BREAKING: Cruz and Sanders to debate Obamacare on CNN Next Tuesday

[Shadows]

Did we watch different debates.

Limit the role of the federal government; foster nationwide competition; lower regulation and, in turn, costs; create separate risk corridors for those with pre-existing conditions and subsidize it (he didn't mention in the debate but my guess would be with tax credits by age).

You can disagree with his plan but pretending it doesn't exist won't help anybody.

It is never going to decrease the costs. I used to a sort of liberatarian many many years back before I studied a bit of economics. The market is possibly the best solution in many cases, but not in healthcare. The following are the key reasons -

Economies of Scale - Basic, key critical component. This is the most defining component in most business (you need to sell a large volume say X to break even) but is even more important in healthcare as you have huge fixed, bureaucratic & initial investment costs. Unless you do a huge volume, it is too costly. Economies of scale is one where the per unit cost falls with more production. Here, the fixed costs barely increase with more patients covered. Healthcare has huge Economies of scale, you need a large provider to lower costs

Monopoly & Bargaining Power - A massive private player with economies of scale & lower per unit costs will create huge monopoly & drive up costs. They will have too much bargaining power & will control Congress with their lobbyists

Administrative Costs - The lesser units you sell, the more expensive it is to meet these. Most private organizations have massive admin costs. If you have 1 large organization, you can pool resources & save substantially

Massive profits increasing costs - Private profits will naturally increase costs. If you take out obscene profits, that bring the price down

Drug Prices - Unless you do something about drug prices, you can't find a true solution. Allowing import & Medicare to negotiate prices will bring drug prices. Every major country has some sort of regulation or negotiation without which you can no control over prices.


There are various reasons why a Medicare for all is the cheapest form. Could there be some stray quality issues? Yes there could be which can be improved with better medical infrastructure or other solutions.

But it is the cheapest form of healthcare

[JA]

Jesus Christ why do people insist on relitigating the primary? Living in yesteryear does absolutely nothing to advance progressive causes.

Anyways, I thought they both did what they usually did well but like I expected, Cruz never addressed what would happen to people who got healthcare, and Bernie failed to clearly articulate how he's gonna pay for Medicare-for-all.

The Clintons set progressive causes back decades, so I'm damn interested in having them not have control of the party any more.

I think Clintons were toxic for Democrats, they couldn't shake of the skeletons but explain how it set progressive causes back?

Bill Clinton didn't attempt to move the country to the left the slightest after his first 2 years in office, and that 2 years included him getting a Democratic Congress to pass NAFTA. He has a long list of right-wing accomplishments, such as repealing Glass Steagal, telecommuncations deregulation, welfare reform, the Mickey Mouse copyright act, and numerous others. When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too. Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election was such a utter disgrace, with DOMA, V-chips, and being open to abortion limitations being what he ran on.

And in 2016, they had the party take down an actual progressive, talked to Trump right before he announced, had the media give extra coverage to Trump, and managed to out Dewey Tom Dewey in losing to Trump.

I don't think it's entirely fair to target Obama and the Clintons like that, because it ignores the underlying reason that neoliberalism/third way politics even developed and has sustained itself. Neoliberalism developed not only in the United States, but in virtually all other Western democracies as well at about the same time. It's not some conspiracy, there are legitimate reasons for why it occurred.

First, people today overlook the effects the 1960s had on dramatically reshaping our political discourses and affiliations. Take one particular Senator and notable presidential candidate as the example - Eugene McCarthy. This man was adored by the hippies and college students during the late 60s and early 70s for his vocal and principled opposition to the Vietnam War; it made him a liberal darling. Yet, what people don't know is how radically McCarthy broke with the norms of the Democratic Party and the traditional left on economic issues (while being considerably more liberal on social ones). He, along with many other anti-war Democrats of that era, championed the universal basic income as a way to scrap the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - an idea inspired, in part, by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (both ardent advocates of limited government and free-market capitalism). This was not their only break from Democratic orthodoxy either. In fact, McCarthy, that liberal darling, actually endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. These new styled liberals set the foundation for a new breed of Democrat - one detached from a political foundation in the labor movement, since the labor movement was strongly associated with the Democratic establishment that championed the Vietnam War and other policies antithetical to the views of the emerging college educated, socially liberal left.

That leads to the second point, which is that the labor movement was declining at the same time these new liberal (neoliberal) Democrats were emerging in opposition to the labor backed establishment. The peak of the labor movement was during the 1940s and peak unionization occurred in the 1950s, but since then union membership and, consequently, labor power began to decline. As it declined, this allowed a power vacuum within the Democratic Party to be filled by those neoliberals who were socially liberal and anti-war. They were associated strongly with college students, who largely became white collar workers (i.e. non-unionized) and eschewed the influence of the Vietnam War enabling labor movement, many of whose members began to break from the anti-war left within the Democratic Party (see: Nixon's Hard Hats, Reagan Democrats). Since the labor movement is what provided Democratic politicians with their mobilization abilities and campaign funds, these neoliberal obviously had to search for funding elsewhere. Thus, they turned to the private sector and, particularly, the financial industry which had recently become more favorable to the party thanks to the financial deregulations begun, not by Reagan, but by Carter.

By the 1980s, with more of these Vietnam War era Democrats entering elected office, the decline of the labor movement's power, the increasing success of the Southern Strategy, and the political dominance of Reagan and the Republican Party (in alliance with conservative, Southern Democrats), the Democrats began to discuss how to come back from the political wilderness, which led to the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC argued, in part thanks to the funding it and its supporters received from the financial industry, that the party should shift away from its affiliation with the left wing, economic populism of the previous decades that was driven by a dying labor movement, and instead embrace a new liberalism that coopted Republican economic rhetoric and policies while retaining liberal social views. By the 1988 and 1992, nearly all the top Democratic candidates for President were associated with the DLC and it's wing of the party, thereby driving a wedge between the economic left associated with the declining labor movement and the aspiring neoliberals who eventually gained control over the party and have held it since the Clinton Administration.

So, if the Democratic Party is to shift away from neoliberalism, it'll require a new base of financial support and a leadership that aligns with the interests of this base. The labor movement is no longer an option and the goal is to break from the financial industry, thus the only remaining options would be the emerging technology industry and/or popular political activism. Bernie Sanders demonstrated the strength of the latter option with his campaign's unprecedented ability to raise money without appealing to big money or unions, but rather to an energized base of supporters. We're watching this unfold before our eyes right now with the blueprint established by the Sanders campaign for the Progressive wing of the party to move away from reliance on big money, like the establishment wing does, and instead mobilize its progressive base.

[Blue3]

What were the real highlights of the debate?

I heard about the access/affordability bit, which Sanders easily won.

But otherwise, I see R's saying Cruz won and D's saying Sanders won.

[Confused Democrat]

What were the real highlights of the debate?

I heard about the access/affordability bit, which Sanders easily won.

But otherwise, I see R's saying Cruz won and D's saying Sanders won.

I think Sanders won overall.

Cruz just puts me off in a really creepy way, and I can't see him winning a general after this performance. He comes off just as fake as HRC in my opinion.

[Shadows]

What were the real highlights of the debate?

I heard about the access/affordability bit, which Sanders easily won.

But otherwise, I see R's saying Cruz won and D's saying Sanders won.

Well it will be divided on ideological lines, I saw a poll in some site which was close with Sanders leading 54/44.

See the deal is Sanders defended ACA but went full throat-ed for Medicare for all while Cruz was for some free market solution & didn't commit to any of the mandates. So obviously GOP won't support Sanders' idea while Dems won't support Cruz's idea. So ideologically each person thinks their candidate is right & the other is wrong.

Also it was a fantastic issue wise debate, you should watch it. I give full credit to Cruz's debating style but he has to answer some questions to win it, he evaded all the Pre-existing & tough questions & doesn't answer anything.

Highlights - Cruz slandering Single payer in every major country with stray stories, but he did a good job (Sanders didn't respond well).

Sanders owning Cruz about being funded by billionaires & wanting to repeal estate tax to give 200B $ tax cut. Cruz tried to say it is for small business which was exposed by Sanders that it benefited 0.2%.

Another highlight was a Texas businesswomen saying her business can't grow beyond 49 people due to Obamacare mandate to provide health insurance for 50+.

Sanders said she should provide insurance when she gets to 50 employees because others are providing & she is gaining from unfair competition & decreasing prices by not providing health insurance. What happens if those employees have cancer or diabetes?

I prefer Sanders' honesty than Cruz evading questions & doubling the cost of Bernie's plan to make his point. Bernie's rebuttal on some of Cruz's criticisms (who brought many pages & dozens of stories on Single Payer) should have been better but Bernie chose to stick to ACA & how repealing it will hurt people!

[Shadows]

When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too.

Bill Clinton was not the core reason Democrats lost Congress from 1994 -> now. Not really surprising that you might think that, though. Things probably add together a lot better in your head if the Clintons are to blame.

Everyone has to take blame Virginia. Should the sitting President not take blame when his party loses a record number of seats in the House, Senate & Gov Chairs? Absolutely. Obama & Clinton both presided over massive losses (more than any GOP President recently). I also feel that if Bill Clinton had not signed NAFTA, repealed Glass Steagal, cut welfare, mandatory minimum, DOMA etc we would not see a strong Nader. Clinton had a strong financial position, an economic boom, big budget surplus, he could have governed more responsibly. And Clinton's "stuff" with Monica did depress Dem turnout & turned off some swing voters which allowed Bush to win. I think 2000 win would have been Gore's if Clinton had not screwed up - Ofcourse Gore has his faults (& he should take some blame) but when you have to run away from your President & be ashamed of him (like Mccain 2008 did) & your challenger talks about bringing dignity to the WH, then you have some problems.

What did Obama for America do - it was turned into a fund-raising machine? Did Obama do a solid job in building the DNC? pppointing Kaine, DWS, really? Hillary Clinton's unfavorables, scandals, lack of authenticity, inability to connect with people is what cost the WH & the Senate. You know damn well the Senate would have turned blue (& should have) & now there is no chance of that till 2020.

A SC justice was lost. And pray that Gorsuch is the last. What if (unfortunately/sadly) Ginsburg dies? Or the swing vote Kennedy retires? And their replacement is a Scalia type 50 year old.

The Supreme Court will be lost for generations - Say goodbye to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Clinton, Obama, DNC have to take some blame for that.

[Trapsy]

Jesus Christ why do people insist on relitigating the primary? Living in yesteryear does absolutely nothing to advance progressive causes.

Anyways, I thought they both did what they usually did well but like I expected, Cruz never addressed what would happen to people who got healthcare, and Bernie failed to clearly articulate how he's gonna pay for Medicare-for-all.

The Clintons set progressive causes back decades, so I'm damn interested in having them not have control of the party any more.

I think Clintons were toxic for Democrats, they couldn't shake of the skeletons but explain how it set progressive causes back?

Bill Clinton didn't attempt to move the country to the left the slightest after his first 2 years in office, and that 2 years included him getting a Democratic Congress to pass NAFTA. He has a long list of right-wing accomplishments, such as repealing Glass Steagal, telecommuncations deregulation, welfare reform, the Mickey Mouse copyright act, and numerous others. When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too. Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election was such a utter disgrace, with DOMA, V-chips, and being open to abortion limitations being what he ran on.

And in 2016, they had the party take down an actual progressive, talked to Trump right before he announced, had the media give extra coverage to Trump, and managed to out Dewey Tom Dewey in losing to Trump.

I don't think it's entirely fair to target Obama and the Clintons like that, because it ignores the underlying reason that neoliberalism/third way politics even developed and has sustained itself. Neoliberalism developed not only in the United States, but in virtually all other Western democracies as well at about the same time. It's not some conspiracy, there are legitimate reasons for why it occurred.

First, people today overlook the effects the 1960s had on dramatically reshaping our political discourses and affiliations. Take one particular Senator and notable presidential candidate as the example - Eugene McCarthy. This man was adored by the hippies and college students during the late 60s and early 70s for his vocal and principled opposition to the Vietnam War; it made him a liberal darling. Yet, what people don't know is how radically McCarthy broke with the norms of the Democratic Party and the traditional left on economic issues (while being considerably more liberal on social ones). He, along with many other anti-war Democrats of that era, championed the universal basic income as a way to scrap the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - an idea inspired, in part, by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (both ardent advocates of limited government and free-market capitalism). This was not their only break from Democratic orthodoxy either. In fact, McCarthy, that liberal darling, actually endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. These new styled liberals set the foundation for a new breed of Democrat - one detached from a political foundation in the labor movement, since the labor movement was strongly associated with the Democratic establishment that championed the Vietnam War and other policies antithetical to the views of the emerging college educated, socially liberal left.

That leads to the second point, which is that the labor movement was declining at the same time these new liberal (neoliberal) Democrats were emerging in opposition to the labor backed establishment. The peak of the labor movement was during the 1940s and peak unionization occurred in the 1950s, but since then union membership and, consequently, labor power began to decline. As it declined, this allowed a power vacuum within the Democratic Party to be filled by those neoliberals who were socially liberal and anti-war. They were associated strongly with college students, who largely became white collar workers (i.e. non-unionized) and eschewed the influence of the Vietnam War enabling labor movement, many of whose members began to break from the anti-war left within the Democratic Party (see: Nixon's Hard Hats, Reagan Democrats). Since the labor movement is what provided Democratic politicians with their mobilization abilities and campaign funds, these neoliberal obviously had to search for funding elsewhere. Thus, they turned to the private sector and, particularly, the financial industry which had recently become more favorable to the party thanks to the financial deregulations begun, not by Reagan, but by Carter.

By the 1980s, with more of these Vietnam War era Democrats entering elected office, the decline of the labor movement's power, the increasing success of the Southern Strategy, and the political dominance of Reagan and the Republican Party (in alliance with conservative, Southern Democrats), the Democrats began to discuss how to come back from the political wilderness, which led to the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC argued, in part thanks to the funding it and its supporters received from the financial industry, that the party should shift away from its affiliation with the left wing, economic populism of the previous decades that was driven by a dying labor movement, and instead embrace a new liberalism that coopted Republican economic rhetoric and policies while retaining liberal social views. By the 1988 and 1992, nearly all the top Democratic candidates for President were associated with the DLC and it's wing of the party, thereby driving a wedge between the economic left associated with the declining labor movement and the aspiring neoliberals who eventually gained control over the party and have held it since the Clinton Administration.

So, if the Democratic Party is to shift away from neoliberalism, it'll require a new base of financial support and a leadership that aligns with the interests of this base. The labor movement is no longer an option and the goal is to break from the financial industry, thus the only remaining options would be the emerging technology industry and/or popular political activism. Bernie Sanders demonstrated the strength of the latter option with his campaign's unprecedented ability to raise money without appealing to big money or unions, but rather to an energized base of supporters. We're watching this unfold before our eyes right now with the blueprint established by the Sanders campaign for the Progressive wing of the party to move away from reliance on big money, like the establishment wing does, and instead mobilize its progressive base.

This is a minor detail but if we want majorities in the house, we will need to recruit blue dog democrats. The so called people progressives can't stand. We lost them all in the tea party wave.

[Trapsy]

When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too.

Bill Clinton was not the core reason Democrats lost Congress from 1994 -> now. Not really surprising that you might think that, though. Things probably add together a lot better in your head if the Clintons are to blame.

Everyone has to take blame Virginia. Should the sitting President not take blame when his party loses a record number of seats in the House, Senate & Gov Chairs? Absolutely. Obama & Clinton both presided over massive losses (more than any GOP President recently). I also feel that if Bill Clinton had not signed NAFTA, repealed Glass Steagal, cut welfare, mandatory minimum, DOMA etc we would not see a strong Nader. Clinton had a strong financial position, an economic boom, big budget surplus, he could have governed more responsibly. And Clinton's "stuff" with Monica did depress Dem turnout & turned off some swing voters which allowed Bush to win. I think 2000 win would have been Gore's if Clinton had not screwed up - Ofcourse Gore has his faults (& he should take some blame) but when you have to run away from your President & be ashamed of him (like Mccain 2008 did) & your challenger talks about bringing dignity to the WH, then you have some problems.

What did Obama for America do - it was turned into a fund-raising machine? Did Obama do a solid job in building the DNC? pppointing Kaine, DWS, really? Hillary Clinton's unfavorables, scandals, lack of authenticity, inability to connect with people is what cost the WH & the Senate. You know damn well the Senate would have turned blue (& should have) & now there is no chance of that till 2020.

A SC justice was lost. And pray that Gorsuch is the last. What if (unfortunately/sadly) Ginsburg dies? Or the swing vote Kennedy retires? And their replacement is a Scalia type 50 year old.

The Supreme Court will be lost for generations - Say goodbye to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Clinton, Obama, DNC have to take some blame for that.

That's fair. We have to start fresh 2018 and eliminate Booker from 2020 or else will just restart the cycle. The main thing the progressives need to do is create alliances in order to achieve big goals.

[Shadows]

Jesus Christ why do people insist on relitigating the primary? Living in yesteryear does absolutely nothing to advance progressive causes.

Anyways, I thought they both did what they usually did well but like I expected, Cruz never addressed what would happen to people who got healthcare, and Bernie failed to clearly articulate how he's gonna pay for Medicare-for-all.

The Clintons set progressive causes back decades, so I'm damn interested in having them not have control of the party any more.

I think Clintons were toxic for Democrats, they couldn't shake of the skeletons but explain how it set progressive causes back?

Bill Clinton didn't attempt to move the country to the left the slightest after his first 2 years in office, and that 2 years included him getting a Democratic Congress to pass NAFTA. He has a long list of right-wing accomplishments, such as repealing Glass Steagal, telecommuncations deregulation, welfare reform, the Mickey Mouse copyright act, and numerous others. When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too. Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election was such a utter disgrace, with DOMA, V-chips, and being open to abortion limitations being what he ran on.

And in 2016, they had the party take down an actual progressive, talked to Trump right before he announced, had the media give extra coverage to Trump, and managed to out Dewey Tom Dewey in losing to Trump.

I don't think it's entirely fair to target Obama and the Clintons like that, because it ignores the underlying reason that neoliberalism/third way politics even developed and has sustained itself. Neoliberalism developed not only in the United States, but in virtually all other Western democracies as well at about the same time. It's not some conspiracy, there are legitimate reasons for why it occurred.

First, people today overlook the effects the 1960s had on dramatically reshaping our political discourses and affiliations. Take one particular Senator and notable presidential candidate as the example - Eugene McCarthy. This man was adored by the hippies and college students during the late 60s and early 70s for his vocal and principled opposition to the Vietnam War; it made him a liberal darling. Yet, what people don't know is how radically McCarthy broke with the norms of the Democratic Party and the traditional left on economic issues (while being considerably more liberal on social ones). He, along with many other anti-war Democrats of that era, championed the universal basic income as a way to scrap the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - an idea inspired, in part, by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (both ardent advocates of limited government and free-market capitalism). This was not their only break from Democratic orthodoxy either. In fact, McCarthy, that liberal darling, actually endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. These new styled liberals set the foundation for a new breed of Democrat - one detached from a political foundation in the labor movement, since the labor movement was strongly associated with the Democratic establishment that championed the Vietnam War and other policies antithetical to the views of the emerging college educated, socially liberal left.

That leads to the second point, which is that the labor movement was declining at the same time these new liberal (neoliberal) Democrats were emerging in opposition to the labor backed establishment. The peak of the labor movement was during the 1940s and peak unionization occurred in the 1950s, but since then union membership and, consequently, labor power began to decline. As it declined, this allowed a power vacuum within the Democratic Party to be filled by those neoliberals who were socially liberal and anti-war. They were associated strongly with college students, who largely became white collar workers (i.e. non-unionized) and eschewed the influence of the Vietnam War enabling labor movement, many of whose members began to break from the anti-war left within the Democratic Party (see: Nixon's Hard Hats, Reagan Democrats). Since the labor movement is what provided Democratic politicians with their mobilization abilities and campaign funds, these neoliberal obviously had to search for funding elsewhere. Thus, they turned to the private sector and, particularly, the financial industry which had recently become more favorable to the party thanks to the financial deregulations begun, not by Reagan, but by Carter.

By the 1980s, with more of these Vietnam War era Democrats entering elected office, the decline of the labor movement's power, the increasing success of the Southern Strategy, and the political dominance of Reagan and the Republican Party (in alliance with conservative, Southern Democrats), the Democrats began to discuss how to come back from the political wilderness, which led to the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC argued, in part thanks to the funding it and its supporters received from the financial industry, that the party should shift away from its affiliation with the left wing, economic populism of the previous decades that was driven by a dying labor movement, and instead embrace a new liberalism that coopted Republican economic rhetoric and policies while retaining liberal social views. By the 1988 and 1992, nearly all the top Democratic candidates for President were associated with the DLC and it's wing of the party, thereby driving a wedge between the economic left associated with the declining labor movement and the aspiring neoliberals who eventually gained control over the party and have held it since the Clinton Administration.

So, if the Democratic Party is to shift away from neoliberalism, it'll require a new base of financial support and a leadership that aligns with the interests of this base. The labor movement is no longer an option and the goal is to break from the financial industry, thus the only remaining options would be the emerging technology industry and/or popular political activism. Bernie Sanders demonstrated the strength of the latter option with his campaign's unprecedented ability to raise money without appealing to big money or unions, but rather to an energized base of supporters. We're watching this unfold before our eyes right now with the blueprint established by the Sanders campaign for the Progressive wing of the party to move away from reliance on big money, like the establishment wing does, and instead mobilize its progressive base.

This is a minor detail but if we want majorities in the house, we will need to recruit blue dog democrats. The so called people progressives can't stand. We lost them all in the tea party wave.

The opposite happened actually. In 2008, Congressional Progressive Caucus has 79 or 80 seats & lost only 3 seats in 2010 in the Tea party wave (amidst a Dem collapse).

The Blue Dogs had 54 in 2008 & collapsed to 18 (lost 26 seats in 2010).

So in the tea party wave Blue dogs were wiped off while progressives were barely touched !

[Crumpets]

Jesus Christ why do people insist on relitigating the primary? Living in yesteryear does absolutely nothing to advance progressive causes.

Anyways, I thought they both did what they usually did well but like I expected, Cruz never addressed what would happen to people who got healthcare, and Bernie failed to clearly articulate how he's gonna pay for Medicare-for-all.

The Clintons set progressive causes back decades, so I'm damn interested in having them not have control of the party any more.

I think Clintons were toxic for Democrats, they couldn't shake of the skeletons but explain how it set progressive causes back?

Bill Clinton didn't attempt to move the country to the left the slightest after his first 2 years in office, and that 2 years included him getting a Democratic Congress to pass NAFTA. He has a long list of right-wing accomplishments, such as repealing Glass Steagal, telecommuncations deregulation, welfare reform, the Mickey Mouse copyright act, and numerous others. When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too. Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election was such a utter disgrace, with DOMA, V-chips, and being open to abortion limitations being what he ran on.

And in 2016, they had the party take down an actual progressive, talked to Trump right before he announced, had the media give extra coverage to Trump, and managed to out Dewey Tom Dewey in losing to Trump.

I don't think it's entirely fair to target Obama and the Clintons like that, because it ignores the underlying reason that neoliberalism/third way politics even developed and has sustained itself. Neoliberalism developed not only in the United States, but in virtually all other Western democracies as well at about the same time. It's not some conspiracy, there are legitimate reasons for why it occurred.

First, people today overlook the effects the 1960s had on dramatically reshaping our political discourses and affiliations. Take one particular Senator and notable presidential candidate as the example - Eugene McCarthy. This man was adored by the hippies and college students during the late 60s and early 70s for his vocal and principled opposition to the Vietnam War; it made him a liberal darling. Yet, what people don't know is how radically McCarthy broke with the norms of the Democratic Party and the traditional left on economic issues (while being considerably more liberal on social ones). He, along with many other anti-war Democrats of that era, championed the universal basic income as a way to scrap the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - an idea inspired, in part, by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (both ardent advocates of limited government and free-market capitalism). This was not their only break from Democratic orthodoxy either. In fact, McCarthy, that liberal darling, actually endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. These new styled liberals set the foundation for a new breed of Democrat - one detached from a political foundation in the labor movement, since the labor movement was strongly associated with the Democratic establishment that championed the Vietnam War and other policies antithetical to the views of the emerging college educated, socially liberal left.

That leads to the second point, which is that the labor movement was declining at the same time these new liberal (neoliberal) Democrats were emerging in opposition to the labor backed establishment. The peak of the labor movement was during the 1940s and peak unionization occurred in the 1950s, but since then union membership and, consequently, labor power began to decline. As it declined, this allowed a power vacuum within the Democratic Party to be filled by those neoliberals who were socially liberal and anti-war. They were associated strongly with college students, who largely became white collar workers (i.e. non-unionized) and eschewed the influence of the Vietnam War enabling labor movement, many of whose members began to break from the anti-war left within the Democratic Party (see: Nixon's Hard Hats, Reagan Democrats). Since the labor movement is what provided Democratic politicians with their mobilization abilities and campaign funds, these neoliberal obviously had to search for funding elsewhere. Thus, they turned to the private sector and, particularly, the financial industry which had recently become more favorable to the party thanks to the financial deregulations begun, not by Reagan, but by Carter.

By the 1980s, with more of these Vietnam War era Democrats entering elected office, the decline of the labor movement's power, the increasing success of the Southern Strategy, and the political dominance of Reagan and the Republican Party (in alliance with conservative, Southern Democrats), the Democrats began to discuss how to come back from the political wilderness, which led to the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC argued, in part thanks to the funding it and its supporters received from the financial industry, that the party should shift away from its affiliation with the left wing, economic populism of the previous decades that was driven by a dying labor movement, and instead embrace a new liberalism that coopted Republican economic rhetoric and policies while retaining liberal social views. By the 1988 and 1992, nearly all the top Democratic candidates for President were associated with the DLC and it's wing of the party, thereby driving a wedge between the economic left associated with the declining labor movement and the aspiring neoliberals who eventually gained control over the party and have held it since the Clinton Administration.

So, if the Democratic Party is to shift away from neoliberalism, it'll require a new base of financial support and a leadership that aligns with the interests of this base. The labor movement is no longer an option and the goal is to break from the financial industry, thus the only remaining options would be the emerging technology industry and/or popular political activism. Bernie Sanders demonstrated the strength of the latter option with his campaign's unprecedented ability to raise money without appealing to big money or unions, but rather to an energized base of supporters. We're watching this unfold before our eyes right now with the blueprint established by the Sanders campaign for the Progressive wing of the party to move away from reliance on big money, like the establishment wing does, and instead mobilize its progressive base.

This is a minor detail but if we want majorities in the house, we will need to recruit blue dog democrats. The so called people progressives can't stand. We lost them all in the tea party wave.

The opposite happened actually. In 2008, Congressional Progressive Caucus has 79 or 80 seats & lost only 3 seats in 2010 in the Tea party wave (amidst a Dem collapse).

The Blue Dogs had 54 in 2008 & collapsed to 18 (lost 26 seats in 2010).

So in the tea party wave Blue dogs were wiped off while progressives were barely touched !

So, for a hypothetical, if Travis Childers had been a true left progressive, do you think he would have done better or worse in his re-election effort in MS-1, an R+14 district?

[justfollowingtheelections]

I didn't watch it because I returned home from work really late, but I saw a few minutes of it and it was far more civilized than the presidential debates.  I do think we should be seeing more debates like these and not just before elections.

[Shadows]

Jesus Christ why do people insist on relitigating the primary? Living in yesteryear does absolutely nothing to advance progressive causes.

Anyways, I thought they both did what they usually did well but like I expected, Cruz never addressed what would happen to people who got healthcare, and Bernie failed to clearly articulate how he's gonna pay for Medicare-for-all.

The Clintons set progressive causes back decades, so I'm damn interested in having them not have control of the party any more.

I think Clintons were toxic for Democrats, they couldn't shake of the skeletons but explain how it set progressive causes back?

Bill Clinton didn't attempt to move the country to the left the slightest after his first 2 years in office, and that 2 years included him getting a Democratic Congress to pass NAFTA. He has a long list of right-wing accomplishments, such as repealing Glass Steagal, telecommuncations deregulation, welfare reform, the Mickey Mouse copyright act, and numerous others. When he took office, the Democrats had had the House for 38 years. In the over 22 years since he lost it 2 years later, they've had it just 4 years. The party has had huge losses in state and local governments since then, too. Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election was such a utter disgrace, with DOMA, V-chips, and being open to abortion limitations being what he ran on.

And in 2016, they had the party take down an actual progressive, talked to Trump right before he announced, had the media give extra coverage to Trump, and managed to out Dewey Tom Dewey in losing to Trump.

I don't think it's entirely fair to target Obama and the Clintons like that, because it ignores the underlying reason that neoliberalism/third way politics even developed and has sustained itself. Neoliberalism developed not only in the United States, but in virtually all other Western democracies as well at about the same time. It's not some conspiracy, there are legitimate reasons for why it occurred.

First, people today overlook the effects the 1960s had on dramatically reshaping our political discourses and affiliations. Take one particular Senator and notable presidential candidate as the example - Eugene McCarthy. This man was adored by the hippies and college students during the late 60s and early 70s for his vocal and principled opposition to the Vietnam War; it made him a liberal darling. Yet, what people don't know is how radically McCarthy broke with the norms of the Democratic Party and the traditional left on economic issues (while being considerably more liberal on social ones). He, along with many other anti-war Democrats of that era, championed the universal basic income as a way to scrap the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - an idea inspired, in part, by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (both ardent advocates of limited government and free-market capitalism). This was not their only break from Democratic orthodoxy either. In fact, McCarthy, that liberal darling, actually endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980. These new styled liberals set the foundation for a new breed of Democrat - one detached from a political foundation in the labor movement, since the labor movement was strongly associated with the Democratic establishment that championed the Vietnam War and other policies antithetical to the views of the emerging college educated, socially liberal left.

That leads to the second point, which is that the labor movement was declining at the same time these new liberal (neoliberal) Democrats were emerging in opposition to the labor backed establishment. The peak of the labor movement was during the 1940s and peak unionization occurred in the 1950s, but since then union membership and, consequently, labor power began to decline. As it declined, this allowed a power vacuum within the Democratic Party to be filled by those neoliberals who were socially liberal and anti-war. They were associated strongly with college students, who largely became white collar workers (i.e. non-unionized) and eschewed the influence of the Vietnam War enabling labor movement, many of whose members began to break from the anti-war left within the Democratic Party (see: Nixon's Hard Hats, Reagan Democrats). Since the labor movement is what provided Democratic politicians with their mobilization abilities and campaign funds, these neoliberal obviously had to search for funding elsewhere. Thus, they turned to the private sector and, particularly, the financial industry which had recently become more favorable to the party thanks to the financial deregulations begun, not by Reagan, but by Carter.

By the 1980s, with more of these Vietnam War era Democrats entering elected office, the decline of the labor movement's power, the increasing success of the Southern Strategy, and the political dominance of Reagan and the Republican Party (in alliance with conservative, Southern Democrats), the Democrats began to discuss how to come back from the political wilderness, which led to the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC argued, in part thanks to the funding it and its supporters received from the financial industry, that the party should shift away from its affiliation with the left wing, economic populism of the previous decades that was driven by a dying labor movement, and instead embrace a new liberalism that coopted Republican economic rhetoric and policies while retaining liberal social views. By the 1988 and 1992, nearly all the top Democratic candidates for President were associated with the DLC and it's wing of the party, thereby driving a wedge between the economic left associated with the declining labor movement and the aspiring neoliberals who eventually gained control over the party and have held it since the Clinton Administration.

So, if the Democratic Party is to shift away from neoliberalism, it'll require a new base of financial support and a leadership that aligns with the interests of this base. The labor movement is no longer an option and the goal is to break from the financial industry, thus the only remaining options would be the emerging technology industry and/or popular political activism. Bernie Sanders demonstrated the strength of the latter option with his campaign's unprecedented ability to raise money without appealing to big money or unions, but rather to an energized base of supporters. We're watching this unfold before our eyes right now with the blueprint established by the Sanders campaign for the Progressive wing of the party to move away from reliance on big money, like the establishment wing does, and instead mobilize its progressive base.

This is a minor detail but if we want majorities in the house, we will need to recruit blue dog democrats. The so called people progressives can't stand. We lost them all in the tea party wave.

The opposite happened actually. In 2008, Congressional Progressive Caucus has 79 or 80 seats & lost only 3 seats in 2010 in the Tea party wave (amidst a Dem collapse).

The Blue Dogs had 54 in 2008 & collapsed to 18 (lost 26 seats in 2010).

So in the tea party wave Blue dogs were wiped off while progressives were barely touched !

So, for a hypothetical, if Travis Childers had been a true left progressive, do you think he would have done better or worse in his re-election effort in MS-1, an R+14 district?

Would have possibly lost! Who knows!

I mean it centrist politicians would have been a win, then Hillary would have been POTUS now not an extremist like Trump. Trump won Independents & more Dems than what GOP votes Hillary got!

[NeverAgain]

That debate was stupid. I want 90 minutes of my life back. I literally learned/gained nothing. God, I hate slime.

[Blue3]

What were the real highlights of the debate?

I heard about the access/affordability bit, which Sanders easily won.

But otherwise, I see R's saying Cruz won and D's saying Sanders won.

Well it will be divided on ideological lines, I saw a poll in some site which was close with Sanders leading 54/44.

See the deal is Sanders defended ACA but went full throat-ed for Medicare for all while Cruz was for some free market solution & didn't commit to any of the mandates. So obviously GOP won't support Sanders' idea while Dems won't support Cruz's idea. So ideologically each person thinks their candidate is right & the other is wrong.

Also it was a fantastic issue wise debate, you should watch it. I give full credit to Cruz's debating style but he has to answer some questions to win it, he evaded all the Pre-existing & tough questions & doesn't answer anything.

Highlights - Cruz slandering Single payer in every major country with stray stories, but he did a good job (Sanders didn't respond well).

Sanders owning Cruz about being funded by billionaires & wanting to repeal estate tax to give 200B $ tax cut. Cruz tried to say it is for small business which was exposed by Sanders that it benefited 0.2%.

Another highlight was a Texas businesswomen saying her business can't grow beyond 49 people due to Obamacare mandate to provide health insurance for 50+.

Sanders said she should provide insurance when she gets to 50 employees because others are providing & she is gaining from unfair competition & decreasing prices by not providing health insurance. What happens if those employees have cancer or diabetes?

I prefer Sanders' honesty than Cruz evading questions & doubling the cost of Bernie's plan to make his point. Bernie's rebuttal on some of Cruz's criticisms (who brought many pages & dozens of stories on Single Payer) should have been better but Bernie chose to stick to ACA & how repealing it will hurt people!

Thanks for the highlights!

[Fight for Trump]

What is this gerrymandered 25-54 demo...

[Virginiá]

Bill Clinton was not the core reason Democrats lost Congress from 1994 -> now. Not really surprising that you might think that, though. Things probably add together a lot better in your head if the Clintons are to blame.

Everyone has to take blame Virginia. Should the sitting President not take blame when his party loses a record number of seats in the House, Senate & Gov Chairs? Absolutely. Obama & Clinton both presided over massive losses (more than any GOP President recently).

Political trends set in motion long before Bill Clinton took office were mostly responsible, but you could definitely argue Clinton was the catalyst for the emerging GOP majority. My point is, the GOP takeover was coming regardless of who was in office. Maybe a different Democrat could have slightly delayed it, but that's all, imo. As for Obama - come on, Democrats were wayyy overextended in 2010. We picked up many R+ seats and once Obama began sucking up all that negative attention, during a recession no doubt, the people turned on him and reverted to their previous habits. However, I think it is undeniable Obama resulted in more damage than normal, particularly due to that anti-Dem wave coming in a redistricting year, but it's not as bad as people like to claim.

I just don't like people trying to justify their ideological views (eg neoliberal DLCers cost us everything!) by trying to blame large long-term election losses solely on the president in power at the time, simply because that particular president embodied the policies that person hates. It oversimplifies a much more complex issue and unfairly blames someone who wasn't nearly as responsible as they are made out to be.

And finally, in Bill Clinton's defense - data shows people who grew up during the Clinton presidency have tended to vote much more Democratic than the average, similar to Obama's influence. The president in power when a person comes of age tends to influence that person's partisan leanings quite a bit. Whatever you think of Bill, his popularity helped stabilize Democratic support and laid the foundation for the huge majority we are building with voters 45 years and younger.

I also feel that if Bill Clinton had not signed NAFTA, repealed Glass Steagal, cut welfare, mandatory minimum, DOMA etc we would not see a strong Nader. Clinton had a strong financial position, an economic boom, big budget surplus, he could have governed more responsibly. And Clinton's "stuff" with Monica did depress Dem turnout & turned off some swing voters which allowed Bush to win. I think 2000 win would have been Gore's if Clinton had not screwed up - Ofcourse Gore has his faults (& he should take some blame) but when you have to run away from your President & be ashamed of him (like Mccain 2008 did) & your challenger talks about bringing dignity to the WH, then you have some problems.

Ok, yes. I won't deny this. I believe things would have been better politically (not sure economically) in the long run had he not signed NAFTA and unfair criminal justice "reform," as well as not having the Lewinsky affair. Maybe we wouldn't have had a Nader, but even if we didn't, there is no guarantee Gore would have won. The dynamics of the race shift if you remove all those things Clinton did. But, Gore would probably have had a better shot, yes. Of course maybe we'd have also had a better shot if someone as dull as Gore didn't run.

What did Obama for America do - it was turned into a fund-raising machine? Did Obama do a solid job in building the DNC? pppointing Kaine, DWS, really? Hillary Clinton's unfavorables, scandals, lack of authenticity, inability to connect with people is what cost the WH & the Senate. You know damn well the Senate would have turned blue (& should have) & now there is no chance of that till 2020.

One thing I've always resented from Obama is his neglect of the party. He should have tossed DWS in 2013, and apparently he even wanted to, but she threatened to make it ugly and he just punted it to the next Democratic presidential nominee so it wouldn't hurt his popularity. DWS then ended up hurting Clinton badly with the left. Obama appointed a Republican FBI director in some quixotic appeal to Republicans, a man whose reckless behavior arguably destroyed Clinton's electoral prospects (not to absolve of her own bad decisions, but Comey's press conf and his letters definitely hurt her bad at the worst times) Thanks Obama!

So while Obama's indifference to the party and the harm it caused irks me quite a bit, I also keep in mind that Obama's large popularity among Millennials has helped Democrats lock in a decade's worth of voters - probably for a long time. His long-term impact will probably be a large net positive in that regard.

The Supreme Court will be lost for generations - Say goodbye to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Clinton, Obama, DNC have to take some blame for that.

Not generations. Let's say Kennedy resigns, and that gives them a secure 5-4 conservative majority. Thomas and Alito will probably retire or pass away in the next 15 years or less. That will open up 2 conservative seats. We just have to hope all 4 liberals can stay on the bench until 2021, and hope we take back the White House. If all that happens, we could have a good chance at retaking the court sooner than people think.

[Shadows]

Bill Clinton was not the core reason Democrats lost Congress from 1994 -> now. Not really surprising that you might think that, though. Things probably add together a lot better in your head if the Clintons are to blame.

Everyone has to take blame Virginia. Should the sitting President not take blame when his party loses a record number of seats in the House, Senate & Gov Chairs? Absolutely. Obama & Clinton both presided over massive losses (more than any GOP President recently).

Political trends set in motion long before Bill Clinton took office were mostly responsible, but you could definitely argue Clinton was the catalyst for the emerging GOP majority. My point is, the GOP takeover was coming regardless of who was in office. Maybe a different Democrat could have slightly delayed it, but that's all, imo. As for Obama - come on, Democrats were wayyy overextended in 2010. We picked up many R+ seats and once Obama began sucking up all that negative attention, during a recession no doubt, the people turned on him and reverted to their previous habits. However, I think it is undeniable Obama resulted in more damage than normal, particularly due to that anti-Dem wave coming in a redistricting year, but it's not as bad as people like to claim.

I just don't like people trying to justify their ideological views (eg neoliberal DLCers cost us everything!) by trying to blame large long-term election losses solely on the president in power at the time, simply because that particular president embodied the policies that person hates. It oversimplifies a much more complex issue and unfairly blames someone who wasn't nearly as responsible as they are made out to be.

And finally, in Bill Clinton's defense - data shows people who grew up during the Clinton presidency have tended to vote much more Democratic than the average, similar to Obama's influence. The president in power when a person comes of age tends to influence that person's partisan leanings quite a bit. Whatever you think of Bill, his popularity helped stabilize Democratic support and laid the foundation for the huge majority we are building with voters 45 years and younger.

I also feel that if Bill Clinton had not signed NAFTA, repealed Glass Steagal, cut welfare, mandatory minimum, DOMA etc we would not see a strong Nader. Clinton had a strong financial position, an economic boom, big budget surplus, he could have governed more responsibly. And Clinton's "stuff" with Monica did depress Dem turnout & turned off some swing voters which allowed Bush to win. I think 2000 win would have been Gore's if Clinton had not screwed up - Ofcourse Gore has his faults (& he should take some blame) but when you have to run away from your President & be ashamed of him (like Mccain 2008 did) & your challenger talks about bringing dignity to the WH, then you have some problems.

Ok, yes. I won't deny this. I believe things would have been better politically (not sure economically) in the long run had he not signed NAFTA and unfair criminal justice "reform," as well as not having the Lewinsky affair. Maybe we wouldn't have had a Nader, but even if we didn't, there is no guarantee Gore would have won. The dynamics of the race shift if you remove all those things Clinton did. But, Gore would probably have had a better shot, yes. Of course maybe we'd have also had a better shot if someone as dull as Gore didn't run.

What did Obama for America do - it was turned into a fund-raising machine? Did Obama do a solid job in building the DNC? pppointing Kaine, DWS, really? Hillary Clinton's unfavorables, scandals, lack of authenticity, inability to connect with people is what cost the WH & the Senate. You know damn well the Senate would have turned blue (& should have) & now there is no chance of that till 2020.

One thing I've always resented from Obama is his neglect of the party. He should have tossed DWS in 2013, and apparently he even wanted to, but she threatened to make it ugly and he just punted it to the next Democratic presidential nominee so it wouldn't hurt his popularity. DWS then ended up hurting Clinton badly with the left. Obama appointed a Republican FBI director in some quixotic appeal to Republicans, a man whose reckless behavior arguably destroyed Clinton's electoral prospects (not to absolve of her own bad decisions, but Comey's press conf and his letters definitely hurt her bad at the worst times) Thanks Obama!

So while Obama's indifference to the party and the harm it caused irks me quite a bit, I also keep in mind that Obama's large popularity among Millennials has helped Democrats lock in a decade's worth of voters - probably for a long time. His long-term impact will probably be a large net positive in that regard.

The Supreme Court will be lost for generations - Say goodbye to gay marriage, abortion, etc. Clinton, Obama, DNC have to take some blame for that.

Not generations. Let's say Kennedy resigns, and that gives them a secure 5-4 conservative majority. Thomas and Alito will probably retire or pass away in the next 15 years or less. That will open up 2 conservative seats. We just have to hope all 4 liberals can stay on the bench until 2021, and hope we take back the White House. If all that happens, we could have a good chance at retaking the court sooner than people think.

Losing the Senate or the House in a mid-term is not an issue. But losing badly is a big issue. Even worse is continuing to lose. Clinton lost more House, Senate etc seats than any POTUS in recent history (bar Obama who beat him in losing).

How many young voters in the 90's are passionate about Clinton who have not been a part of Admin/DNC/Foundation etc? Not a lot. Has he inspired a generation? No. In many ways people have moved left because of a cultural shift, Internet & a host of complex factors & not Clinton. Gay marriage which was unthinkable, is now universally acceptable among young people. Look if Clinton brought a whole set of voters into the Dems which stayed solidly blue for years then AZ, WV & a host of other states wouldn't be so red as of now. I think his impact on young voters is exaggerated.

I give Clinton full credit for a fair job in a range of issues - SC Justices, Budget balancing, Tax on wealthy, Internet boom, etc. Clinton did well to get a Dem President in after 12 years of ultra conservative GOP President.

As for Obama, he did inspire a generation of young people but after 2008 he did nothing with them. I believe Bernie's primary numbers, donations among young people were better than Obama in the primary & he could have been an even stronger candidate for young people (especially considering he doesn't have the 1st Black Potus thing which lopsides support among 30% of the Dem base including young blacks).

But all these people who came with Obama, didn't vote in the mid-terms or get involved in politics, or stay focused on the issues. I think Bernie has done a lot in that respect - Inspired a generation to get their hands dirty & change politics. I know many people who are running or are attending DNC Meetings. Obama for America went from a engagement tool for young people & new guys to a fundraising initiative which is crazy. And in 2008 any Republican would have lost in a landslide. Obama got over Romney by 4% (Clinton beat Trump by 2%). This was after massive increase in hispanic population & the GOP alienating the young vote on social issues (compared to 90's or 2000).

DNC
I just saw a Ray Buckley Interview with TYT Politics (NH Chair, Current DNC Vice Chair & candidate for DNC Chair). He has no idea about the budget. None of the DNC Vice Chair's apparently have any say in debate for Primaries. They get little of the budget for the state & there is almost no funding for young Dems. There are lobbyists & consultants who have contracts with DNC who make huge money off the DNC & these are voting DNC Members.

There are only 2 DNC serious meetings a year. The guy said he has no idea about the Joint Fund-raising thing with Hillary & he would object now for something like this in the future (says State parties barely got anything with that thing).

The huge money Spend on Negative ads for Hillary (1.4B total spend) could have been partly better utilized to get Feingold, Ross, Mcginty etc through & we could have a blue senate knocking down SC justices & stupid Trump nominees.

The DNC is an absolute mess & Obama has to take huge responsibility. But so should Clinton who got her Campaign Chair, DWS elected there & did this absurdity of 400 Supers before even Biden, the VP could announce a run or not. Clinton in many ways has been part of the machine with an iron-hold on the DNC & is part of all this corruption. I think DNC under her would be even more corrupt with less accountability, unclear, weird fund-raiding arrangements etc. The DNC needs major reform !

15 years is a long time. Ginsburg is 83 & has survived cancer more than once. People should be praying she hangs on for 4 more years. It is now upto fate now which is crazy when you run vs Trump  (sexual assault, stupid tweets every other day etc)

[Virginiá]

How many young voters in the 90's are passionate about Clinton who have not been a part of Admin/DNC/Foundation etc? Not a lot. Has he inspired a generation? No.

It's not that this good/bad presidential effect necessarily makes them passionate about that person or even inspired. It's that a president who is viewed very favorably or very poorly tends to positively or negatively impact the party of that president, and when people are young, these perceptions can have noticeable political effects if the president is in office a long time, thus influencing more people. There is enough proof, imo, to show that this is a real thing and you can see it by looking at how various age groups vote over decades. Part of this also applies to how Americans make decisions downballot. In midterms of the past generation at least, opinions/approval of the president have been shown to be arguably the most important decision in state legislative races. People often know little about those races or other parts of the party, and extend their view of who they see as the leader of the party to those elections.

This is where I don't think Bill gets enough credit. He was very popular back then. It was a different time, and what people supported was not always in line with what people support today.

Look if Clinton brought a whole set of voters into the Dems which stayed solidly blue for years then AZ, WV & a host of other states wouldn't be so red as of now. I think his impact on young voters is exaggerated.

Not all young people end up voting the same way everywhere, and unique local issues can exert overwhelming pressure on a person's voting habits. For instance, even while Obama won 60% (nationally) of 18-29 year olds in 2012, he only won 46% in Indiana.

The young people who grew up during Bill's better years (generally 1995-2000 was his most influential in this regard) have almost always leaned more Democratic. In 2008, where they were beginning to take over the age 30-39 bloc, that bloc was Obama's 2nd best. In 2012, he did far better (55-42), when they occupied almost the entire bloc. In 2016, the election year marking the shift of some Bill Clinton youth into the 40-44 age bracket, the 30-44 bracket as a whole shifted markedly less Republican. This all corresponds to the movement of those voters up the food chain. They don't seem as Democratic as youth under Obama, but still substantially so.

Some reading:
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/larrybartels/files/2011/12/LMBJackman.pdf
http://ippsr.msu.edu/research/age-race-party-and-ideology-generational-imprinting-during-obama-presidency
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

[ProgressiveCanadian]

More debates are a good thing, however CNN's unwillingness to challenge Cruz on obvious lies throughout that debate were cringe worthy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just finished watching it, it was awesome. God how I wish they were the nominees of their parties.

[7,052,770]

It was a good debate, and it was refreshing to see one focused on issues instead of name-calling, but they really should have picked someone other than Bernie to do it. I get why they did -- ratings and all that -- but it was marketed as a debate on Obamacare, and the "pro" side needed a more passionate defender rather than someone who had the attitude of "yeah, it kinda sucks compared to single payer, but it's better than nothing!" Bernie completely whiffed on several points that someone who truly believed in the ACA would have made:

• The biggest WTF moment was when Bernie just declined the chance to defend the Individual Mandate and even tacitly agreed with Cruz that it should be repealed (!?!). Without the Individual Mandate, premiums would rise 10%-20% (this has been calculated by many different economists and think tanks across the political spectrum, and I'm even ignoring Jonathan Gruber's number of 27%). If you think premiums are high now, wait and see what they'd be without the mandate.
• Bernie never called out Cruz for complaining about the required maternity coverage, which adds a few percentage points onto premiums but is an easy target that only applies to women. Why single out maternity? Why not cancer or heart disease or diabetes any other condition? Oh yeah, because those affect men too.
• Bernie never said that all of Cruz's numbers were without subsidies. When Cruz talks about huge premium increases that people have seen, he was referring to the rate without subsidies included, what people who make over 400% of the FPL have to pay on the Exchanges. The vast majority of people with on-Exchange coverage receive subsidies and never even know what their real premium is. As long as your income doesn't change and the insurance products offered on the Exchange don't change, your bill stays the same even if the "rate" increases by 500%.** And no doubt the ACA has inadvertently screwed over people who make 401% of the FPL and must pay the full cost, but that's something that could be fixed a lot more easily that scrapping the whole system for single payer.
• Bernie never pointed out that because Medicaid patients tend to be less healthy and have higher medical costs, states that don't expand Medicaid have these riskier members in their risk pool and thus premiums are higher. "Expanded Medicaid = Lower Obamacare premiums" should have been a point he made throughout the debate and he should have hammered Cruz and the Republicans (not all them, of course. John Kasich and Mike Pence (!) allowed Medicaid Expansion) for playing politics rather than proactively giving their states lower premiums.

I'm not really sure what Bernie should have said to the hairdresser. Perhaps the tax credits to help businesses with fewer than 25 employees pay for health insurance could be extended up to more employees. Or maybe they could exist for the first 25 employees of all businesses, regardless of size. Or maybe large employers should be allowed to send their low-income employees to Exchanges. But I thought he was needlessly blunt with her to just be like "well figure it out, you should have to pay."

Maybe in a few months if Republicans put together an alternative we could have another debate, but this time with Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar (or whoever wants to boost their 2020 profile) on the ACA side.

**The premium subsidy formula needs to be revamped. It's better than nothing, but it's too easy to manipulate. It's based on the second-cheapest silver plan offered to a person, but it doesn't take into account whether that's a bare-bones, narrow network silver plan with a $7,000 deductible, or a robust silver plan with a broad network and a $2,500 deductible. Those two products are going to have drastically different premiums, maybe over $100 for a 30-year-old, but the subsidy is based on whatever the second-cheapest one that exists. If you live in area where the former is offered, you're going to get a much lower subsidy for whatever you end up buying, compared to what you'd get if no insurer offers a product like that. That's an unreasonable system that leads to inconsistent bills from year to year, and it needs to be stabilized somehow. (Maybe by basing the premium off the "standard" silver plan at a "standard" network?) But this debate was probably not the setting to bring this up.

[Badger]

Good post Harry.

[Shadows]

Harry is right on some accounts & but I feel not every point made is correct.

For one, ACA price increase is happening in states where medicaid hasn't expanded isn't true. MN has had Medicaid expansion & massive ACA premium increase.

The subsidy isn't workable on the long term & when you are paying 18% of GDP, your economy will tank someday. The solution can't be government will subsidize any increase but let us also keep overall costs low. Plus a huge chunk of people won't be getting those subsides.

Secondly the individual mandate thing isn't really true. He did say you have to raise revenue but said points like older women & pregnancy & some other areas could be looked into. He never disavowed any mandate.

Bernie did defend vigorously the maternity coverage & blasted Republicans & Cruz for talking about family values but leaving out maternity coverage.

The debate on the whole was changed to Healthcare discussion in general I think. Perhaps Bernie should have done a better job in defending ACA but on the whole ACA is going to the bins & the time is start a movement for a Medicare for all !

[justfollowingtheelections]

Bernie was absolutely right in how he addressed the hairdresser.  I can understand if she was someone who had a small business that was struggling.  But when you have 5 stores you need to provide your employees with some security, even if it reduces your profits by a little bit.  Not having health insurance can be very stressful.

To address your other point, you're right that Bernie was not the best choice given that he's a very vocal advocate of a single payer system, but I don't think even Obama himself can offer a passionate defense of the ACA.