(03-04-2020, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bloomberg is officially out.

(03-04-2020, 10:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bernie has always been hesitant to fully explain spending and exit polling last night showed that Biden actually won voters whose primary issue was health care.

(03-05-2020, 11:20 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The data would suggest that those people voted against their preferred choice for fear of electability of Sanders.

(03-05-2020, 09:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is he gonna try to make us sign a NDA to never talk about it?

(03-05-2020, 11:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not at all what that data suggests. That is an assumption that is based on several logically fallacious leaps. This one question pulled out cannot be used to make any sort of statement like that as it doesn't take into account any number of other variables dealing with priorities for voters, other policy views, etc., etc.

(03-05-2020, 11:53 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So 60+% of people say they support Medicare for all, but between 20 to 30% of them vote for Sanders, but this is not an indication that people favor Sanders, but didn't vote for him?

(03-05-2020, 11:53 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Maybe you could make that argument for the somewhats, but if you say you "strongly" support medicare for all, I'm not sure why you would vote for Biden over Sanders, unless you're worried about electability, as the word "strongly" would indicate that you actually care about that policy.

(03-05-2020, 11:53 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Maybe there are some people out there that say "I support medicare for all, but healthcare reform is not my primary issue. I care about...[1. something that Biden says he will do] more."

The literal only thing I can think of that fits into [1.] in that sentence is "beating Donald Trump" as that is Biden's only real platform.

(03-05-2020, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Correct.


Not even then. What other policy positions do they prefer "strongly?" You're trying to boil this decision down to one policy position when it is anything but.


This is a dismissive talking point from some progressives aimed at the moderates and, specifically, Biden. Look, i'm not a Biden fan (as a candidate at least) but this is an argument made in bad faith.

Quote:“We are in the battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said. “If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation — who we are. And I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”

(03-05-2020, 08:42 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, it's semantics where one has a clearly negative connotation ("Bernie wants to take something from you!") whereas the other is either a neutral or positive connotation ("Bernie wants to replace your price gouging private insurance with a more affordable, more expansive public insurance").

As far as the starting farther than what you actually expect to get...it's just a negotiation tool. It's like when you get newly hired from the job and they offer you $50,000. You counter with $60,000, not necessarily because you expect that they just say "okay" but more because you know that if you ask for $60k, they will counter at $55k, which is about what you wanted anyway.

If you start with a counteroffer of $55k, then they'll counter with $52.5k.

It's just a general principal that you should ALWAYS ask for more than you think you can get. It's a framing device. In politics, you can think of it similarly to how you think of the Overton window. 

Asking for more than you think you can get (or doing more than you think you can get away with) is, quite literally, how the Overton window shifts. Trump has been doing it for 3 years for social issues. Bernie has been doing it for 3 years with medical coverage. Without Bernie pushing for Universal Healthcare in 2016, we probably would not be talking about a comprehensive public option as a possibility in 2020.

There's no reason to stop pushing the window left now.

(03-05-2020, 11:20 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I was meaning to ask what your source for this was, but forgot. 

I was shown a source this morning that had exit polls for 4 Super Tuesday states (3 of which were won by Biden) showing majority support (either strong or somewhat supportive) of Medicare for all.

The question was framed with the word replace rather than remove, as we discussed above.

http://filesforprogress.org/memos/super_tuesday_m4a.pdf
Question: Would you support replacing private insurance with a single government plan for everyone, sometimes called a "Medicare for all" plan?

It's odd that over 50% of respondents were in favor of Medicare for all, yet it seems they mostly voted for Biden.

The data would suggest that those people voted against their preferred choice for fear of electability of Sanders.

(03-05-2020, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand the negotiation tactic, but what I said was that the other side knowing that you don't expect your first offer to be realistic means the first offer won't be treated as genuine. 

If I know that I could get $55k, then, yes, I should ask for $60k. I shouldn't tell everyone that I am going to ask for $90k when they're offering $50k and then expect them to meet me at $70k. 

(03-05-2020, 04:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: WaPo's exit polls

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/exit-polls-2020-super-tuesday-primary/

One thing I will say about the poll you posted is that asking a question like that for complicated policies misses the wide range of nuances and it makes you ask what "somewhat support" truly means. If I agree with allowing everyone to have the option for Medicare but not the requirement, I may say I "somewhat support" it. 

(03-05-2020, 05:24 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, it all depends on what number value you give each position in this theoretical comparison. If Medicare for all = 90k counter offer to Republicans, I could argue that Medicare for all who want it is the equivalent of an 85k counter offer.

They're not going to give you that either.

So what is the real world equivalent of 60k and what is the real world equivalent of 55k?

If you're asking me to honestly assess what I think negotiating with Republicans is actually like, it'd be more like:

R: We'll offer you $50k (real world equivalent of our current system).
D: I'll accept $60k (real world equivalent of...let's say passing a law for negotiating prices with drug companies)
R: We'll offer you $50k. If you don't take it, then we'll reduce our offer to $40k (real world equivalent of removing whatever remaining regulations exist, making it even worse).

So maybe our starting point doesn't even really matter as long as Mitch leads the Senate.\

Trying to appease the unreasonable is basically how Democrats have been managing the Republicans for the last...several decades. And I'm just kind of sick of it haha.

Look no further than Merrick Garland.

He was the 55k counter offer. The "offer that you can't refuse."

And Mitch still ignored it.

We're not dealing with rational human beings right now, so why cater to them?


That's a fair distinction in regards to "somewhat support."


Healthcare is such a complicated issue it's impossible to reduce it down to a single question.  I'm just disappointed in the showing on Tuesday and am venting a little bit :).

(03-05-2020, 07:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think completely removing the private insurance industry amounts to more than $5k in our analogy, but numbers aside my point is that stating from the start that your initial proposal isn't genuine means it will never be treated as such.

We both agree that this is almost meaningless since Mitch McConnell is irrational and incapable of making a good deal for the US. I would hope that other Bernie supporters understand that before trashing anyone who doesn't want to implement Bernie's full agenda. 

new Quinnipiac national poll on prospective Trump vs Biden matchup:

white men
Trump 58%, Biden 34%

everyone else
Biden 60%, Trump 32%

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) March 9, 2020

(03-10-2020, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote:

new Quinnipiac national poll on prospective Trump vs Biden matchup:

white men
Trump 58%, Biden 34%

everyone else
Biden 60%, Trump 32%

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) March 9, 2020

 

(03-10-2020, 11:54 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Did they have an overall?

Because white men are a pretty big portion of the country. That 58% could potentially pull Trump above 50% nationwide.

(03-10-2020, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 52-41 in favor of Biden. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3657

(03-10-2020, 12:40 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nice.
That's a comfortable lead.

(03-10-2020, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's decent, but we're still a ways off. Also, they used registered voters which isn't as good of a metric as likely voters. But still, it is some good stuff.

(03-10-2020, 01:20 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, things could obviously change. I have basically no faith in Biden actually performing well in debates against Trump, so that could make people vote for Trump (or just not vote at all) if he does not present well in those contests.

But I've seen polls in the past where upwards of 40% of people have said they would never vote for Trump under any circumstance. So any democratic candidate out there basically has a head start of at least some significant portion of voters, likely or registered.

I'm inclined to believe polling. I know people give polling a lot of shit based on the 2016 results, but the polls, from about October through November, were showing an average of about 2 to 3% advantage for Hillary and that's what she ended up getting. It just wasn't spread out in a way to win the election.

The only polling that has proven, generally, false to this point that I can recall was the 2020 Super Tuesday polling (as Biden won like 3 or 4 states that the polls indicated he would not. Texas, Maine, Massachusetts and maybe Minnesota), but the majority of that polling was done before Pete and Amy dropped out, so that made the polling pretty much obsolete.

Overall, a good sign for Biden and his 'electability.'

When we say it's time to provide health care to all our people, we're told we can't afford it.

But if the stock market is in trouble, no problem! The government can just hand out $1.5 trillion to calm bankers on Wall Street. https://t.co/szXeqQmalq

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 12, 2020