Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 249: Phase 1 of a scheduled topic series

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-YuSdqCKM0

Mayor Pete is going to have issues soon enough.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-YuSdqCKM0

Mayor Pete is going to have issues soon enough.

I agree completely with what she is saying in the video, but I don't understand why you think Pete is going to have any issues because of it. Like the video shows, the mainstream media is NOT going to go after Pete on this, and I don't think any of the other candidates are going to, either.

If Bernie did that, though, you would literally never hear the end of it. Definitely.

Because you can only hide these issues for so long. MSM isn't as powerful as they once were. Bernie has already hit 8 million calls made on his behalf.

I think Bernie's ground game is going to make a big difference in the next three months.

Also Krystal Ball is like my favorite person these days, she is always nailing it.

---

I agree that the ground game is going to pay off, especially since he has the most cash to burn too. But the MSM is still the only way older voters get their news, and that's who we are having trouble reaching right now.

This article about Bidens stuttering (and stuttering in general) is really worth reading:

https://twitter.com/peteratlantic/status/1197561398341066752?s=21

---

I can sympathize, and I even know someone who works for the National Stuttering Association.

But in the end its really just a fluff piece, and Bidens stuttering has zero affect on how I feel about him.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5avtfMXeh40

Bernie is hilarious.

---

I am loving this new trend of comedy bernie. He even had some great jokes in the debate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents?amp

It has begun. President Trump is getting a second term.

@red_sox_777
---

I mean, you're citing a poll that a) doesn't include three days of testimony and b) is literally a poll that also shows Trump with a net favorability that literally no one else other than shitty-ass Rasmussen has done.

Something tells me they, intentionally or not, got an over sampling of conservative voters.
---

It shows him leading among independents, so it isnt that conservatives were oversampled.

A couple of other things though:
1) The first poll the article references is approval of impeach and remove which is a different thing and always polls much lower.
2) the Emerson poll shows some other weird outliers, including the fact that Bernie is tied nationally with Biden at 27% when every other poll shows it quite different.

It absolutely could be the start of a trend but Id need to see more polls (for both things) before I was confident either way.
---

Also if you go into the data from the Emerson poll, you find a couple of interesting things:

1) This is the highest support for impeachment amongst republicans in ever I think: 22 yes 71 no

2) This is the lowest support amongst democrats also in forever: 69 yes 19 no

Majority of polls have them hovering at 10% r and 80% dem. So republicans definitely arent the problem in this poll!
---

https://twitter.com/w7voa/status/1197865102495621123?s=21

The President is insane
---

https://twitter.com/saetarubia33/status/1197904116946800640?s=21

I love their careful pushback

...are you SURE thats what happened?
---

I love how defeated Kilmeade looks like 30 seconds in, and then he desperately tries to think of a way to get things back on track and tries to for the rest of the clip but just can't.
---

BTW this was, in total, a 53 minute call
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1197885970701594624?s=21

The levels of his ignorance are astonishing
---

"I definitely want the thing that literally has to happen and is completely out of my power to stop if the thing I've been constantly complaining about doesn't go my way!"
---

https://apple.news/AbiWooVJeRPKue3ISlkRXvA

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://apple.news/AbiWooVJeRPKue3ISlkRXvA

That would be a veto that gets overturned, I would hope
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

That would be a veto that gets overturned, I would hope

It was passed almost unanimously, but given that most of the Republicans are cowards Im not confident that theyll all stick to their original votes and override.

---

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1197878059938013184?s=21

Were gonna whine so much that youll be sick and tired of whining!

---

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1197937789192376320

---

https://news.yahoo.com/buttigieg-claims-warren-sanders-medicare-163923300.html

Buttigieg Claims Warren and Sanderss Medicare for All Is Infringing on Freedom in New Ad

Fuck you Mayor Pete.

---

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/965396700511825920



Someone check those potholes for Petes body Im afraid a shape shifter nabbed him.
---

The bad news is tripping all over himself to get back to the middle has coincided with an undeniable boost in the polls for him so were going to see/hear more of this.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/965396700511825920



Someone check those potholes for Petes body Im afraid a shape shifter nabbed him.

dammit

suprak weren't you disputing me a few weeks back when i said buttigieg had changed his positions from the start of his campaign to more recent weeks and i referenced this tweet (though i was too lazy to link it directly) as an example when i was getting pushback to that idea

...if it wasn't you but someone else i apologize
---

Is Pete the only candidate that has put out attack ads so far?

I wonder if it's not just his move to the middle, but also he's getting more recognition due to his ads.


---

Yesterday Lindsey Graham started an investigation into the Bidens and Ukraine. This is what he had to say about Biden a few years ago before he sold his soul to Donald Trump:

https://twitter.com/johnjcook/status/1197871729068138497?s=21

---

holy shit what a spectacular waste of money

https://twitter.com/Ad_Analytics/status/1197986788796780544?s=19

---

Speaking of Biden (not a reaction to the above, I was about to post this; timing was a coincidence)

https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1197686251819810816

yikes

Biden's "You should vote for Trump" is really awful here. At best it's just atrociously tone deaf. At worst, and I really do believe this is closer to what was going on here, he's just brazenly dismissing the concerns of disadvantaged people and taking them for granted because the Republicans are worse.

That's putting aside the actual issue being discussed. I don't think the position I believe Biden is representing as the video goes on - that pledging to end all deportations is bad policy if you're being absolute about it and not allowing for cases of serious felony offenders - is out of bounds but god that initial brush off is so terrible. I also don't know that he makes the point on the substance too well either, maybe it's the volume of the clip, but I've seen some people take it as Biden calling illegal entry a felony which I don't believe he was doing there but he didn't phrase it in the most clear way so I can understand why a snap reaction might take it that way.
---

xp1337 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/965396700511825920



Someone check those potholes for Petes body Im afraid a shape shifter nabbed him.

dammit

suprak weren't you disputing me a few weeks back when i said buttigieg had changed his positions from the start of his campaign to more recent weeks and i referenced this tweet (though i was too lazy to link it directly) as an example when i was getting pushback to that idea

...if it wasn't you but someone else i apologize

The dispute was Pete has been bought by the pharma companies which I disagreed with because my belief was Pete is an opportunist that sees an opening in the middle and doesnt have integrity of ideas.

I didnt disagree that he changed positions, just the reason for doing so was less conspiratorial and more opportunist. I dunno if that was with you or not but I was definitely debating that with someone!
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

holy shit what a spectacular waste of money

https://twitter.com/Ad_Analytics/status/1197986788796780544?s=19

How fucking out of touch can this man be that he thinks he can buy his way into the primary at this point?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

The dispute was Pete has been bought by the pharma companies which I disagreed with because my belief was Pete is an opportunist that sees an opening in the middle and doesnt have integrity of ideas.

I didnt disagree that he changed positions, just the reason for doing so was less conspiratorial and more opportunist. I dunno if that was with you or not but I was definitely debating that with someone!

My position in that was more, "Hate to sound conspiratorial but it's shady af that this shift more or less coincided with him getting a ton of money coming in."

I wasn't definitely claiming he had been bought nor did I tie it to a particular interest group!
---

Hey, Steyer bought his way onto debate stages so it's not like there's no basis to this!
---

Yeah sorry I was oversimplifying.

Not that it makes it any better, but I think typical desperation and lack of core conviction explains his sudden change rather than someone going hey look at that guy polling at 4% nationally lets buy him and hopefully he turns it around.

Were both in agreement his positions have changed and thats a bad thing!
---

"he's just an opportunist without any integrity" is such bad alternative that it's like what's even the point, it's not like flipflopping to the tune of donors is some outlandish fantasy

either case is shit it's not worth pinpointing which shit it is
---

If Pete had been polling well and THEN changed his positions Id be more inclined to believe your hypothesis.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

If Pete had been polling well and THEN changed his positions Id be more inclined to believe your hypothesis.

It could also be both! Like I said above, those ad buys are surely helping his numbers, potentially as much as or more than the flip-flopping.

---

Grimlyn posted...

"he's just an opportunist without any integrity" is such bad alternative that it's like what's even the point, it's not like flipflopping to the tune of donors is some outlandish fantasy

either case is shit it's not worth pinpointing which shit it is

I dont disagree that its better!

But yeah its probably not worth arguing about regardless since neither of us are defending his flip flop.
---

yeah I'm acknowledging you don't think it's a "better" alternative which is why my point is that's not really worth the pedantry!

like yeah maybe there's no smoking gun for cause-and-effect of Pete's flips, but people are well within reason to be skeptical of the top big donor candidate's aggressive turn to their interest
---

I don't think Pete has changed his positions as much as his rhetoric. Without as many centrist attack dogs like Delaney on stage, he has to take that role. The conspiracy isn't that Pete suddenly decided to be a corporate puppet - he always was, from the very beginning. He attended 'stop bernie' dinners at the outset of the campaign, meeting with Pelosi, Schumer, Neera Tanden, etc. He is a centrist who is supported by the party leadership, not someone who is challenging them. His record as mayor is definitely not progressive at all, and his past employment is extremely sketchy. I definitely trust him the least of any candidate, including Biden.

Pete is where the polling data is.

People like "Medicare for All"

They don't like "single-payer healthcare with no private options".

So I dunno, fucking suck it up and deal with people saying that.

Or don't I don't give a shit about any of you

---

Eddv posted...

Or don't I don't give a shit about any of you

nobody is under the illusion that you care about any other person
you have literally said you are a single issue voter about 'free trade'

shut da fuck up

People do prefer the public option method to single-payer when it comes to achieving universal healthcare coverage - that is true! I do think that's a fact the left has to reckon with, much as it disappoints me that the situation is what it is.

However, I don't think that precludes being irritated that Buttigieg (and others, but he's gone hard on this angle) is using right-wing talking points like "kicking 140 million people off of their healthcare" and "it's anti-freedom."

Admittedly I'm biased since I'm sympathetic to single-payer here but I think the most logical attack angle is to point out that politically it is a tough to sell to tell people they will be switched to a new healthcare plan - that that change can be scary to them. Or complain about the cost and get into that debate. "kicking people off their healthcare" is the "soundbite" version of it but with a far more negative connotation and I know why it's used but the implication is that you're knocking these people off insurance and then just stranding them which is BS and they know it.
---

Eddv posted...

Pete is where the polling data is.

People like "Medicare for All"

They don't like "single-payer healthcare with no private options".

The fact that the support changes dramatically based on how the question is asked is, to me, an indication that relying on polls to shape this issue is a bad idea. Every plan is going to encounter resistance from talking points to make them less popular. In general people just want something that will affect them less, which is why public option comes across as more popular. People THINK it won't affect their current plans. Which, if it's a good public option, it will definitely cause people's insurance to change.

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

In particular, look at slides 11 and 12. You say "abolish private insurance" and it's 58% oppose. But then you clarify "BUT you still choose your doctor" and it becomes support 54%.

tldr people are stupid and this is too complicated to base on popularity polls

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

tldr people are stupid and this is too complicated to base on popularity polls

basically the core of Pete's "you don't trust the American people to make the right decisions!" vomit in the I think October debate it was

yeah no shit I don't trust the average American people to know details of substantive policy and what's actually best
---

xp1337 posted...

People do prefer the public option method to single-payer when it comes to achieving universal healthcare coverage - that is true! I do think that's a fact the left has to reckon with, much as it disappoints me that the situation is what it is.

However, I don't think that precludes being irritated that Buttigieg (and others, but he's gone hard on this angle) is using right-wing talking points like "kicking 140 million people off of their healthcare" and "it's anti-freedom."

Admittedly I'm biased since I'm sympathetic to single-payer here but I think the most logical attack angle is to point out that politically it is a tough to sell to tell people they will be switched to a new healthcare plan - that that change can be scary to them. Or complain about the cost and get into that debate. "kicking people off their healthcare" is the "soundbite" version of it but with a far more negative connotation and I know why it's used but the implication is that you're knocking these people off insurance and then just stranding them which is BS and they know it.

It's incorrect to say that you're throwing them off of insurance, but it's correct to state that you're telling them to give up insurance that they're familiar with in order for it to be replaced with something that you claim will be better. The question is then whether they trust you to deliver on that promise (which is a function not only of your intentions, but also of the competence of your implementation, and how robust the public plan is to sabotage*). In other words, you're asking people to take a big risk with something very important, and it's not a good idea to handwave that away as manufactured.

*What I'm thinking of here is sabotage when the GOP controls Congress. In particular, I think it's very likely that they would refuse to allow M4A to fund abortion.

---

Serious question for Dems: do you derive pleasure from debates over M4A/healthcare reform? There is zero chance of either passing in the foreseeable future (no matter who wins the election), so it really is just a theoretical debate for its own sake. I guess if it's satisfying to talk about it then I'm happy for you?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In other words, you're asking people to take a big risk with something very important, and it's not a good idea to handwave that away as manufactured.

The average American does not understand the health insurance system. People are morons who answer polls based upon how the wording of the poll makes them feel and not based upon robust knowledge of the facts.

But suppose for the moment that m4a is slightly worse at launch than the average current health insurance plan. The solution wouldn't be to scrap m4a outright, but to incrementally improve the implementation. The very first iteration of something is never going to be as polished at it's successors that have built upon it's framework.

We have seen what our current health insurance system has to offer and it's become a terrible thing that puts outrageous profit margins ahead of well being. I would gladly take a temporary step backwards to transition to a better system if that's what it takes to get it started.
---