Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Sbane]

https://twitter.com/darrensands/status/1224816153463349248

"A group of prominent Upstate Republicans is preparing to launch a wide-scale effort this week to encourage GOP voters across South Carolina to vote for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Feb. 29 Democratic primary, The Post and Courier has learned.

The Republican plan to impact the Democratic race, emerging just weeks before the “First in the South” primary, has two goals: Boost the candidate who the Republicans believe presents the weakest general election threat to President Donald Trump and pressure Democrats to support closing state primaries in the future.

South Carolina has open primaries, meaning voters do not have to register by party and can participate in either party’s contest. But some conservative activists have long pushed to change that, arguing it would ensure a more pure party process, and they are hoping this effort will win over Democrats to that cause."

Republicans are so terrified of Bernie Sanders, you guys.

Of course, Hillary Clinton also wanted Trump has her opponent, and she only beat him by 3 million votes, so obviously any time any party wants to run against a particular candidate it means that candidate will win.

Republicans better be careful what they wish for...If Bernie gets in he legalizes Marijuana and reigns in the war machine, two issues with majority support. He could also try lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 0 via EO but I don't know whether that holds up in the courts. But it would be the elitist Supreme Court that stopped Medicare for all, and not infighting among Democrats. Bernie will ensure the young base doesn't become apathetic like they did under Obama.

[Sbane]

Bernie will ensure the young base doesn't become apathetic like they did under Obama.

LMAO. Please. He couldn’t even top 2016’s IA caucus turnout let alone Obama’s 2008 performance. Sanders can’t sit with Obama on his WORST day.

My statement was assuming a Bernie general election win. That is a big assumption to make at this stage. I just think he has a better shot at winning it than Biden and probably Buttigieg. Maybe Klobuchar is the most electable at this point and perhaps Bloomberg. Klobuchar isn't winning the primary though, and if Bloomberg buys the nomination the left stays home and he loses. Only scenario where Bloomberg is a viable general election candidate is if he gets more people voting for him than Bernie and has at least a plurality of delegates. If Bernie has the plurality but Bloomberg gets the nomination....say hello to four more years of Trump.

And if a Democrat does win in 2020, they need to be able to get sh**t done or they will be replaced in 2024. People want someone who gets things done. That is one thing I like about Bloomberg. He understands what people want.

[Sbane]

• Medicare for all:  $34T over ten years in new federal spending according to the Urban Institute

Overall health spending in the US was $3.6 Trillion in just 2018 alone....

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical

So I guess vote for Bernie if you want to lower health care costs?

[Sbane]

• Medicare for all:  $34T over ten years in new federal spending according to the Urban Institute

Overall health spending in the US was $3.6 Trillion in just 2018 alone....

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical

So I guess vote for Bernie if you want to lower health care costs?

Yes, that's the talking point.  Let's ignore all the complications and assumptions made in comparing these two numbers (for starters, that $3.6T includes current government spending) and pretend it's a simple $3.6-to-$3.2 annual comparison.  That doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it.  When you shift costs from the private sector to the government, the government suddenly has to single-handedly produce revenue that was otherwise procured by the private sector.

That means raising taxes.  Specifically, raising taxes on the middle class, since corporations and the wealthy don't have enough to pay for it under even the most punitive of tax plans.  And since you can't micro-target taxes to be precisely what everyone was paying previous for their health insurance, that means many people are going to pay more in taxes than they paid for private insurance.  Probably most people, since an inordinate share of the costs in a free-health-care-for-all system would go towards care for the elderly, the chronically ill, drug addicts, etc.

So, how is Sanders going to pay for it?  Does he have a plan to raise $3.2 trillion dollars a year in addition to existing taxes?  That's a huge lift.  It's a massive shift of money from the private sector to the government.  It's a far more dramatic shift than the tax-bracket-twiddling of the other candidates.  Essentially, it's a massive step towards a true socialist economy, where people pay a 60-70% tax burden and in return all services and utilities are provided singularly by the national government.  And that's even before you add in all the other stuff Sanders wants to do, which is even more expensive.

The real problem at the root of all this is that health care spending itself continues to explode.  Medicare and Medicaid alone threaten to annihilate the federal budget within the next thirty years.  Plenty of experts have suggested a wide variety of plans to address this, many of which are contained in the health care platforms of the other candidates.  No serious person believes that nationalizing the entire health care industry and fully-guaranteeing top-rate health care to everyone for free is the solution.

This is one of the many things I find irritating about the whole Sanders revolutionary movement.  Before he came along this was one of the most thoroughly discussed issues in the country and tons of different ideas and plans had been thrown out there, many of which found their way into the ACA.  We could be having a productive conversation right now about a comprehensive package to address our very real challenges.  Instead, the Republicans are dead-set on repealing Obamacare as the end-all-be-all, and the Democrats are consumed by a debate over full-scale nationalization.

First of all that $34 trillion was your number, not mine. I just pointed out that we already pay $3.6 trillion a year in health care costs already. Yes, it would be paid for differently than we do now, but somebody pays already. People would pay a little bit more in taxes, but they would get a lot back in return.

In addition, no matter who wins, I hope we move towards a system with no deductibles and copays. All that does is it prevents people from accessing healthcare. Thus, they don't see the doctor regularly, don't get the tests they need to get and don't take the medications they need to take. Eventually, their condition deteriorates and they end up in the hospital. Perhaps, when they are in the hospital they contract an infectious disease which ends up extending the stay and adding to healthcare costs.

One of the reasons healthcare costs are so high in the US is due to an under utilization of primary care and an over utilization of hospitals and end of life care. The latter is more expensive. We can provide better health outcomes for the country if we had cheaper and more accessible primary care in this country and what Sanders is proposing is a good way to get to that.

Edit: I hope the technocrats who designed the Medicare Part D plan don't have any part in designing any future healthcare plan. It's a system designed to encourage seniors to not take their brand name medications. Sometimes that is a good thing if it encourages someone to switch to a lower cost alternative. Unfortunately for these technocrats, most people do want the lowest cost option so if possible they are already on those options. In the real world, sometimes people need to take brand name drugs to stay healthy. If they do not take those drugs such as Eliquis, which prevents embolisms, or Spiriva which manages COPD symptoms, they may end up in the hospital. Where even one day of care may cost more than the yearly cost of these medications.

Another thing we could do when most people have Medicare is negotiate drug prices of brand name drugs. If they want access to the Medicare market, make the drug companies rebate back the difference of what they charge Medicare and what they charge the OECD countries.

[Sbane]

I don't know man, how do you think the Europeans do it? If we used a little common sense and cracked down on drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers and certain hospital chains, we can crack down on costs some. What is really required in my opinion is to encourage people to access healthcare when the disease is more manageable. You can't do that if people don't have coverage or have high deductibles and co-pays to pay. In the long run it will pay off but yes it will be expensive at first. Middle class taxes will have to go up but that is fine if people don't have to pay deductibles, co-pays and premiums. People aren't stupid. If you deliver the product, they will gladly pay their share.

Also the study you cite forecasts $3.8 trillion in spending in 2022. That's not something that is scary....just the same amount of spending that is already occurring currently.

[Sbane]

I don't know man, how do you think the Europeans do it? If we used a little common sense and cracked down on drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers and certain hospital chains, we can crack down on costs some. What is really required in my opinion is to encourage people to access healthcare when the disease is more manageable. You can't do that if people don't have coverage or have high deductibles and co-pays to pay. In the long run it will pay off but yes it will be expensive at first. Middle class taxes will have to go up but that is fine if people don't have to pay deductibles, co-pays and premiums. People aren't stupid. If you deliver the product, they will gladly pay their share.

Also the study you cite forecasts $3.8 trillion in spending in 2022. That's not something that is scary....just the same amount of spending that is already occurring currently.

They don't do it.

This is a common American myth that Sanders propagates, falsely, because it benefits him.  It is a lie.

The only European country that has a single-payer national health insurance system is the United Kingdom with its NHS, and even that is regularly under threat of privatization and allows for private insurance (it also has long waiting times, and medical tourism is common).

There are a variety of different systems in place in Europe.  France, for instance, allows insurers to operate as non-profits and has an individual mandate.  Fees for visits are reimbursed at rates determined by the government.  This is totally, fundamentally different from what Sanders is proposing.

Germany has a mix of private and public insurance along with an individual mandate.

Switzerland has private insurance and an individual mandate similar to Obamacare.

Denmark and Sweden both have private health insurance that competes with the government in a model similar to Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it" model.

Go look at every single European nation and you won't find a single one where the government pays for 100% of the health care costs, private insurance is banned, and individuals pay nothing.

That's another really frustrating aspect of this whole primary is you have mainstream Democrats proposing rational, affordable, achievable health care schemes similar to what European nations actually have, and Sanders proposing a ludicrously-expensive fantasy scheme that matches what Americans think Europe has.

This will be my last post in this thread regarding healthcare.

You obviously don't understand how the NHS operates. It owns all the hospitals and all health care providers are government employees. That is not what Sanders proposes and I would strongly oppose such a system were it being proposed.

What Sanders is proposing is similar to the Canadian system. If Canada can do it, I do believe America can as well. I also favor the "Medicare for all who want it" plan but it could lead to adverse selection if it's not designed right. I would make the Medicare system very generous but allow a private health insurance system to supplement Medicare and pay for things Medicare does not pay for.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

In a primary, of course I am interested in how people in other states are voting. It helps me determine who is a viable candidate and who is not (Yang was my first choice but alas). And since in most states the winner is the person who gets the most votes, I am most interested in that metric. I suspect Iowans feel the same way, and wouldn't have known otherwise before 2020 since all they used to release was the SDE numbers.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

In a primary, of course I am interested in how people in other states are voting. It helps me determine who is a viable candidate and who is not (Yang was my first choice but alas). And since in most states the winner is the person who gets the most votes, I am most interested in that metric. I suspect Iowans feel the same way, and wouldn't have known otherwise before 2020 since all they used to release was the SDE numbers.

Are you new to watching elections or something? It has been known for decades that the candidate that gets the most delegates may lose the popular vote. I'm shocked if you think this is just coming to the forefront.

That can happen, but usually due to the difference in candidate preference in a caucus vs a primary.

[Sbane]

https://twitter.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1228515740204064768

https://twitter.com/coniglio_aj/status/1228541470765916160

This is why he beats Trump.

[Sbane]

Speaking of California, should we expect Sanders to gain in the later-counted mail-in votes?
He did so in 2016: Clinton's election night lead of around 12 pts was cut to 7 by the time counting was completed weeks later.
My guess is, no idea. However, I expect most of the votes mailed in already to be Sanders-leaning, because I assume that people who are more committed/less undecided are Sanders-leaning and will vote earlier.

Younger people vote later so we might see Bernie gain some as results keep trickling in. On the other hand the most committed voters are for Bernie so they might have been more likely to send back their ballots early. Bernie might gain late but so might whichever candidate is surging towards the end.