Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[skinsmarydu]

Imagine filling out ZERO forms. Your SS card is all you need to walk in an office & be seen for whatever. The gubmint already knows who you are (that's another topic).

That alone is worth it. 

 

[Renegade7]

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

An excellent reason to try to reduce the deficit. Not a good argument to increase it. 

Now, since this thread is becoming one to discuss general policies,  not just the election, I'll say:

I'd have no problem with a candidate announcing that if elected, I intend to try to reduce the deficit. BUT, I'm not going to start off trading things. My position will be that:

1)  This deficit was intentionally exploded by the Republican Party. 
2)  My deficit reduction plan will BEGIN with the complete repeal of the two bills which doubled the deficit in the first place. 
3)  THEN, maybe, I'll consider bipartisan deals to work on it further. 

No, we will not play the "when the Rs are in power, they will explode the deficit, and then when they're not, they will give up some of it, if I give them something more." game. 

 

I agree, any conversation with deficit control should start with repealing the Bush and Trump tax cuts.

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

It's one of the standard talking points. 

Start by assuming that, if MFA passes, millions of people who are the private insurance bureaucracy will be out of a job. 

Assume that the government will not need those people to do exactly the same job. 

(This is based on the government's legendary ability to function completely without bureaucracy. Private corporations need bureaucrats, but government doesn't.)  

(Also ignore the fact that, if this miracle actually happens, we will have reduced health care costs by billions.)

Use this "reasoning" to try to push the notion that we cannot migrate to a better health care system, because keeping millions of bureaucrats employed to sit between patients and health care is needed, to support the bureaucrats. "Won't somebody just think of the paper pushers!?!?"

 

Ya, both Bill's are doing what they can to compensate for the transition and not abandon them like many are suggesting, not that there wont be a transition.  HHS might explode in size, I've never seen any numbers on this, but I'm not going to assume there are none (not saying you are)

 

 

@Larry on second thought, we probably should keep this thread to the campaigns and use other threads for deeper conversation.  MFA alone can take over this thread and I already got blasted for that once

[PeterMP]

45 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This is starting to remind me of the climate change debate.  When the Koch Brothers say this will cost less then current system...

 

Did you read the actual study?

Or if that's too much for you maybe just try the factcheck.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

@Larry on second thought, we probably should keep this thread to the campaigns and use other threads for deeper conversation.  MFA alone can take over this thread and I already got blasted for that once

 

Well, there's an Obamacare thread to discuss health care proposals. 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Did you read the actual study?

Or if that's too much for you maybe just try the factcheck.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-all/

 

If you want to say I'm wrong that's one thing, but you and I have been fact checking each other for years now, chill.

 

From your own link:

 

Quote

Miller-Lewis referred to figures not highlighted in the report that show that between 2022 and 2031, the currently projected cost of health care expenditures in the U.S. of $59.4 trillion would dip to $57.6 trillion under the “Medicare-for-all” plan. That’s how Sanders arrives at his claim that the study “shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10 year period.” (See Table 2.)

 

I'll refrain from saying the Koch Brothers said it, because they didnt, they distanced themselves from a study done by a department theyve had large influence on that lead to that conclusion that can be co-opeberated with other sources based on estimates that favor a bumper sticker point.  

 

I'll add this study was done on the Bernie plan, so when it goes into how many hospitals will be in the negative on Medicare rates, my reaction is the House bill compensated for that by saying they would use money from the overall bucket fund to help keep those hospital open, as long as they could prove that's what the money would be used for and not somebody's yacht.

 

This really should be in the the Obamacare thread.  If we are going to have this discussion, I'd like to see more effort into to keeping up with the progressives trying to gove answers to these direct challenges in the latest Bill's and proposals.  Do details matter, yes, but they are being negotiated. Why I'm not against the emphasis on the big picture that this will be worth it in the long run and the current system isnt working or substainable.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If you want to say I'm wrong that's one thing, but you and I have been fact checking each other for years now, chill.

 

From your own link:

 

 

And if you keep reading:

 

"In an email to FactCheck.org, Blahous said he didn’t highlight that figure because he doesn’t think it’s realistic.

 

As Blahous wrote in the fourth sentence of his abstract, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”"

 

You are highlighting an unrealistic number by focusing on that number.  It assumes that you can reimburse providers at 40% lower than they current are by private insurers and not have a corresponding decline in providers.

[Larry]

Quick, Robin!  To the Obamacare thread!

 

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And if you keep reading:

 

"In an email to FactCheck.org, Blahous said he didn’t highlight that figure because he doesn’t think it’s realistic.

 

As Blahous wrote in the fourth sentence of his abstract, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”"

 

You are highlighting an unrealistic number by focusing on that number.  It assumes that you can reimburse providers at 40% lower than they current are by private insurers and not have a corresponding decline in providers.

 

No, you are, because this is more directly addressed in the house bill then the bernie bill this study was done on.  Is this even the latest version of his bill? He put out a new one after the house bill.

 

I read that and tried to be fair, this is a moving target, this discussion wont work if people keep shooting at where the duck was yesterday.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, you are, because this is more directly addressed in the house bill then the bernie bill this study was done on.  Is this even the latest version of his bill? He put out a new one after the house bill.

 

I read that and tried to be fair, this is a moving target, this discussion wont work if people keep shooting at where the duck was yesterday.

You're the one that started talking about this study in the first place.  My point is that you (and Bernie and AOC) are misrepresenting the study you posted.

 

If you don't like that study because it isn't relevant to the most recent bill, then don't post things about it.

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You're the one that started talking about this study in the first place.  My point is that you (and Bernie and AOC) are misrepresenting the study you posted.

 

If you don't like that study because it isn't relevant to the most recent bill, then don't post things about it.

I already admitted I was wrong, when will you?

[nonniey]

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I already admitted I was wrong, when will you?

You can count on one hand (half a hand?) those in this forum that would ever admit they were wrong. And none that will always admit they were wrong when proven to be so.

[PeterMP]

49 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I already admitted I was wrong, when will you?

 

I'll admit I'm wrong when I am wrong.

 

**EDIT** based on post in other thread.

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You didn't admit you were wrong, and I'll admit I'm wrong when I am wrong.

I expanded on it in the health care thread and tagged you to get you to come over there instead.  

 

EDIT:  I saw your edit jus now, it's all good

[88Comrade2000]

Today is 11/3/19, one year away from Election Day on 11/3/20.

One year from now, the majority of nation will be voting. Though with early voting, maybe 1/3 will have voted before election day.

It's around 1 am as I write this. One year from now, those small towns in Hew Hampshire will have voted.  Who will win Dixville Notch?

 

If the election were held today, would Trump lose?  Polls say he would.   I sincerely hope I am dead wrong but nothing has changed my

mind;  that Trump wins the electoral college and the Democratic nominee wins the popular vote by at least 5 million votes on 11/3/20.

 

I think the nominee will be either Lizzie, Bernie or Joe.  Pete will have a strong showing early on but he won't go anywhere.  I see the actual

primary race being a 4 person race at least early on.

 

Warren vs Trump:  

Pro:  Elizabeth will  excite the base and the youth.  She could get records amount of folks to come out, who believe in progressive agenda.  Even if she doesn't win, she could bring out the voters that will keep the House in Dems hands and flip the Senate.  

Con:  The Trump/GOP machine is going to pound on that progressive agenda.  Look at all that spending they will say.  Looks at the higher taxes.  The government will control everything.  Socialist, Communist, Etc..     I'll take MFA. The average voter in the key states aren't going pay attention to the benefits of a MFA or that overall costs will go down. They will just hear "higher taxes, government insurance only, etc.. all the negative aspects.  She is going to lose a chunk of those voters.  Doesn't mean they will vote for Trump but they won't be voting for her.    The voters that will make the difference in the electoral college are basically stupid.  They will believe every negative attack.  Bush Jr and TRump got elected that way.

 

58.1%  of eligible voters voted in 2016.  So, that leaves 41.9%.  To win and overcome defections; she will not only need historic turnout among the base and youth; she will need to get some of those non-voters to come out and vote for her.   I know you say the middle/working class will welcome her plans and vote for her; I think a chunk of them will be scared away.

 

Sanders vs Trump:

Pro:  Same as Elizabeth he excites the base and the youth.  Plus, he's like Trump in that he has a solid base that will be with him no matter what. 

Con:  Same as Elizabeth in that his progressive agenda will scare away some voters.  Also, he's an actual Socialist-  he hasn't seen what the Trump/GOP machine will do with that.  Bernie has the possibility of giving Trump a comfortable 350+ EV win.

 

For Bernie to win, he's really going to need that revolution he keeps talking about.  That 41.9%  that didn't vote; he needs to get a huge chunk of that to come out in 2020 and vote for him.

 

Biden vs. Trump:  

Pro:  He's from PA, so he can relate to those rust belt voters.  He seems like one of them.  For older black americans, he was Obama's Veep.  

Con:  Those corruption allegations are hurting him.  He's out of step with the younger Dems.  Those younger Dems won't be that enthused to come out for him.  The base won't be that enthused either.  He's also in mental decline.  You going to replace one person in mental decline with another?   He really can't respond to the Trump attack machine well.

 

Joe keeps the race closer but in the end, I don't see him beating Trump.  I think the only way he has a shot, is if Warren is his veep.

 

Trump:

Impeachment will not really be much of factor come election time, at least in the presidential race.  I know many say, that he will not have the same support in 20.  It's landslide for the Dems baby.  I think when push comes to shove, especially after the Trump/GOP attack machine has their way; those same voters will vote for Trump again.

To beat Trump; you are going to have to outdraw in the key states and I'm sure that happens. Despite the closeness of key states.  The economy remains relatively stable, that helps him.  There's a hidden base that will never admit to the pollsters they are for Trump; how much remains to be seen.  In 2016, it gave him the win.  Also, October 2020 is going to be nasty. I expect several October surprises.  I could see us in conflicts in Iran, Venezuela and maybe even Korea.    I can see electronic voting machines hacked.  Russia, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, North Korea will all be interfering  in our elections.  Trump if reelected, will be impeached again for everything he does in 2020 to get reelected.  I could see violence against Democratic voters.  Whatever they can do to ensure reelection, they will do it.

 

I am sorry but I don't see any of the likely nominees overcoming their weaknesses to beat Trump.  I hope I am dead wrong.  I don't have the faith in American people to do it.  

 

 

[hail2skins]

4 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I am sorry but I don't see any of the likely nominees overcoming their weaknesses to beat Trump.  I hope I am dead wrong.  I don't have the faith in American people to do it.  

To me its more a case of, when an incumbent president is running, the public at large tending to go status quo, absent a major economic downturn (which could still happen) or a politician-of-a-lifetime (Bill Clinton) is running for the opposition (and that is NOT happening in 2020).

 

I agree that Trump wins re-election (likely losing the popular vote like you said), but it'll be interesting to see if he sticks around for the entirety of a second term. Yes, there is chatter that he will be charged with stuff after leaving office, but I really can see him bailing.  All he cares about is winning the electoral college in a year......nothing really beyond that, and leaving Pence with having to deal with the next recession. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

4 hours ago, hail2skins said:

To me its more a case of, when an incumbent president is running, the public at large tending to go status quo, absent a major economic downturn (which could still happen) or a politician-of-a-lifetime (Bill Clinton) is running for the opposition (and that is NOT happening in 2020).

 

I agree that Trump wins re-election (likely losing the popular vote like you said), but it'll be interesting to see if he sticks around for the entirety of a second term. Yes, there is chatter that he will be charged with stuff after leaving office, but I really can see him bailing.  All he cares about is winning the electoral college in a year......nothing really beyond that, and leaving Pence with having to deal with the next recession. 

The only way he's leaving early in a second term is if he dies or the inevitable second impeachment is successful and removes him from office.

 

For some of his crimes, Trump is going to try to outlast the statue of limitations dates.  Many of his crimes, he can't be charged because it will be past the statue of limitations date on 1/20/25.  So, he will try to stay in office that long.  Also, for the crimes with no statue of limitations; he knows that's waiting for him.  So, he will delay that for as long as possible.  

 

I could see Trump pardoning himself on his way out or resign before leaving office and making sure Pence pardons him.

 

 

One thing that will help Trump, there really are a lot of stupid people in the country.  Look how easily, his followers are brainwashed.  Corruption is staring them in plain view but they ignore it.  If a Democratic, especially Hillary or Obama, did what Trump did; they would've been impeached and hung for treason.

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

If the election were held today, would Trump lose?  Polls say he would.   I sincerely hope I am dead wrong but nothing has changed my

mind;  that Trump wins the electoral college and the Democratic nominee wins the popular vote by at least 5 million votes on 11/3/20.

what makes you think this? That would imply Dems increased turnout massively but only in states like CA and NY that are Dem strongholds. None of that increase would be in a few Midwest states that went to trump by a small number? 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

5 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

what makes you think this? That would imply Dems increased turnout massively but only in states like CA and NY that are Dem strongholds. None of that increase would be in a few Midwest states that went to trump by a small number? 

For Warren and Sanders, I think their positions will turn off some voters especially in those key rust belt states.  I don't see the voters that do support their positions; voting in enough numbers to overcome the numbers they will lose from those that don't.

 

For Biden, I don't think the younger people will come out and vote for him, not in numbers to make a difference.

 

AS for turnout,  Hillary won by 3 million voters. Alot of her margin was blue states.  I expect blue state voting to swell for the Dem candidate.  In swing states, I'm not sure so the Dems will be able to do that.

 

Warren/Sanders is going to turn off alot of people and that could negate the people that they turn on.    Don't underestimate the GOP/Trump attack machine.

 

 

 

[Larry]

28 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

AS for turnout,  Hillary won by 3 million voters. Alot of her margin was blue states.

 

Just pointing out, all of her vote margin was in states that she won.  (If she had a positive vote margin in any other state, she would have won that state, too.)  

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

what makes you think this? That would imply Dems increased turnout massively but only in states like CA and NY that are Dem strongholds. None of that increase would be in a few Midwest states that went to trump by a small number? 

Moe, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. His opinions only follow the opinion polls. He changed his declarations a few times in this thread based on new polling metrics. Nothing he says is fixed it should be taken serious.

[NoCalMike]

I am not enthused about a Biden Presidency being a possibility, except that it means Trump would be gone.  For that matter alone I am suddenly super enthused.  I hope if he ends up the nominee people just accept it and do their best to get Trump out.

[Larry]

Is the dislike of Biden his age?  

 

His moderation?  

 

Could the right Veep change your opinion of Biden?  If so, who's the right Veep for Biden?  

 

Part of me thinks Mayor Pete is certainly younger and more modern than Biden.  But does his youth actually help Biden with any groups that he's weak on?  Can he actually deliver any such groups?