Amy Klobuchar 2020 campaign megathread

[atheist4thecause]

If Amy was a man, I bet she would be ahead of the pack today. Just saying...

She is the only well-rounded candidate in my book, and if you look at her objectively it would be obvious to everyone. She is the perfect age. Has great political experience at getting things done. She is from snow country and is tough. She even looks the most presidential in my book. Of course if you are Republican then none of this matters, but it should matter to Dems.

Trump would be at a disadvantage by debating a strong female such as Amy....she would likely stomp all over him, and there is plenty to stomp on for sure. I'd like to see her be the one to debate our bully impeached dictator.

Completely wrong. I like Amy Klobuchar, but she has been a boring candidate. She hasn't done anything to excite people. Her way of talking is slow and muddled. The evidence shows that women win elections at higher rates than men, it's just that fewer women run. It's literally beneficial to be a woman. Many people vote for women because they are women but nobody votes for a man because he is a man.

[atheist4thecause]

Klobuchar has polled behind Andrew Yang consistently for the entire campaign, tying with him or beating him in only a handful of polls. I look forward to seeing Yang's thread pinned on this site's homepage posthaste.

Things are not always what they seem on the surface. The National Poll does not mean very much. Amy Klobuchar is a Senator from the Midwest (Minnesota). Politicians in the Midwest typically do not have very good national name recognition. On top of that, Klobuchar has been running a localized race to focus on winning Iowans rather than using a more national strategy. Yang didn't have a lot of name recognition, either, but his strategy has been to reach out nationally rather than focus on Iowa.

We saw the results of the difference in strategy. Klobuchar ran a very professional and strategic campaign that got her into the double digits in Iowa. Yang wasn't even able to get viable many places, if anywhere. People like Kloubachar when they get to know her. People already know Yang by now so it's hard for him to keep growing.

[atheist4thecause]

I wish she would be given the chance. I think the work she would do as President would be on a higher level than the others, and also on a broader scale, touching more people.

But people don't care for her personality. That's what they say. But I like her personality. I like her short quips. She is intelligent and aware of the plight of females and also of Americans around our country. Maybe next time....

You had me until the end. There is no plight of females.

[atheist4thecause]

I wish she would be given the chance. I think the work she would do as President would be on a higher level than the others, and also on a broader scale, touching more people.

But people don't care for her personality. That's what they say. But I like her personality. I like her short quips. She is intelligent and aware of the plight of females and also of Americans around our country. Maybe next time....

You had me until the end. There is no plight of females.

The plight I am referring to is that there has never been a female President. If that means nothing to you, so be it. But females know what I'm talking about when I say "plight" in this instance.

Women won office at a higher rate than men. It's just that fewer run. That's hardly a plight. Sure, no woman has become President, but no woman feels they can't, either. Everybody knows a woman can become President.

[atheist4thecause]

Why did Amy decide to be good this late?
 

Better than peaking too early. She's never really been bad. She just doesn't have the money and name recognition others have.

People here are so ridiculous. They talk about how nobody is getting energized to vote for Klobuchar, which couldn't be further from the truth. I've already posted about how Klobuchar has one of the lowest unfvorable rating and one of the highest rates of people not knowing her name. This means that people like her once they get to know her.

The other thing is that Klobuchar is at her weakest during a Democratic Presidential nomination, but during the General Elections, she would become the strongest. People on the Far Left are going to be energized to vote against Trump anyways. People on the moderate Left, Independents, some Centrists, and some Republicans would be completely willing to vote for her over Trump. She can bring in the broadest coalition, and she can do it in the most important swing states.

I don't know why so many are trying to predict she's going to drop out. She has run a frugal and effective campaign. She did better than expected in Iowa, not in terms of place, but in terms of %. She just had the best debate of anybody. She is likely to bring in a bunch of fundraising. She connects well with voters and NH is a small state, so it's not out of the realm of possibilities for her to gain a lot. If she can finish 3rd or a close 4th, she'll gain even more traction. She also does well bringing in endorsements, as I believe she brought in more endorsements in Iowa than anybody else. She already brought in a bunch in NH, too.

[atheist4thecause]

I wish she would be given the chance. I think the work she would do as President would be on a higher level than the others, and also on a broader scale, touching more people.

But people don't care for her personality. That's what they say. But I like her personality. I like her short quips. She is intelligent and aware of the plight of females and also of Americans around our country. Maybe next time....

You had me until the end. There is no plight of females.

The plight I am referring to is that there has never been a female President. If that means nothing to you, so be it. But females know what I'm talking about when I say "plight" in this instance.

The fact that he self-identifies as a "men's rights advocate" means he is not worth arguing with.

Yeah, me caring about the disproportionate homelessness of men, dropouts of boys, suicides of men and boys, etc. means that nobody should consider what I have to say. Can't have people caring about the lives of men and boys.

[atheist4thecause]

I wish she would be given the chance. I think the work she would do as President would be on a higher level than the others, and also on a broader scale, touching more people.

But people don't care for her personality. That's what they say. But I like her personality. I like her short quips. She is intelligent and aware of the plight of females and also of Americans around our country. Maybe next time....

You had me until the end. There is no plight of females.

The plight I am referring to is that there has never been a female President. If that means nothing to you, so be it. But females know what I'm talking about when I say "plight" in this instance.

Women won office at a higher rate than men. It's just that fewer run. That's hardly a plight. Sure, no woman has become President, but no woman feels they can't, either. Everybody knows a woman can become President.

Yeah, right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/upshot/the-problem-for-women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html

It's a myth that women can't win, and when the Left perpetuates this myth it discourages women form running. Ironically, what is holding women back is not running more than it is not winning. The Left is holding women back in politics. Stop pushing your BS, because you hurt women.

[atheist4thecause]

Peaking too early is certainly not good, as many campaigns have seen, but peaking too late is no good either. It's too late for Klobuchar. Sorry, but it really, really is.

For one thing, she has not been vetted, and it's too late to vet her. She has a long career history from her time as a prosecutor, do you really think there are no skeletons there?

At this point Klobuchar is only serving as an extra column for the Bernie Sanders campaign. She is there to take votes from his opponents, Buttigieg, Biden and Warren. She might as well be on the Bernie Sanders payroll.

She is not going anywhere. And in your heart, you know this. Deep down, people know this. If she had a real shot, she would be getting a lot more criticism. She had more of a shot back in February than she does now, which is why the media knee-capped her with the comb story. But no one sees her as a real threat now, because she is not. Hence she will get a free pass and be able to look good but it is only because people know her window has closed.

You keep using words like "real shot". What do you mean by that? If all you are trying to say is that she is not the favorite, then I agree with you. But if you are actually trying to say that she has such a minute chance that we shouldn't even consider her a relevant competitor, then I disagree strongly with you.

Candidates don't need to win Iowa to stay in the race. They need to continue to build momentum. They need to find places to win. She has places that can stabilize her campaign, like Minnesota. These first 4 primaries don't have a whole lot of delegates at stake. Iowa has 41, then NH has 24, then NV has 36, and then SC has 54. If you add these all up, the 4 pre-Super Tuesday races have 155 delegates up for grabs. California is on Super Tuesday, and it alone has 415 delegates. Minnesota has 75, and she can really run it up in Minnesota potentially. There are 1,344 total delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday. The first 4 primaries make up around 11.5% of the Super Tuesday amount.

We talk a lot about having to win the early states, but typically that's because you need to make people believe that you can win and you want to prevent other candidates from gaining too much momentum. Well, we already went through Iowa and nobody gained momentum at all. We're also going to be splitting the delegates between 5 major candidates, heck maybe even 7 with Steyer and Bloomberg. So this race is different than other races. You can afford to lose big in some states but not fall too far behind.

And look what people are saying. They believe in Klobuchar's potential. She needs a moment (which she had in the debate IMO but we'll see how much of a boost she gets) and to continue building momentum, but she is well-liked and gets a lot of endorsements. There are people willing to donate to her the more they believe she has a chance. She is spending money well. So no, I don't agree with your claims unless all you are saying is that she's not the favorite.

[atheist4thecause]

In terms of Democrats, I support Klobuchar so that's obviously my bias. Having said that, I really do believe that she is the best Democrat for the country. It's hard to hate her. From my perspective, we'd have a win-win no matter who won (Klobuchar or Trump), and so I'll accept a lower chance of Trump winning to have a 100% chance to get a good President. And Amy Klobuchar being the first female President? She's a woman worth the honor, unlike Hillary.

[atheist4thecause]

Anecdotally, I've heard Amy has a weak ground game in NV, while Buttigieg has a stronger one there.

To be fair, and I say this as a Amy fan, she presumably has a weak ground game everywhere. She's still in the race because her campaign has proved itself to be a diligent steward of resources; some of how they've been able to do that is must be by not stretching themselves in too many directions. We're going to get a sudden test of what happens when your campaign is given an infusion of cash and attention but very little time to deploy it. How are they going to use their money? I would expect a surprising amount of money will go into ads; there's simply not enough time to hire people who will know anything useful about the state of Nevada at this point.

Depending on your definition of ground game, she had a very strong one in IA though it ended up not helping her much. She was the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties. And being from a neighboring state, she probably had plenty of staffers who knew lots about IA, especially the northern third.

Of course. Sorry; I should've specified "everywhere that isn't IA/NH". Like, she did have a good ground game in IA, and apparently enough of one in NH to capitalize on her blip. But I doubt she had much resources to invest elsewhere.

She won almost every Newspaper endorsement in NH which does show she had a strong ground game.

Klobuchar also had the most endorsement in IA. Endorsements helped propel her, I believe. They don't mean a lot individually, but as a group for an unknown candidate they really force people to give a second look. And now everyone knows Klobuchar is a legitimate contender, so that question is gone, too.

About spending money, spending advertising money is easy, and it's also more effective on Super Tuesday. The money is coming in at just the right time and honestly, it's easy to spend advertising money. A professional campaign like the Klobuchar campaign knows how to do that. What's not easy is to build the ground game up, because obviously that's her campaign's strength.

Nevada and South Carolina will be interesting. How much does she try to put into these states? Does she save for Super Tuesday? Can she resonate with the minorities? She keeps knocking down hurdles, but there are a few major ones left to come. I hope she can pull it off. Her campaign has a tough decision to make about momentum. Does she want to sacrifice it to focus on other areas or not?

[atheist4thecause]

About spending money, spending advertising money is easy, and it's also more effective on Super Tuesday.

Honestly I'm not sure that that's true, unless your campaign has Bloomberg-like resources.  The battlefield is so enormous on Super Tuesday, with so many expensive media markets, that there just isn't enough $ to go around to make a meaningful dent, in all likelihood.  Free media at that point is probably more important.  Which is why Klobuchar is smart to spend a decent sum of money on Nevada now, rather than save cash for Super Tuesday.  She (and the other campaigns) need to get more free media to help on Super Tuesday, and the way to do that is to win or do well in NV and/or SC.

I think we're talking past each other. I wasn't comparing advertising $ to free media, I was comparing advertising $ on Super Tuesday to advertising $ on other days, say like the New Hampshire primaries. Free media is always good and effective. In-person contact is good in small states, but it really doesn't have an impact in the big states because they are big. Media can reach all places at once, including geographic areas that are not close to each other. It's hard for candidates to be in-person on the East Coast one day and West Coast the next day. So I don't think we disagree.

[atheist4thecause]

Klobuchar is making a 7 figure ad buy in Nevada:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482692-klobuchar-rolls-out-seven-figure-ad-buy-in-nevada

When i look up news videos of the candidates to get a feeling for what they are saying, all i am getting on CNN and MSNBC is Petey B.

And surprisingly, Elizabeth Warren looks like a favoured daughter of the media. She gets a lot of coverage.

But Amy is nowhere to be seen. Need more of that front of the website 'free' airtime to survive. Chris Matthews from MSNBC loves her, so she needs to get on that panel.

And then there is this lonely old guy who comes across like an angry Larry David lookalike.

That changed a lot recently. Klobuchar is getting the media attention now and they almost didn't talk about Warren. Even in the debates, Warren got some of the least amount of time.

[atheist4thecause]

Klobuchar is making a 7 figure ad buy in Nevada:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482692-klobuchar-rolls-out-seven-figure-ad-buy-in-nevada

When i look up news videos of the candidates to get a feeling for what they are saying, all i am getting on CNN and MSNBC is Petey B.

And surprisingly, Elizabeth Warren looks like a favoured daughter of the media. She gets a lot of coverage.

But Amy is nowhere to be seen. Need more of that front of the website 'free' airtime to survive. Chris Matthews from MSNBC loves her, so she needs to get on that panel.

And then there is this lonely old guy who comes across like an angry Larry David lookalike.

That changed a lot recently. Klobuchar is getting the media attention now and they almost didn't talk about Warren. Even in the debates, Warren got some of the least amount of time.

I could only find one:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/amy-klobuchar-headed-for-third-place-in-new-hampshire-touts-support-of-moderates-independents-78594629957

And I looked for a long time.

These videos are important for the other US states to look at the candidates.

Most of the videos were:

1. Sanders getting really angry (about Trump) like Gandalf from Lord of the Rings;
2. 10 videos of Mayor Pete with a great smile and talking about the future and how positive it is;
3. Elizabeth Warren telling the National audience that she took broke students last $3 followed by the comment "That is what we have to do";
4. Biden saying that he is still in the race, but looking ready to lie down and go to sleep.

I actually do want to hear what she has to say. I want to discover what it is about here that has caused the latest acceleration in her chances.
 

I was talking mostly about the media narrative on TV. They spent a lot of time talking about Klobuchar, her great Iowa showing, her great NH debate, her great NH showing, her great moment (even used the term #Klobmentum). If you want to find articles with Amy Klobuchar's name in them, just Google "Amy Klobuchar articles" no quotes needed. Many recent articles  (mostly within the last 24 hours) will come up, mostly positive about her.

[atheist4thecause]

if she does poorly in nevada (i.e. no delegates) she should probably drop out, or else she actually ironically hurts the chances of a moderate winning the nomination

Given Warren and Biden are toast, I submit that buttigieg is simply not electable, why should she be the one to drop out are you saying we should rally around Bloomberg?

i said if she does poorly in nevada. in that case her momentum is halted and staying in the race while having single digit support would just take away from the rest of the more viable moderates. she also has no minority support when we're already multiple states in. i'm simply saying that for the moderate wing of the party, it would be in their best interests to rally around a candidate before bernie starts running away with the nomination

My point Remains the Same even if she does poorly in Nevada. At that point Warren and Biden are toast more than ever, buttigieg still remains unelectable in November, and that leaves us by my count.... Bloomberg?

So my question Remains the Same.

I prefer Amy to Buttigieg in part because of her electability (and her experience and her platform), but I question where "unelectable" comes from in relation to Pete? Results suggest that he did pretty well both in the suburbs and Obama-Trump areas. The NH exit polls showed him with a pretty broad coalition across ages and education levels.

Buttigieg is unelectable because he's gay, which loses most religious people. They may even be in favor of equal rights, but that doesn't mean they want to vote to put a gay man in as President over religious candidates. He also lacks experience, which matters a lot more in the general elections. He isn't winning minorities despite them mostly knowing who he is at this point, and he basically has already admitted his own governing was racist. Also his look, because he just doesn't look like a President. He's a small statured, fragile-looking man. A woman can get away with that, but men are expected to look tough with broad shoulders. He's also a White man, which will drive down enthusiasm among Progressives for him. Once the general election hits, enthusiasm among Progressives to vote for the first woman President and to have her kick out President Trump would be invigorating.

[atheist4thecause]

if she does poorly in nevada (i.e. no delegates) she should probably drop out, or else she actually ironically hurts the chances of a moderate winning the nomination

Given Warren and Biden are toast, I submit that buttigieg is simply not electable, why should she be the one to drop out are you saying we should rally around Bloomberg?

i said if she does poorly in nevada. in that case her momentum is halted and staying in the race while having single digit support would just take away from the rest of the more viable moderates. she also has no minority support when we're already multiple states in. i'm simply saying that for the moderate wing of the party, it would be in their best interests to rally around a candidate before bernie starts running away with the nomination

My point Remains the Same even if she does poorly in Nevada. At that point Warren and Biden are toast more than ever, buttigieg still remains unelectable in November, and that leaves us by my count.... Bloomberg?

So my question Remains the Same.

I mean, I’d argue Pete’s the most electable candidate and Klobouchar’s electability is highly overrated at best, but here’s what I’ll say: Ohio votes after Super Tuesday, right?  Why not hold off making a decision between Pete and Klobouchar until after Super Tuesday?  If Pete can’t make inroads with Hispanics or African-Americans by then, he’s screwed anyway.  Klobuchar even more so because she lacks his national organization.  Why not see who is more viable after Super Tuesday?

because at that point it won't matter, nearly 40% of the country's delegates will have been awarded. bernie has effectively consolidated the progressive vote with warren's decline, while the moderate vote is all over the place. he's likely to win nevada, which could snowball into SC and absolutely into ST

Okay, but again, that fails to answer my question. At the risk of derailing this thread, who is this mythical moderate uniter candidate that Klobuchar should be withdrawing in favor of? Dead in the Water Biden or Warren? Unelectable Pete? Or the multi-billionaire who backed George W bush for president?

If, and I emphasize if, one accepts the theory that moderates should unite around a single candidate to stop Bernie, who is realistically better than Amy Klobuchar?

i wasn't addressing it lol? anyway, moderates should back the the candidate that appears to have the best chance of beating bernie. it may not necessarily be the candidate you like the most, but you can't always get that in a crowded primary

We're not even into March yet. The people need to decide. It's most important to pick the favorite candidate, which is determined by people actually voting. Coalesce around a candidate too early where most states never even have a chance to vote and you will end up with apathy. Part of the reason there are so many candidates is because voters are still split, not because of how many candidates there are, but because they are still trying to decide which way they want to go. There are always many candidates to chose from, it's just that now there are voters choosing more than just the top two or three. If a candidate really nails the message and gains momentum, the voters will coalesce around her, and then she'll become the main candidate with some others dropping out. But the voters need to decide who they like, not feel forced into picking someone they don't like to get the primary season over with. I wouldn't agree with you until we start hitting at least April.

[atheist4thecause]

Klobuchar is making a 7 figure ad buy in Nevada:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482692-klobuchar-rolls-out-seven-figure-ad-buy-in-nevada

When i look up news videos of the candidates to get a feeling for what they are saying, all i am getting on CNN and MSNBC is Petey B.

And surprisingly, Elizabeth Warren looks like a favoured daughter of the media. She gets a lot of coverage.

But Amy is nowhere to be seen. Need more of that front of the website 'free' airtime to survive. Chris Matthews from MSNBC loves her, so she needs to get on that panel.

And then there is this lonely old guy who comes across like an angry Larry David lookalike.

That changed a lot recently. Klobuchar is getting the media attention now and they almost didn't talk about Warren. Even in the debates, Warren got some of the least amount of time.

I could only find one:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/amy-klobuchar-headed-for-third-place-in-new-hampshire-touts-support-of-moderates-independents-78594629957

And I looked for a long time.

These videos are important for the other US states to look at the candidates.

Most of the videos were:

1. Sanders getting really angry (about Trump) like Gandalf from Lord of the Rings;
2. 10 videos of Mayor Pete with a great smile and talking about the future and how positive it is;
3. Elizabeth Warren telling the National audience that she took broke students last $3 followed by the comment "That is what we have to do";
4. Biden saying that he is still in the race, but looking ready to lie down and go to sleep.

I actually do want to hear what she has to say. I want to discover what it is about here that has caused the latest acceleration in her chances.
 

I was talking mostly about the media narrative on TV. They spent a lot of time talking about Klobuchar, her great Iowa showing, her great NH debate, her great NH showing, her great moment (even used the term #Klobmentum). If you want to find articles with Amy Klobuchar's name in them, just Google "Amy Klobuchar articles" no quotes needed. Many recent articles  (mostly within the last 24 hours) will come up, mostly positive about her.

Online videos are king.

I am not saying you missed the point, but a search on YouTube revealed only 4 videos of Amy in the last week.

And this is one of those 4.

https://youtu.be/adcXx8obFKw

It's Pete's opinion of Amy.

My point is, she is not getting on the front of the news websites. She is bot being interviewed by the top journalists.

Amy needs to be front and centre on CNN, MSNBC and better yet, FoxNEWS. A Sixty Minutes interview for 20 mins would be perfect.

Then she becomes a threat. Then she becomes a candidate.

It's the spotlight she needs.

Klobuchar absolutely has been front and center in a lot of the MSM coverage on TV. The Youtube videos are just clips from the TV coverage. It's what they say on TV that sends out the narrative. They clip it up, put on Youtube, Twitter, etc. and that sends a message to everybody else what they will be saying. And where do they get their orders? From the MSM bosses, who talk to the Party bosses (either RNC or DNC bosses). That's how it works. Have you ever noticed that the MSM will start saying the exact phrases that the party is just starting to message?

I did a search of "MSNBC" on Youtube to see if what you were saying was even accurate. Under "Latest from MSNBC", the first one is about Klobuchar from the Rachel Maddow show posted 20 minutes ago. The second one is from 22 minutes ago with Amy Klobuchar on the Maddow show. Another video down the list included Klobuchar's good showing in New Hampshire. Who knows, maybe you aren't seeing it because you are in Australia, but Klobuchar is the talk of the MSM.

[atheist4thecause]

Very anecdotal: Some youngish boomers/old gen Xers at a buffet restaurant in Dane county were talking about how they liked "that lady from Minnesota" even though they couldn't remember her last name very well. While these guys aren't representative of anyone other than themselves, it was surprising but encouraging to hear that they were open to Amy.

I was speaking to an older Millenial business owner. He was pro-Klobuchar as well.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

I haven’t been a Beto supporter since last June. My support’s gone Beto >> Warren >> Sanders as of NH.

Well obviously there’s different types, but thing is Klobuchar has none. At all. She gets on stage and makes cringe, obviously canned lines and just keeps repeating that she won in Minnesota.

I don’t dislike her. Between Pete, Bloomberg, and her she’s by far and away the best choice. But that’s because she’s inoffensive, and she’s inoffensive because she’s so bland.

To win, you have to appeal to more than just middle aged and old white people. Her problem is that she has no message that appeals to people under 30 or people of color. And that’s because she doesn’t propose policies that excite them because they’re “pipe dreams”.

But what she has going for her over the others in her lane is that she isn’t an overt corporatist, beholden to big donors like Pete or the epitome of oligarchy like Bloomberg.

Amy Klobuchar has put forth a lot of plans. She does very well on the details in the debates. One of her strengths is her knowledge on the issues.

You say she says nothing except she won in Minnesota. She mentions that to try to show electability, but you have not been listening if you think she hasn't mentioned anything else. How about health care/insurance? You haven't heard about her talk about health care/insurance? You haven't heard her talk about the struggles of having a baby that needed expensive care that insurance tried to drag their feet on? You haven't heard her talk about how revising Obamacare is better than forcing everyone onto Medicare-for-All because one will not only never happen, but it'll be very harmful to many people, and it'll open the door for Republicans to pass their plan, which she sees as harmful. She has argued she can drive down costs and increase coverage with modifications. And there are many other issues. You can disagree with her, but to say she hasn't even talked about these issues is ignorant.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

I haven’t been a Beto supporter since last June. My support’s gone Beto >> Warren >> Sanders as of NH.

Well obviously there’s different types, but thing is Klobuchar has none. At all. She gets on stage and makes cringe, obviously canned lines and just keeps repeating that she won in Minnesota.

I don’t dislike her. Between Pete, Bloomberg, and her she’s by far and away the best choice. But that’s because she’s inoffensive, and she’s inoffensive because she’s so bland.

To win, you have to appeal to more than just middle aged and old white people. Her problem is that she has no message that appeals to people under 30 or people of color. And that’s because she doesn’t propose policies that excite them because they’re “pipe dreams”.

But what she has going for her over the others in her lane is that she isn’t an overt corporatist, beholden to big donors like Pete or the epitome of oligarchy like Bloomberg.

Amy Klobuchar has put forth a lot of plans. She does very well on the details in the debates. One of her strengths is her knowledge on the issues.

You say she says nothing except she won in Minnesota. She mentions that to try to show electability, but you have not been listening if you think she hasn't mentioned anything else. How about health care/insurance? You haven't heard about her talk about health care/insurance? You haven't heard her talk about the struggles of having a baby that needed expensive care that insurance tried to drag their feet on? You haven't heard her talk about how revising Obamacare is better than forcing everyone onto Medicare-for-All because one will not only never happen, but it'll be very harmful to many people, and it'll open the door for Republicans to pass their plan, which she sees as harmful. She has argued she can drive down costs and increase coverage with modifications. And there are many other issues. You can disagree with her, but to say she hasn't even talked about these issues is ignorant.

The 2 points she stresses over and over again on the debate stage are

1) I won in Minnesota, so I have a record of being electable
2) Don’t push for M4A because Republicans will use to against us

Both are fair points, but they are not rationales for being nominee or President. They are examples of punditry. The reason this primary is so chaotic is because pundits have made voters start thinking like them by constantly harping on the made-up concept of “electability”. Neither JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama were the “electable” candidates in the primary. They won because they inspired the hearts and minds of voters.

I am not denying that she has plans and knows the details of them. By all accounts she’s made a highly competent legislator and would be a very competent President. But so far she’s just made canned lines on the debate stage, said she’s electable, and attacked the plans of Warren and Bernie for not being passable in the Senate (completely neglecting the fact that, yknow, negotiations and compromises happen on bills).

I do love how willing she is to take Pete and other candidates to the woodshed. She’s a fighter, I just wish she was bolder.

Like I said, Klobuchar has more policies, like getting faster internet to the rural areas. But, lets hammer down on the health care issue since that's so important. Amy isn't simply being a moderate to be a moderate. She's pointing out benefits of actually passing legislation, but lets set that completely aside. If you said Amy, we can pass Medicare-for-All or revise Obamacare, what do you think is better? She would say it's better to revise Obamacare.

There is lots not to like about Medicare-for-All. People want to compare a Bernie plan to the UK, but they are totally different systems. In the UK, the government owns the hospitals and hires/pays the doctors. Here, they are all private. So, Bernie's plan pays the private companies rather than the UK where the government literally manages it. There is no true single payer plan in the USA.

So, under Bernie's plan we'd see the costs skyrocket, because the government basically has to pay it. If they don't, the people will vote out the politicians to save their health care. This will cost taxes to go up. This will cause big problems for people paying their taxes and harm our economy. So in order to get the costs down because taxing too much gets the politicians voted out is to lessen the care that is given. Refuse to cover more stuff and that amount of stuff will grow-and-grow. Rich people will simply buy supplemental insurance from the private industry. Low and probably Middle Class people won't be able to. This is what people mean by a two-tiered system that benefits the rich over the poor in terms of care.

That's not the worst of it, though. Things get really dark when the government chooses what will and won't be covered. They could set an age limit and say any baby born before 24 weeks won't be covered by insurance. That means doctors won't care for the babies. That means the babies die, even though 22 and 23 week old babies regularly live. Stuff gets dark real fast under Medicare-for-All. Medicare-for-All isn't bold, it's just bad.

If you want someone bold and willing to lead, I'd argue that Amy is proving that she is a leader right now. In the primaries, Democrats tend to push for more extreme policies because there aren't as many Republicans voting. So right now, it's actually cool to be extreme. So when it's cool to be extreme, that means it's not bold, because that's what people want you to be. What is bold is to hold your ground and argue for your policies that will truly help the country most. That's what Amy is doing. That's one of the many reasons she is a leader.

[atheist4thecause]

Amy couldn't name Mexican president apparently. Kinda pathetic for longtime senator, when Pete correctly called AMLO

It's not so simple actually. There is a difference between the one officially running Mexico and the one the US recognizes. Names of foreign leaders don't really matter that much anyways. I don't know if she couldn't name the Mexican President or not, but it doesn't matter to me either way. Seriously, when would she ever need to know his name as a Senator? There are hundreds of world leaders around the world constantly changing.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

I haven’t been a Beto supporter since last June. My support’s gone Beto >> Warren >> Sanders as of NH.

Well obviously there’s different types, but thing is Klobuchar has none. At all. She gets on stage and makes cringe, obviously canned lines and just keeps repeating that she won in Minnesota.

I don’t dislike her. Between Pete, Bloomberg, and her she’s by far and away the best choice. But that’s because she’s inoffensive, and she’s inoffensive because she’s so bland.

To win, you have to appeal to more than just middle aged and old white people. Her problem is that she has no message that appeals to people under 30 or people of color. And that’s because she doesn’t propose policies that excite them because they’re “pipe dreams”.

But what she has going for her over the others in her lane is that she isn’t an overt corporatist, beholden to big donors like Pete or the epitome of oligarchy like Bloomberg.

Amy Klobuchar has put forth a lot of plans. She does very well on the details in the debates. One of her strengths is her knowledge on the issues.

You say she says nothing except she won in Minnesota. She mentions that to try to show electability, but you have not been listening if you think she hasn't mentioned anything else. How about health care/insurance? You haven't heard about her talk about health care/insurance? You haven't heard her talk about the struggles of having a baby that needed expensive care that insurance tried to drag their feet on? You haven't heard her talk about how revising Obamacare is better than forcing everyone onto Medicare-for-All because one will not only never happen, but it'll be very harmful to many people, and it'll open the door for Republicans to pass their plan, which she sees as harmful. She has argued she can drive down costs and increase coverage with modifications. And there are many other issues. You can disagree with her, but to say she hasn't even talked about these issues is ignorant.

The 2 points she stresses over and over again on the debate stage are

1) I won in Minnesota, so I have a record of being electable
2) Don’t push for M4A because Republicans will use to against us

Both are fair points, but they are not rationales for being nominee or President. They are examples of punditry. The reason this primary is so chaotic is because pundits have made voters start thinking like them by constantly harping on the made-up concept of “electability”. Neither JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama were the “electable” candidates in the primary. They won because they inspired the hearts and minds of voters.

I am not denying that she has plans and knows the details of them. By all accounts she’s made a highly competent legislator and would be a very competent President. But so far she’s just made canned lines on the debate stage, said she’s electable, and attacked the plans of Warren and Bernie for not being passable in the Senate (completely neglecting the fact that, yknow, negotiations and compromises happen on bills).

I do love how willing she is to take Pete and other candidates to the woodshed. She’s a fighter, I just wish she was bolder.

Like I said, Klobuchar has more policies, like getting faster internet to the rural areas. But, lets hammer down on the health care issue since that's so important. Amy isn't simply being a moderate to be a moderate. She's pointing out benefits of actually passing legislation, but lets set that completely aside. If you said Amy, we can pass Medicare-for-All or revise Obamacare, what do you think is better? She would say it's better to revise Obamacare.

There is lots not to like about Medicare-for-All. People want to compare a Bernie plan to the UK, but they are totally different systems. In the UK, the government owns the hospitals and hires/pays the doctors. Here, they are all private. So, Bernie's plan pays the private companies rather than the UK where the government literally manages it. There is no true single payer plan in the USA.

So, under Bernie's plan we'd see the costs skyrocket, because the government basically has to pay it. If they don't, the people will vote out the politicians to save their health care. This will cost taxes to go up. This will cause big problems for people paying their taxes and harm our economy. So in order to get the costs down because taxing too much gets the politicians voted out is to lessen the care that is given. Refuse to cover more stuff and that amount of stuff will grow-and-grow. Rich people will simply buy supplemental insurance from the private industry. Low and probably Middle Class people won't be able to. This is what people mean by a two-tiered system that benefits the rich over the poor in terms of care.

That's not the worst of it, though. Things get really dark when the government chooses what will and won't be covered. They could set an age limit and say any baby born before 24 weeks won't be covered by insurance. That means doctors won't care for the babies. That means the babies die, even though 22 and 23 week old babies regularly live. Stuff gets dark real fast under Medicare-for-All. Medicare-for-All isn't bold, it's just bad.

If you want someone bold and willing to lead, I'd argue that Amy is proving that she is a leader right now. In the primaries, Democrats tend to push for more extreme policies because there aren't as many Republicans voting. So right now, it's actually cool to be extreme. So when it's cool to be extreme, that means it's not bold, because that's what people want you to be. What is bold is to hold your ground and argue for your policies that will truly help the country most. That's what Amy is doing. That's one of the many reasons she is a leader.

I swear I heard all these arguments from Republicans right before the Affordable Care Act was enacted.  You are literally talking about death panels in your third paragraph. 

You say that costs will skyrocket under Bernie's plan, but you forget that prices will be negotiated with healthcare providers.  Currently, Klobuchar is trying to pass a bill with Republicans that will allow medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies on behalf of senior citizens.  Why just a bill for seniors enrolled in medicare?  Why not create a bill that helps lower drug prices for everyone, including people that receive drugs from private health insurers?  The whole point of the bipartisan bill is to replace the price determination that is set by private insurers negotiating for drugs.  They don't trust drug companies, because discounts and rebates often don't wind up in consumers' wallets.  This is not just the case for drugs, but also health service provided by a hospital.  They keep the consumer savings, and that's a problem. 

So.  You envision this fantasy of healthcare prices skyrocketing under a single-payer system, but do you not realize that this is already a reality with the private insurance market.  The U.S. pays more for healthcare services, drugs, and devices than every other country in the world.  Those drug companies and health insurers are making a killing and laughing at all those people defending them.  They have all the politicians in their pocket, including Klobuchar.  That's why you won't see any real change relating to the manner in which they negotiate and set prices on behalf of their customers.  The bipartisan congress is only willing to reduce drug prices for seniors enrolled in single payer - medicare - right before the election.  That's why people want medicare for all.  Those seniors are receiving this prescription drug bill right before the election, and the private insurers are pretty much unaffected.  That's why older Democrats don't care for Bernie as much as younger voters.

Now I'm not 100% in favor of the Bernie plan.  I will vote for him, because I think something good could be negotiated with him in office. He's on the side of ordinary Americans. Eventually programs/bills will have to move towards the center for compromise, but I would prefer that the advocate for an equitable healthcare system start from a position of strength. 

1) You start off badly saying that Republicans made my arguments before. So what if they did? This is either an ad hominem or irrelevant (and probably an attempt to attack my credibility through association). You can do better than that.
2) You falsely compare Medicare right now to what Medicare would be under a new proposed plan. Medicare right now is often through private insurance companies anyways. People are often limited as to what doctors they can see depending on the plan. This is okay, because people choose to be on Medicare, but under the new plan, everybody would be forced on Medicare, and it would be paid for by the government, not through private insurance. Because everybody would be forced on Medicare, the private insurance would be very expensive. Even if one chooses to get private insurance, which would probably go up in expense, they would still be taxed for Medicare.
3) Discounts and rebates are typically for the uninsured. There are coupons through companies like Goodrx. The insurance companies do negotiate down prices, but the customer isn't paying for the drug anyways. The insurance company is. So of course the insurance company saves the money, because the person pays whatever the agreement with the insurance is (such as a co-pay). It's not a problem at all that the insurance companies keep direct savings on drugs the consumers aren't paying directly for.
4) You mention a single payer system. I again stress that the plans for Medicare-for-All are not actually single payer. The government will not be running, managing, and owning the hospitals. They will simply be paying private companies who do.
5) You bring up high costs with insurance companies. I agree, there are high costs. Nobody wants to keep the system we have now. That's why the alternative to throwing the system completely out is to improve the system, not to keep the same system with no changes.

There are lots of changes that can be made. For instance, right now there is a middleman that was created to help the hospitals bulk order from the suppliers. This was intended to drop the costs of supplies and write up the contracts for the hospitals. Unfortunately, the middleman is getting kickbacks from the suppliers, so the suppliers can keep their prices high, the middleman takes their cut, and the hospitals end up with higher costs when the middleman isn't really doing anything except drawing up the expensive contracts. If we get rid of this middleman industry, hospital supplies and pharmaceutical costs will go down. That's just one of many changes that can occur. Health care/insurance is very complicated and there are many things that can be done to drop costs.
6) The USA actually has far better coverage than we are given credit for. A lot of times comparisons that make our system look bad are not what they seem. For instance, we naturally have a different diet from other countries. Our diet leads to a lot of issues. We also try to save a lot more premature babies, where places like the UK consider babies that would often be saved in the USA as unviable in the UK. This drives up the statistics of costs and and neonatal deaths, but the reality is that we're actually doing the best for saving premature babies.
7) Part of what helps systems like the UK work is that they take our innovation. If we went to a system that didn't innovate, they would have less to borrow from. We also wouldn't have ourselves to borrow from at that point, and so our system and their system would become worse.
You made a claim that drug companies have Klobuchar in their pocket. Which drug companies and what is your specific evidence? I don't want generalities, I want specifics.
9) Again, the Medicare system we have for seniors is not single payer. They go to private run hospitals and the insurance is often (or always?) private as well.
10) You mention that you want something negotiated, but Bernie is not a negotiator, no matter what you think of Klobuchar or other moderates. He stood against the USMCA even admitting it would improve the lives of workers because he said it didn't go far enough. Sanders is about purity, he is not about compromise.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

I haven’t been a Beto supporter since last June. My support’s gone Beto >> Warren >> Sanders as of NH.

Well obviously there’s different types, but thing is Klobuchar has none. At all. She gets on stage and makes cringe, obviously canned lines and just keeps repeating that she won in Minnesota.

I don’t dislike her. Between Pete, Bloomberg, and her she’s by far and away the best choice. But that’s because she’s inoffensive, and she’s inoffensive because she’s so bland.

To win, you have to appeal to more than just middle aged and old white people. Her problem is that she has no message that appeals to people under 30 or people of color. And that’s because she doesn’t propose policies that excite them because they’re “pipe dreams”.

But what she has going for her over the others in her lane is that she isn’t an overt corporatist, beholden to big donors like Pete or the epitome of oligarchy like Bloomberg.

Amy Klobuchar has put forth a lot of plans. She does very well on the details in the debates. One of her strengths is her knowledge on the issues.

You say she says nothing except she won in Minnesota. She mentions that to try to show electability, but you have not been listening if you think she hasn't mentioned anything else. How about health care/insurance? You haven't heard about her talk about health care/insurance? You haven't heard her talk about the struggles of having a baby that needed expensive care that insurance tried to drag their feet on? You haven't heard her talk about how revising Obamacare is better than forcing everyone onto Medicare-for-All because one will not only never happen, but it'll be very harmful to many people, and it'll open the door for Republicans to pass their plan, which she sees as harmful. She has argued she can drive down costs and increase coverage with modifications. And there are many other issues. You can disagree with her, but to say she hasn't even talked about these issues is ignorant.

The 2 points she stresses over and over again on the debate stage are

1) I won in Minnesota, so I have a record of being electable
2) Don’t push for M4A because Republicans will use to against us

Both are fair points, but they are not rationales for being nominee or President. They are examples of punditry. The reason this primary is so chaotic is because pundits have made voters start thinking like them by constantly harping on the made-up concept of “electability”. Neither JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama were the “electable” candidates in the primary. They won because they inspired the hearts and minds of voters.

I am not denying that she has plans and knows the details of them. By all accounts she’s made a highly competent legislator and would be a very competent President. But so far she’s just made canned lines on the debate stage, said she’s electable, and attacked the plans of Warren and Bernie for not being passable in the Senate (completely neglecting the fact that, yknow, negotiations and compromises happen on bills).

I do love how willing she is to take Pete and other candidates to the woodshed. She’s a fighter, I just wish she was bolder.

Like I said, Klobuchar has more policies, like getting faster internet to the rural areas. But, lets hammer down on the health care issue since that's so important. Amy isn't simply being a moderate to be a moderate. She's pointing out benefits of actually passing legislation, but lets set that completely aside. If you said Amy, we can pass Medicare-for-All or revise Obamacare, what do you think is better? She would say it's better to revise Obamacare.

There is lots not to like about Medicare-for-All. People want to compare a Bernie plan to the UK, but they are totally different systems. In the UK, the government owns the hospitals and hires/pays the doctors. Here, they are all private. So, Bernie's plan pays the private companies rather than the UK where the government literally manages it. There is no true single payer plan in the USA.

So, under Bernie's plan we'd see the costs skyrocket, because the government basically has to pay it. If they don't, the people will vote out the politicians to save their health care. This will cost taxes to go up. This will cause big problems for people paying their taxes and harm our economy. So in order to get the costs down because taxing too much gets the politicians voted out is to lessen the care that is given. Refuse to cover more stuff and that amount of stuff will grow-and-grow. Rich people will simply buy supplemental insurance from the private industry. Low and probably Middle Class people won't be able to. This is what people mean by a two-tiered system that benefits the rich over the poor in terms of care.

That's not the worst of it, though. Things get really dark when the government chooses what will and won't be covered. They could set an age limit and say any baby born before 24 weeks won't be covered by insurance. That means doctors won't care for the babies. That means the babies die, even though 22 and 23 week old babies regularly live. Stuff gets dark real fast under Medicare-for-All. Medicare-for-All isn't bold, it's just bad.

If you want someone bold and willing to lead, I'd argue that Amy is proving that she is a leader right now. In the primaries, Democrats tend to push for more extreme policies because there aren't as many Republicans voting. So right now, it's actually cool to be extreme. So when it's cool to be extreme, that means it's not bold, because that's what people want you to be. What is bold is to hold your ground and argue for your policies that will truly help the country most. That's what Amy is doing. That's one of the many reasons she is a leader.

I swear I heard all these arguments from Republicans right before the Affordable Care Act was enacted.  You are literally talking about death panels in your third paragraph. 

You say that costs will skyrocket under Bernie's plan, but you forget that prices will be negotiated with healthcare providers.  Currently, Klobuchar is trying to pass a bill with Republicans that will allow medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies on behalf of senior citizens.  Why just a bill for seniors enrolled in medicare?  Why not create a bill that helps lower drug prices for everyone, including people that receive drugs from private health insurers?  The whole point of the bipartisan bill is to replace the price determination that is set by private insurers negotiating for drugs.  They don't trust drug companies, because discounts and rebates often don't wind up in consumers' wallets.  This is not just the case for drugs, but also health service provided by a hospital.  They keep the consumer savings, and that's a problem. 

So.  You envision this fantasy of healthcare prices skyrocketing under a single-payer system, but do you not realize that this is already a reality with the private insurance market.  The U.S. pays more for healthcare services, drugs, and devices than every other country in the world.  Those drug companies and health insurers are making a killing and laughing at all those people defending them.  They have all the politicians in their pocket, including Klobuchar.  That's why you won't see any real change relating to the manner in which they negotiate and set prices on behalf of their customers.  The bipartisan congress is only willing to reduce drug prices for seniors enrolled in single payer - medicare - right before the election.  That's why people want medicare for all.  Those seniors are receiving this prescription drug bill right before the election, and the private insurers are pretty much unaffected.  That's why older Democrats don't care for Bernie as much as younger voters.

Now I'm not 100% in favor of the Bernie plan.  I will vote for him, because I think something good could be negotiated with him in office. He's on the side of ordinary Americans. Eventually programs/bills will have to move towards the center for compromise, but I would prefer that the advocate for an equitable healthcare system start from a position of strength. 

1) You start off badly saying that Republicans made my arguments before. So what if they did? This is either an ad hominem or irrelevant (and probably an attempt to attack my credibility through association). You can do better than that.
2) You falsely compare Medicare right now to what Medicare would be under a new proposed plan. Medicare right now is often through private insurance companies anyways. People are often limited as to what doctors they can see depending on the plan. This is okay, because people choose to be on Medicare, but under the new plan, everybody would be forced on Medicare, and it would be paid for by the government, not through private insurance. Because everybody would be forced on Medicare, the private insurance would be very expensive. Even if one chooses to get private insurance, which would probably go up in expense, they would still be taxed for Medicare.
3) Discounts and rebates are typically for the uninsured. There are coupons through companies like Goodrx. The insurance companies do negotiate down prices, but the customer isn't paying for the drug anyways. The insurance company is. So of course the insurance company saves the money, because the person pays whatever the agreement with the insurance is (such as a co-pay). It's not a problem at all that the insurance companies keep direct savings on drugs the consumers aren't paying directly for.
4) You mention a single payer system. I again stress that the plans for Medicare-for-All are not actually single payer. The government will not be running, managing, and owning the hospitals. They will simply be paying private companies who do.
5) You bring up high costs with insurance companies. I agree, there are high costs. Nobody wants to keep the system we have now. That's why the alternative to throwing the system completely out is to improve the system, not to keep the same system with no changes.

There are lots of changes that can be made. For instance, right now there is a middleman that was created to help the hospitals bulk order from the suppliers. This was intended to drop the costs of supplies and write up the contracts for the hospitals. Unfortunately, the middleman is getting kickbacks from the suppliers, so the suppliers can keep their prices high, the middleman takes their cut, and the hospitals end up with higher costs when the middleman isn't really doing anything except drawing up the expensive contracts. If we get rid of this middleman industry, hospital supplies and pharmaceutical costs will go down. That's just one of many changes that can occur. Health care/insurance is very complicated and there are many things that can be done to drop costs.
6) The USA actually has far better coverage than we are given credit for. A lot of times comparisons that make our system look bad are not what they seem. For instance, we naturally have a different diet from other countries. Our diet leads to a lot of issues. We also try to save a lot more premature babies, where places like the UK consider babies that would often be saved in the USA as unviable in the UK. This drives up the statistics of costs and and neonatal deaths, but the reality is that we're actually doing the best for saving premature babies.
7) Part of what helps systems like the UK work is that they take our innovation. If we went to a system that didn't innovate, they would have less to borrow from. We also wouldn't have ourselves to borrow from at that point, and so our system and their system would become worse.
You made a claim that drug companies have Klobuchar in their pocket. Which drug companies and what is your specific evidence? I don't want generalities, I want specifics.
9) Again, the Medicare system we have for seniors is not single payer. They go to private run hospitals and the insurance is often (or always?) private as well.
10) You mention that you want something negotiated, but Bernie is not a negotiator, no matter what you think of Klobuchar or other moderates. He stood against the USMCA even admitting it would improve the lives of workers because he said it didn't go far enough. Sanders is about purity, he is not about compromise.

You are confusing nationalized healthcare with single payer. The UK has a nationalized healthcare system where all the hospitals are owned by the government and health care professionals work for the government. Canada has a single payer system where the only health insurance available is through the government. Medicare for all would indeed be classified as a single payer system. Now, I don't think we will get true single payer in this country, but what Bernie is proposing right now is a true single payer system.

As for controlling costs, a single payer system can do just as well as a nationalized healthcare system while providing better results. If everyone is covered under the same insurer, that insurer gains maximal power to negotiate rates with providers. Medicare for all doesn't even necessarily have to be administered solely by the government. Allow Medicare advantage plans but CMS negotiates rates for everybody. Then you can cut costs in the major urban areas where there is a lot of competition among health care providers, while subsidizing rural providers and hospitals.

1) Single payer health care is nationalized health care. They are synonyms. If you want to use the term single payer health care insurance then fine, but that's a hybrid system that is not like what the UK has. That's basically a co-opting of the term single payer to change the meaning. Typically, single payer includes actual management.

2) Your conclusions on costs come from a hidden assumption that politicians operate on a profit motive. They don't. The medical field can give kickbacks and lobby and drive up costs under M4A that you are proposing just like they do now. The insurance/medical companies can hold out longer than the politicians can.

[atheist4thecause]

What’s with these bland midwesterners catching on? Pete and Amy have the charisma of a jar of mayo and a wet blanket, respectively.

Someone is salty. There are different types of charisma. There is the type where a guy stands on a table and sounds confident and then there is the type that is relatable to people. Klobuchar is the relatable type. She has been through the struggles with her baby at the hospital and has been through the struggles with the insurance companies. She's willing to go out and give a speech in the middle of a snowstorm and not call it off like the majority of candidates would do. She works whether the weather is good or bad, just like the bad average person. And all those people came out for it in that snowstorm btw.

Beto lost again. You are going to need to get over it. It doesn't make sense to come into the Klobuchar thread over and over months later to show your saltiness. And btw, he had loads of money, but the reason he lost his passion is because he realized his extreme policies that don't work for 90% of the country weren't catching on. Shocker.

I haven’t been a Beto supporter since last June. My support’s gone Beto >> Warren >> Sanders as of NH.

Well obviously there’s different types, but thing is Klobuchar has none. At all. She gets on stage and makes cringe, obviously canned lines and just keeps repeating that she won in Minnesota.

I don’t dislike her. Between Pete, Bloomberg, and her she’s by far and away the best choice. But that’s because she’s inoffensive, and she’s inoffensive because she’s so bland.

To win, you have to appeal to more than just middle aged and old white people. Her problem is that she has no message that appeals to people under 30 or people of color. And that’s because she doesn’t propose policies that excite them because they’re “pipe dreams”.

But what she has going for her over the others in her lane is that she isn’t an overt corporatist, beholden to big donors like Pete or the epitome of oligarchy like Bloomberg.

Amy Klobuchar has put forth a lot of plans. She does very well on the details in the debates. One of her strengths is her knowledge on the issues.

You say she says nothing except she won in Minnesota. She mentions that to try to show electability, but you have not been listening if you think she hasn't mentioned anything else. How about health care/insurance? You haven't heard about her talk about health care/insurance? You haven't heard her talk about the struggles of having a baby that needed expensive care that insurance tried to drag their feet on? You haven't heard her talk about how revising Obamacare is better than forcing everyone onto Medicare-for-All because one will not only never happen, but it'll be very harmful to many people, and it'll open the door for Republicans to pass their plan, which she sees as harmful. She has argued she can drive down costs and increase coverage with modifications. And there are many other issues. You can disagree with her, but to say she hasn't even talked about these issues is ignorant.

The 2 points she stresses over and over again on the debate stage are

1) I won in Minnesota, so I have a record of being electable
2) Don’t push for M4A because Republicans will use to against us

Both are fair points, but they are not rationales for being nominee or President. They are examples of punditry. The reason this primary is so chaotic is because pundits have made voters start thinking like them by constantly harping on the made-up concept of “electability”. Neither JFK, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama were the “electable” candidates in the primary. They won because they inspired the hearts and minds of voters.

I am not denying that she has plans and knows the details of them. By all accounts she’s made a highly competent legislator and would be a very competent President. But so far she’s just made canned lines on the debate stage, said she’s electable, and attacked the plans of Warren and Bernie for not being passable in the Senate (completely neglecting the fact that, yknow, negotiations and compromises happen on bills).

I do love how willing she is to take Pete and other candidates to the woodshed. She’s a fighter, I just wish she was bolder.

Like I said, Klobuchar has more policies, like getting faster internet to the rural areas. But, lets hammer down on the health care issue since that's so important. Amy isn't simply being a moderate to be a moderate. She's pointing out benefits of actually passing legislation, but lets set that completely aside. If you said Amy, we can pass Medicare-for-All or revise Obamacare, what do you think is better? She would say it's better to revise Obamacare.

There is lots not to like about Medicare-for-All. People want to compare a Bernie plan to the UK, but they are totally different systems. In the UK, the government owns the hospitals and hires/pays the doctors. Here, they are all private. So, Bernie's plan pays the private companies rather than the UK where the government literally manages it. There is no true single payer plan in the USA.

So, under Bernie's plan we'd see the costs skyrocket, because the government basically has to pay it. If they don't, the people will vote out the politicians to save their health care. This will cost taxes to go up. This will cause big problems for people paying their taxes and harm our economy. So in order to get the costs down because taxing too much gets the politicians voted out is to lessen the care that is given. Refuse to cover more stuff and that amount of stuff will grow-and-grow. Rich people will simply buy supplemental insurance from the private industry. Low and probably Middle Class people won't be able to. This is what people mean by a two-tiered system that benefits the rich over the poor in terms of care.

That's not the worst of it, though. Things get really dark when the government chooses what will and won't be covered. They could set an age limit and say any baby born before 24 weeks won't be covered by insurance. That means doctors won't care for the babies. That means the babies die, even though 22 and 23 week old babies regularly live. Stuff gets dark real fast under Medicare-for-All. Medicare-for-All isn't bold, it's just bad.

If you want someone bold and willing to lead, I'd argue that Amy is proving that she is a leader right now. In the primaries, Democrats tend to push for more extreme policies because there aren't as many Republicans voting. So right now, it's actually cool to be extreme. So when it's cool to be extreme, that means it's not bold, because that's what people want you to be. What is bold is to hold your ground and argue for your policies that will truly help the country most. That's what Amy is doing. That's one of the many reasons she is a leader.

I swear I heard all these arguments from Republicans right before the Affordable Care Act was enacted.  You are literally talking about death panels in your third paragraph. 

You say that costs will skyrocket under Bernie's plan, but you forget that prices will be negotiated with healthcare providers.  Currently, Klobuchar is trying to pass a bill with Republicans that will allow medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies on behalf of senior citizens.  Why just a bill for seniors enrolled in medicare?  Why not create a bill that helps lower drug prices for everyone, including people that receive drugs from private health insurers?  The whole point of the bipartisan bill is to replace the price determination that is set by private insurers negotiating for drugs.  They don't trust drug companies, because discounts and rebates often don't wind up in consumers' wallets.  This is not just the case for drugs, but also health service provided by a hospital.  They keep the consumer savings, and that's a problem. 

So.  You envision this fantasy of healthcare prices skyrocketing under a single-payer system, but do you not realize that this is already a reality with the private insurance market.  The U.S. pays more for healthcare services, drugs, and devices than every other country in the world.  Those drug companies and health insurers are making a killing and laughing at all those people defending them.  They have all the politicians in their pocket, including Klobuchar.  That's why you won't see any real change relating to the manner in which they negotiate and set prices on behalf of their customers.  The bipartisan congress is only willing to reduce drug prices for seniors enrolled in single payer - medicare - right before the election.  That's why people want medicare for all.  Those seniors are receiving this prescription drug bill right before the election, and the private insurers are pretty much unaffected.  That's why older Democrats don't care for Bernie as much as younger voters.

Now I'm not 100% in favor of the Bernie plan.  I will vote for him, because I think something good could be negotiated with him in office. He's on the side of ordinary Americans. Eventually programs/bills will have to move towards the center for compromise, but I would prefer that the advocate for an equitable healthcare system start from a position of strength. 

1) You start off badly saying that Republicans made my arguments before. So what if they did? This is either an ad hominem or irrelevant (and probably an attempt to attack my credibility through association). You can do better than that.
2) You falsely compare Medicare right now to what Medicare would be under a new proposed plan. Medicare right now is often through private insurance companies anyways. People are often limited as to what doctors they can see depending on the plan. This is okay, because people choose to be on Medicare, but under the new plan, everybody would be forced on Medicare, and it would be paid for by the government, not through private insurance. Because everybody would be forced on Medicare, the private insurance would be very expensive. Even if one chooses to get private insurance, which would probably go up in expense, they would still be taxed for Medicare.
3) Discounts and rebates are typically for the uninsured. There are coupons through companies like Goodrx. The insurance companies do negotiate down prices, but the customer isn't paying for the drug anyways. The insurance company is. So of course the insurance company saves the money, because the person pays whatever the agreement with the insurance is (such as a co-pay). It's not a problem at all that the insurance companies keep direct savings on drugs the consumers aren't paying directly for.
4) You mention a single payer system. I again stress that the plans for Medicare-for-All are not actually single payer. The government will not be running, managing, and owning the hospitals. They will simply be paying private companies who do.
5) You bring up high costs with insurance companies. I agree, there are high costs. Nobody wants to keep the system we have now. That's why the alternative to throwing the system completely out is to improve the system, not to keep the same system with no changes.

There are lots of changes that can be made. For instance, right now there is a middleman that was created to help the hospitals bulk order from the suppliers. This was intended to drop the costs of supplies and write up the contracts for the hospitals. Unfortunately, the middleman is getting kickbacks from the suppliers, so the suppliers can keep their prices high, the middleman takes their cut, and the hospitals end up with higher costs when the middleman isn't really doing anything except drawing up the expensive contracts. If we get rid of this middleman industry, hospital supplies and pharmaceutical costs will go down. That's just one of many changes that can occur. Health care/insurance is very complicated and there are many things that can be done to drop costs.
6) The USA actually has far better coverage than we are given credit for. A lot of times comparisons that make our system look bad are not what they seem. For instance, we naturally have a different diet from other countries. Our diet leads to a lot of issues. We also try to save a lot more premature babies, where places like the UK consider babies that would often be saved in the USA as unviable in the UK. This drives up the statistics of costs and and neonatal deaths, but the reality is that we're actually doing the best for saving premature babies.
7) Part of what helps systems like the UK work is that they take our innovation. If we went to a system that didn't innovate, they would have less to borrow from. We also wouldn't have ourselves to borrow from at that point, and so our system and their system would become worse.
You made a claim that drug companies have Klobuchar in their pocket. Which drug companies and what is your specific evidence? I don't want generalities, I want specifics.
9) Again, the Medicare system we have for seniors is not single payer. They go to private run hospitals and the insurance is often (or always?) private as well.
10) You mention that you want something negotiated, but Bernie is not a negotiator, no matter what you think of Klobuchar or other moderates. He stood against the USMCA even admitting it would improve the lives of workers because he said it didn't go far enough. Sanders is about purity, he is not about compromise.

You are confusing nationalized healthcare with single payer. The UK has a nationalized healthcare system where all the hospitals are owned by the government and health care professionals work for the government. Canada has a single payer system where the only health insurance available is through the government. Medicare for all would indeed be classified as a single payer system. Now, I don't think we will get true single payer in this country, but what Bernie is proposing right now is a true single payer system.

As for controlling costs, a single payer system can do just as well as a nationalized healthcare system while providing better results. If everyone is covered under the same insurer, that insurer gains maximal power to negotiate rates with providers. Medicare for all doesn't even necessarily have to be administered solely by the government. Allow Medicare advantage plans but CMS negotiates rates for everybody. Then you can cut costs in the major urban areas where there is a lot of competition among health care providers, while subsidizing rural providers and hospitals.

1) Single payer health care is nationalized health care. They are synonyms. If you want to use the term single payer health care insurance then fine, but that's a hybrid system that is not like what the UK has. That's basically a co-opting of the term single payer to change the meaning. Typically, single payer includes actual management.

You are the one changing the meaning of single PAYER for some unknown reason. Single payer means there is only one payer. Payer means the entity that pays for healthcare. In our system it is a hybrid model where Medicare and Medicaid pays for roughly half of healthcare costs and the private health insurance system pays the rest along with self pay, of course. Medicare for all is calling for the elimination of private health insurance for at least the benefits that are covered by Medicare (so health insurance for cosmetic surgery or LASIK will still be legal but I doubt anyone would purchase such a product). It is also calling for the elimination of all out of pocket costs. Thus, Medicare would be the single payer for the covered health benefits.

What is interesting is that single payer doesn't necessarily have to be run by the government. If we didn't have anti-trust laws, I wouldn't be surprised if our private health insurance system didn't start morphing into a single payer system. The trend is occurring right before our eyes. Just look at the amount of vertical integration going on in the health care industry. CVS acquiring Aetna for example. Or hospital groups buying up physician groups. Getting big in healthcare today means more profits because you have more negotiating power. The more covered lives you have in a specific area, the more you can squeeze reimbursement rates with providers. The greater the number of providers you control in a specific area, the more you can squeeze the payers to reimburse you more. This is also why cash prices in a lot of healthcare settings is absolutely insane. An aspirin at a hospital really doesn't cost $10. The Atorvastatin generic at your local Pharmacy really doesn't cost $600. You just keep the rates high to provide more space to negotiate the actual reimbursement.

Under Medicare-for-All, who pays the hospitals? The PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES do.

[atheist4thecause]

« Klobuchar flip-flopped on immigration she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago ».

https://apnews.com/5c18eac85b0448b262b8dc6e8c6bbe17

I don't understand why the nation can't have English as the official language and also allow the government to offer forms in other languages. The way I see it, the official language would just force the government to offer form in English at the bare minimum, and any alternative languages they wanted to provide could be provided. The only thing it would stop would be offering forms in Spanish, French, or some other language and not English.