybe with a Biden, we can do it...but still very very tough.

[Celerity]

63. 'North Carolina hasn't gone our way in the Senate in decades'

Kay Hagan (NC Senator 2009 to 2015) She lost to Tillis by only 1.5% in what was a horrid year for us overall (plus 9 vote Senate swing for the Rethugs). Foxx or Stein would have a great shot (hopefully one changes his mind). Tillis, in eary polls, loses to a Democratic opponent. Loses to Cal Cunnigham by 1, and Erica Smith by 7. Foxx or Stein would smash him (Trump is also way underwater in NC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gXP0nzIrhwWNkMn5tHByU5vuB2BcROI/view



http://emersonpolling.com/2019/06/04/north-carolina-2020-biden-with-early-lead-on-trump-and-democratic-primary-field/





I absolutely agree on Texas probably being a lost cause and probably McTurtle (although his approval numbers are horrific). Collins, however is sliding a lot in the newest poll, and I think Gideon will possibly take her out.

Paedo Moore winning the Rethug primary is a big key, if he loses that, Jones is toast. Bullock running in MT is also a key (and unfortunately, I do not see him doing it at, hopefully he changes his mind).

A lot will depend on the coattails our nominee has.

I remain positive.

[Freethinker65]

30. Offer a Medicare Buy In for those that want it instead of private for profit insurance

Problem solved.

[ehrnst]

42. A *gradual* expansion of Medicare was a proposal - allow those 55 and up buy into it for

more than if they waited, but less than an individual market plan. Then after a few years for the system to adjust and for tweaks, then it could be lowered to 50, etc.

In any case, there would need to be restrictions on who is eligible, because otherwise employers would simply stop offering insurance, and tell their employees to go get on that Medicare buy in. That would flood the system, and remove the current funding mechanism - way more people paying into Medicare than are on it.

So, no, not an easy solution.

[Demsrule86]

58. Don't go after the already insured...we need to insure those who live in states where Medicare was

not expanded and where there are few options for coverage and it is very expensive...The idea is to insure as many as possible and that will lead to universal...but start with those who have noting.

[Gothmog]

34. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[Kahuna7]

41. Not to mention her proclamation of,

"I'm with Bernie!"

[emmaverybo]

64. MFA is only one major proposal Warren is running on. She supports several other big ticket policies

in addition. Any of them alone could consume her candidacy in defending against Republican attack, but all together, they spell disaster. And moderate Dems, centrist to center-left independents will balk too.

I don’t see how she would have the political capital, even the time to get all these policies off the ground and running if she did get support for them. The first term must be spent undoing, a huge job in itself.

I wish candidates offering several sweeping proposals would modify and focus them. For instance. not all, or even 95% of student debt, need be canceled to substantially lighten the burden. What is more do-able is to get the forgiveness program back working and possibly expand it, freeze interest during forbearance and hardship, bring down compounded interest rates a half to one percent, cap loans available for for-profit schools, allow them to be discharged through bankruptcy
etc.

By the same token, we don’t have to offer free college to all to make college more affordable. In my state, students who income qualify can get a “governor’s grant” to waive tuition for community college. We can subsidize all states to do this and to widen their offerings, resource more enrollment, offer more work study. Improve the community college system before anything else. Then provide tuition assistance to those students who need it. Only one third of eligible students attending my local CC apply for the waiver. In any case, why help wealthy parents? Why give 100 percent free tuition to all when some students actually can afford CC?

Many initiatives to socialize healthcare, education, human welfare might be more focused on people in need and also might wait until we get wider public consensus AND the presidency. Practically, they will all have to wait for a dem senate and even then are not a shoe-in.

This offering an extensive list of goodies, added to as candidates go, is guaranteed suicide. And I wonder if some aspirational give aways(which will mean take-away through taxation and from re-allocating dollars) don’t aspire to gain votes from particular demographic groups. A policy in every pot gets us back to being known as the tax and spend party, and the party that has become a nanny state, mandating your healthcare.

I wonder, if among some in our party, the will to reshape America as a social democracy is not an urgency that has precedence over the imperative of ousting Trump. We can go four more years without MFA, and we will in any case, but we can not risk another Trump term. He is a national security threat, a threat to democracy, and a moral stain we might never wash off.

[Kahuna7]

78. +1 nt

[oasis]

93. + 1. Excellent post.

[thesquanderer]

107. re: "why help wealthy parents? Why give 100 percent free tuition to all"

People often see free public college as regressive since it doesn't target those in need... but it's actually progressive.

Free public college will be paid for by taxes paid disproportionately by the wealthy (e.g. the oft mentioned stock transaction fee).

What many people seem to forget is that the wealthy don't typically send their kids to public colleges. These kids attend the private colleges.

So "free college" does not generally help wealthy parents, it costs them.

The same argument you make against even free public community college could be made against free K-12. Rich people have kids who go to K-12, too, so why are we helping those wealthy parents?

Of course, the wealthier people pay most of the taxes for that "free" K-12... and many don't get the direct benefit, i.e. if they have no kids or they send their kids to private school.

But as a society, we all benefit from having more education available to more people.

[emmaverybo]

111. The demographic of CC system enrollees is not uniform. Some wealthy parents do indeed foot the

bill for their children to attend CCs, which in some communities, are feeder schools to excellent universities. And some employed older students are well able to pay.
As I said, no reason tuition can not be waived for students in need, work study and other grant programs expanded, while the system itself is in need. Our governor’s waiver program here does not demand a strict poverty level eligibility

I intended only to suggest that many solutions exist to make college affordable to all without adopting a free to all policy for which “the wealthy will pay”—as is said about all the new policies—when, in fact, this never ends up to be true. They pay more, fine, but so does the working middle class, retired folks, everyone really. Such is the case in Europe. The Yellow Jacket protestors are not protesting against capitalism, but against taxation. Who do they blame? They blame the high cost of social benefits and of course, immigrants they don’t want to share them with. The backlash has come in the rising popularity of the far right.

But if free college for all is to be a priority, then that should be one of perhaps two or three programs our party candidates endorse. Otherwise, we will be hard-pressed to win an election when we also insist on running on numerous other initiatives, all of which add up to an enormous investment, additional political and fiscal capital, while existing social safety nets need substantial shoring up and expansion.

Get the presidency first. Build consensus. Start making changes, not a social revolution. Is proposing cancelling almost ALL student debt a more worthy goal than addressing all other types of debt?

[Voltaire2]

35. I see the health industrial complex is going

all out to kill reform.

[ehrnst]

45. So anyone who dissents from the dogma is from "the health industrial complex?"

Beats thinking critically, I guess.

[OKNancy]

66. No. I'm on Medicare and far from any complex

What I am is... realistic. You take away something that people like and you are a sure loser.
They don't care if they get their insurance from Blue Cross or though a government plan.

*FWIW I've never had employer provided insurance. I hate the insurance industry but I'm not stupid. I want to beat Trump.

[Voltaire2]

67. No what you are doing is repeating the HIC talking points.

You may not be doing it consciously, you may have internalized it, but that is what you are doing.

We were at a dinner the other night with friends and the same talking point popped out. I asked if the concern was about the insurance company, or that they would not be able to see their current doctors. It was the latter. Hardly anyone likes their insurance company. They like their doctors, and they are confused (deliberately manipulated to be confused) that they won't be able to go to their doctors if they don't have their crappy ass expensive horrible private insurance.

[saidsimplesimon]

53. Eleanor, sweetie,

and the author of this hit piece. Some of US, do not agree.

I am a pragmatic. First, we win elections, then we move our agenda.

[ehrnst]

56. However, what a politician promises is what helps them win elections. (nt)

[Gothmog]

62. Analysis How Trump wins in 2020: Americans see his opponent as a "socialist"

Link to tweet

But there is one matchup in which Trump actually leads: When voters have to choose between him and a candidate they believe is a “socialist,” Trump led 49 percent to 43 percent.

This is obviously a hypothetical exercise. The idea that the Democratic nominee will call themselves a socialist is far-fetched (even Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont prefers to be called a “democratic socialist&quot . And just because Trump argues that his opponent is a socialist doesn’t mean they will be viewed by everyone — or even most people — accordingly.

But the finding does hint at how central this question could be to Trump’s reelection hopes. Given Trump’s long-standing unpopularity, a big question has always been whether he will be able to take the eventual Democratic nominee and drag them down to his level. He showed he could do it in 2016 with Hillary Clinton, who ended the campaign as unpopular as Trump was, but it’s not clear whether he’ll be able to do it again.

Trump also has some material to work with. The Democratic candidates in the first debate two weeks ago went further to the left on issues such as health care and immigration than in any modern Democratic primary. Many of them embraced single-payer health care, and some even said they would eliminate private health insurance. Many said they would decriminalize crossing the border without documentation, making it a civil matter. And many said they would support health-care coverage for undocumented immigrants, which California only recently became the first state to experiment with.

[Voltaire2]

68. Well you know they are going to attack any candidate we put up as a socialist.

So I guess we best not run anyone. Unity Ticket! That way the mean republicans will finally like us.

[brooklynite]

71. Of course, it's a lot easier when the candidate agrees...

[Voltaire2]

72. In fact it will be easier.

Instead of having to run around squawking defensively "I'm Not A Socialist, really I'm not", the candidates not afraid of promoting democratic socialist reforms like MFA can just point out why everyone will benefit from their policy proposals.

But sadly, as a party, we are afraid in general to stand tall for what we believe in, and have been, for the last 40 years, trying desperately to appeal to their base rather than energizing our own.

[brooklynite]

73. Or (just spitalling here) you can talk about the policy benefits AND not call yourself Socialist

[Gothmog]

76. Nominating a candidate who has policies that fit the definition will only help trump

[Kahuna7]

74. Because in an economy that appears to be doing well, I don't see a socialist revolution

being a thing in 2020. Many voters will either vote for the 'devil they know' or stay home. That's how Nixon won reelection.

[Gothmog]

75. Most POTUS are re-elected for second term unless the economy is bad

trump has not yet succeeded in destroying the Obama recovery and so trump could be re-elected if we give trump an easy tool to use such as the socialism claim

[Kahuna7]

77. Yep. nt

[Cha]

91. They can thank President Obama for

that but they won't.

[emmaverybo]

94. Agree. So maybe the trick is to draw a real distinction between the candidate's values and character

and Trump, and a contrast between Trump’s vision for America and the America we can strive to be together—Trump’s vision is an America that abandons the constitution and American ideals, that though they have not served all equally can still be the basis for a more just snd equal America.

A candidate must call us, Americans, to some higher purpose than to vote in a political agenda, a series of corrective policies. The tone Trump has set which encourages and rewards hatred and division by religion, race, nation, class, privilege must be contrasted with our candidate’s tone, which should inspire us to lift each other up, to humane and inclusive solutions on every front.

I think we defeat Trump on message, vision, hope. The big picture. I’m not hearing much of that
from candidates. I hear policies. I hear arguing policies.

The economy is good, but something’s rotten in the state. Our candidate has to tie Trump to the
moral decay that is consuming our ideals as we saw in Charlottesville. A healthcare plan alone can’t restore our commitment to our better angels.

What did those angels stand for? Where have we been headed since the civil rights and gay rights movement? How do we find our way back and then forward?

I want a candidate to give us hope that sick haters will crawl back under their rocks and not drive our
foreign or immigration or economic or educational or medical policies any more.

We would do well as a party to talk more about moral decency than fiscal policy.

[Kahuna7]

95. Comments attached to the HuffPo Article about Jill Biden v Harris

Already I'm seeing the comments saying they will vote for trump (the devil they know) even though they don't like him, if the Democratic nominee is other than Biden. Some of these comments are from indies who are looking for an alternative to trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jill-biden-kamala-harris-democratic-debates-045543076.html

[Bettie]

65. So, can we get a list of everything that will "destroy" the Democratic party?

Or maybe it would be easier to just adopt the entire RNC platform and then we'll surely win, right?

There is someone out there who will say this very thing about EVERYTHING any Democrat stands for.

[Voltaire2]

69. Unity Ticket!

We can just not run anyone. I think that is the safest course.

[shanny]

79. Codswollop. eom

[Autumn]

87. One word for Eleanor Clift: BULLSHIT

[Mach1miles]

88. I think the American people are ready for the term Single Payer...

...define it and use it. ‘Medicare for all’ freaks out the people on Medicare who don’t want ro be crowded.

[Recursion]

97. And yet it polls at 22%

When you tell people Medicare For All will replace private insurance, they really really hate the idea.

[Mach1miles]

101. I guess I don't understand your point.

I agreed that Medicare for all turns people off. That being said you can’t ignore the fact that insurance companies are eating the rest of us alive. It’s a case of the haves vs the have nots. Those with federal programs are good with it. The premiums for those people who do not have employer funded programs are out of sight. Small businesses and the self employed are going broke trying to feed the beast. This can’t continue.

[BeckyDem]

99. lol nope. Nice try though Eleanor.

The insulting part is where they call health care for all a catch phrase, when in FACT it is HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, period.

Warren 2020

[Progressive dog]

108. That is what the polls show, medicare for all is unpopular

Medicare for all is a harebrained idea. The sixty percent who get health insurance through employers as a costly benefit will lose it and have to help pay for others through taxes. That's one reason why labor unions are strongly opposed to the scheme.
Then there is the cost of providing health care. Medicare for all is supposed to defy all economic theory and history by miraculously being used less because it's free.

Social security did not eliminate all pensions and medicare did not force health care providers to participate. Medicare for all will be their only employer.

[thesquanderer]

109. Her article reaches too far, though.

This paragraph is more of a scare tactic than a truth:

The most contentious part of Medicare for All is that in its purest form it would end all private insurance. “Not ideal to run on in the suburbs,” says Blendon, where expensive supplemental insurance is part of the lifestyle, like Starbucks and Whole Foods. Seniors buy add-on plans to Medicare with dental care and fitness classes. “I don’t think most of the candidates thought this through, that they would be telling seniors who retired on Medicare that they would lose the plan they bought through Medicare,” says Blendon.

There is no MFA plan that will prevent someone from buying supplemental insurance for something not covered... but just as with Medicare today, the options for supplemental coverage will be based on what MFA does not already over. The more MFA covers, obviously, the less need for supplemental coverage. Seniors won't lose any coverage they have now, though some of what they now must get through supplemental programs they may be able to get without the supplemental programs in the future.

In short: As long as there are gaps to fill, there will be supplemental coverage to fill them. And if the gap is no longer there, you no longer need the supplemental coverage.

Okay, maybe fitness classes.

[shanny]

110. listening to the likes of Eleanor Clift would put the Democratic Party on Life Support. eom