The Democratic Party Shot Itself on the Foot and will take Generations to Rebuild.

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | The Democratic Party Shot Itself on the Foot and will take Generations to Rebuild.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #307746

    xyzse
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,423
    @xyzse

    I am relatively young.  I just reached my 40th decade so I should, barring any craziness, have quite a few more election cycles to look forward to.  I am also not that anti-social, so I do know individuals as well as family members who have come to the same conclusion.  That the Democratic Party is unacceptable, out-of-touch, and will not help out at all except their cronies.  I WILL NOT call them their Donors any more, since honestly, that is not the full picture.

    Please note, that many who are younger than I who I have spoken to have considered not voting, to even voting for Trump out of spite due to feeling betrayed by the Democratic Party.  This is a direct relationship to the broken promise of Hope and Change that Obama has proven by his actions to be a lie.  The past two Presidential election cycles have disillusioned many of the young, as well as the minorities that they say they are for.  We have Trump because as Saagar Enjeti says, among many others “Let’s face it, everything got worse under Obama/Biden(link here)” and Obama blew his moment on the Economy(link here).

    The bottom-line here really, is that the Democrats, with their push for Biden and Hillary, has shown that they are out-of-touch, and unacceptable to many of the young.  Since these are the Future Voters, the DNC has courted the dying.  The DNC has now for two Presidential election cycles, alienated the young and the working class, who will be the majority of voters as their base dies off.

    The two election cycles, have proven how the DNC actually knows how to “Politic”.  That if they want to do something, they will and work hard towards it.  That has been proven with how they worked behind the scenes as well as with very overt and disgusting practices to undermine any actual progressive or populist candidate.  Not to mention just look at these folks, from Obama, Biden to Clinton, they will go to the Wall, Ride-or-Die for whatever their cronies want(I’ll explain why I use cronies rather than corporate donors later).

    Meaning, the Democrats can’t just demonize Republicans saying that “OH NO!!! We can’t do much since the Republicans are going crazy doing these”.  They are complicit.  The fact that they are not taking a stand, and taking the Republican positions, means that Republicans will move further to the Right of Crazy, just to differentiate themselves from Democrats.  Creating more and more inhumane policies, and worse conditions.

    Just look at the policies and ideas that Pelosi espouses right now.  It makes no sense.  From expanding COBRA which does not help when someone hasn’t had a job, or even opening the Health Care Exchanges, when NO ONE HAS MONEY.

    These out-of-touch rich folk, works in the assumption that providing access is enough, but never think about the cost.  Their “Affordable” is not affordable at all, unless you’re a multi-millionaire.  So when they come up with means-testing, their idea is to ensure that someone is at a point of no-return that they become essentially a ward of the state, with no recourse of advancing.  Not to mention, all these things does is inflate the cost of administration, and ensure that the ones that need the most help don’t get it at a timely manner.

    This is not a radical view.  More and more individuals see this.  More and more individuals have lost their faith that the Democratic Party is actually looking out to help them.  I keep saying, that voting is a habit.  Now that I was able to vote for a 3rd party candidate in the Presidential elections, it is much easier for me to do that now without guilt.  That is what the Democrats have lost on.  Voters who would feel some sort of loyalty towards the party.  Well, I guess that might be a good thing.

    Did you know, that some older black leaders had to write things about how many young black voters are going for Trump?  There are actually quite a few examples out there, and hell, I don’t blame them either.  That is who they support, and as long as they have a reasoned enough argument, I will not gainsay them.

    There is just so much I can do to convince people to vote.  I also will not defend corruption.  I won’t.  I can try to understand why they do such a thing, but only to a point.  I will not defend the corruption in Florida with lost ballots.  I will not defend how Obama underhandedly wheeled-and-dealed during this primaries to ensure everyone except Elizabeth Warren drop out before Super Tuesday.  Not to mention pressuring Bernie to drop out now and look like a hostage.

    Democrats have proved that they will play politics and work the system if they want something. This is for the cronies!

    Cronyism.  Politicians are not bound to donors.  Let’s be clear, most donors can only provide a limited amount for their elections.  $2,800 from an individual, etc., it really isn’t that much in the grand scheme of things.

    Recipient
    Candidate committee PAC† (SSF and nonconnected) Party committee: state/district/local Party committee: national Additional national party committee accounts‡
    Donor Individual $2,800* per election $5,000 per year $10,000 per year (combined) $35,500* per year $106,500* per account, per year
    Candidate committee $2,000 per election $5,000 per year Unlimited transfers Unlimited transfers
    PAC: multicandidate $5,000 per election $5,000 per year $5,000 per year (combined) $15,000 per year $45,000 per account, per year
    PAC: nonmulticandidate $2,800* per election $5,000 per year $10,000 per year (combined) $35,500* per year $106,500* per account, per year
    Party committee: state/district/local $5,000 per election (combined) $5,000 per year (combined) Unlimited transfers Unlimited transfers
    Party committee: national $5,000 per election** $5,000 per year Unlimited transfers Unlimited transfers

    The BIG Money, is in the contacts and jobs.  This goes to their families, and other business interests.  They have a very incestuous relationship, where just look at Chelsea and Hunter, they get jobs that pay an ungodly amount for something they are unqualified for, or do nothing for.

    That is where they actually make their money.  It goes around, so now they have a vested interest to help each other out, squeezing us tax payers for money, and rewarding their cronies with lowered taxes, etc.

    That is now what many see.  That the Democrats are party to that whole thing, and they are not even trying to help people at all.  Just themselves.

    So they use wedge issues to separate people in to various groups, just so that the people are divided.

    Either way, the Democrats have ensured that they have a dying base.  They will have a much steeper climb to get back in to power.

  • #307776

    Cold Mountain Trail
    Member
    • Total Posts: 8,126
    @coldmountaintrail
  • #307779

    Maedhros
    Member
    • Total Posts: 624
    @maedhros

    They need to go the way of the Whigs.

    His body recovered from his torment and became hale,
    but the shadow of his pain was in his heart;
    and he lived to wield his sword with left hand
    more deadly than his right had been.

  • #307783

    Mindwalker
    Member
    • Total Posts: 136
    @mindwalker

    It gives one the illusion that they have a voice when, in fact, they don’t.  That’s become very clear in the last two election cycles, and a lot of people just aren’t buying it any more.  $10 to help pelosi defeat a republican challenger?  There ISN’T one!  Hopefully nobody donates to preserve this shit sandwich they keep feeding us.

  • #307795

    B Calm
    Member
    • Total Posts: 799
    @bcalm

    Democratic party is no longer the party of working people!

  • #307808

    chknltl
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,005
    @chknltl

    In battle, where the soldier faces odds that looks to be fatal, he might shoot himself in the foot in order to be removed from the fight.

    If the Dems are in a fight, it is obvious they fight not for the citizens! What incentive do they have to remove themselves from the field of battle by shooting themselves in the foot?

    They won’t.

    Better the citizenry shoot them in the ass starting with this notion that the DNC, not the voters are allowed to pick the “democratic” nominee.

    How can the citizens trust these f#*kers? They do not represent us! Isn’t that how democracy works? Isn’t it up to us to show them the way, not the other way around?

    Until this changes, until our trust is earned, maybe even taken back by the citizenry, where the choice to pick our leaders, the Democratic Party will be little more than a corporate arm of capitalism run amuck.

  • #307909

    Betty Karlson
    Member
    • Total Posts: 438
    @bettykarlson

    The 1983 Labour Party manifesto was called “the longest suicide note in history”.

    The 2015 – 2020 DNC tactics will be called te longest suicide attempt in history.

     

    They are as braindead as Joe Biden.

  • #307911

    rampart
    Member
    • Total Posts: 534
    @rampart

    but instead of nominating better candidates, the democrats adopted the crazy economics, the insane plot to conquer the world, even the overt classism of the republicans. but remember who they really are.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/plunkett-george/tammany-hall/

    “reformers come, reformers go, but tammany hall will be here forever.” george plunkitt

  • #307994

    Electrolyte Orchestra
    Member
    • Total Posts: 281
    @electrolyteorchestra

    Republicans favor capital over labor. Dems used to favor labor over capital. Third Way decided the hoi polloi barely contribute, and many don’t even vote, so forget them. Let’s go get some of that money.

    20+ years later, its nothing but a party of lobbyists and consultants. I literally don’t agree with the establishment dems on a single thing.

    • #308007

      Populist Prole
      Donor
      • Total Posts: 406
      @populistprole

      That’s the situation in a nutshell.

      At first they at least half-ass figured they could do good things once they win elections, which they figured they needed corporate money to do so, but we all know “you can’t get a little pregnant”. They went from that, to “where else are you gonna’ go, suckers?” within one election cycle during Clinton’s first term.

       

       

  • #307999

    David the Gnome
    Member
    • Total Posts: 2,255
    @davidthegnome

    @ xyzse We probably do not have generations, my friend.  You and I are close in age – by the time our generation is where the baby boomers now are, we will be well into the nightmare.  I have tried everything, even flat out lying to myself, to deny this simple truth.  I have asked myself what I would say, if I could say it, to possible future generations – assuming that the various shortages and disasters caused by climate change leave generations alive.

    Someone on CNN did this, worth the read, I think

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/25/weather/climate-change-bill-weir-letter-to-son/index.html

  • #308004

    closeupready
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,177
    @closeupready

    Seems obvious to me.  AOC and Elizabeth Warren scrambling to change course and pull their punches against the crookedness of how things operate in DC … these people are pathetic.  But, they have done this to themselves.

    They want that money, more than they want the working people whom they represent to make government work better for them.  So they endorse Joe Biden, characterize themselves as ‘capitalists to my bones’, yak about “Russian meddling”, affirm their willingness – on camera – to run as Joe Biden’s VP.

    Laughable.

    The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

  • #308015

    Fasttense
    Member
    • Total Posts: 544
    @fasttense

    Will kill the corona virus will beat the Dem nominee in an election for president.

    What is wrong with this picture???????

    Anyone could beat Trump in an election except Biden. So who do the filthy rich pick for the Dem candidate?

    The filthy rich are very happy with Trump and that’s why the Dems are fronting the one man in the world who can lose to Trump.

  • #308030

    Ohio Barbarian
    Moderator
    • Total Posts: 12,879
    @ohiobarbarian

    .

    It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

    If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

  • #308065

    MizzGrizz
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,721
    @mizzgrizz

    ..if the Democratic Party were destroyed tomorrow.

  • #308066

    Jim Lane
    Member
    • Total Posts: 382
    @jimlane

    @xyzse

    The word “many” occurs six times in your post.  That, and the total absence of any polling data or the like, suggests to me that your conclusion is based on your conversations with family and friends, plus the odd YouTube video.

    There’ve been posts on JPR saying that published poll results are totally fraudulent, concocted to serve the interests of (insert name of entity manipulating public opinion).  Your post suggests to me that you agree with that assessment.

    You write that the Democrats “will have a much steeper climb to get back in to power.”  The most recent published polls give Biden a lead over Trump — a lead that includes winning enough swing states to be elected, but a lead that’s fairly small, with several months left to go, with the result that most mainstream analysts consider that the election could still go either way.  By contrast, there’ve been several posts on JPR stating that Biden’s defeat is absolutely inevitable.  Your post suggests to me that you agree with the latter view.

    Are my interpretations of your post correct?

    I add a personal note.  You write, “Their ‘Affordable’ is not affordable at all, unless you’re a multi-millionaire.”  At the time the Affordable Care Act was enacted, I was unemployed.  I was better off than many unemployed people, because I did have savings, but I was very far from being a millionaire, let alone multi.  Having no health insurance through work, I was able to buy coverage through the ACA exchanges.

    Then I got cancer.

    I have no idea what my treatment would have cost if I had had to pay for it out of pocket.  It probably would have bankrupted me — on the optimistic assumption that I would have been able to obtain the needed treatment at all.  The ACA is not Medicare for All and it did leave far too many people behind.  Shamefully, there are still people who suffer or even die because they can’t afford health care.  That’s why I favor scrapping the ACA in favor of Medicare for All.  Nevertheless, the ACA has helped some people.  I admit my bias in that I’m in that group (I’m now completely cancer-free).  It’s a mistake to dismiss the ACA completely.

     

    • #308072

      Betty Karlson
      Member
      • Total Posts: 438
      @bettykarlson

      with the source mentioned in an academically constituted appendix, you are going to assume that we get our information from friends, family, and Youtube?

       

      Thanks for setting out the terms of your engagement in the conversation.

      • #308090

        djean111
        Member
        • Total Posts: 3,777
        @djean111

        I am pretty sure that if someone had quoted their own personal experience with not being able to afford the ACA, that would have been met with statistics and the personal info would be dismissed.

        This is a technique where an attempt is made to derail a conversation by seizing on some small detail and mightily and condescendingly expounding on it.  I find all of this hilariously incomprehensible, because we have been sententiously assured that our “protest” votes are STATISTICALLY meaningless and won’t lead to anything.  So – drum roll – we should vote for the blue no matter who.   Also, yes, it is pointed out that there are posts holding somewhat opposite views about EVERYTHING here at JPR – this is not a fucking cult, and will never be won over to the vote blue side as a group, like, say, SV.   Must be frustrating to some.   I do wonder at all the assiduous attention.  Seems like an very odd waste of time, since no one is buying.  And there is a complete, IMO, disregard about what JPR cares about – issues and records.  Very DNC.

        And if Biden is so electable and will beat Trump, seems very strange that some are trying to shill votes for Biden.

        Love your posts, by the way.

        Anyone who asks, or thinks they can order me, to vote for a Democrat who is not Bernie can fuck off.

        Nope. If Bernie is not on the ballot, Green it is.

        • #308100

          Jim Lane
          Member
          • Total Posts: 382
          @jimlane

          @djean111

          What I actually wrote:

          The ACA is not Medicare for All and it did leave far too many people behind.  Shamefully, there are still people who suffer or even die because they can’t afford health care.  That’s why I favor scrapping the ACA in favor of Medicare for All.

          Your version:

          I am pretty sure that if someone had quoted their own personal experience with not being able to afford the ACA, that would have been met with statistics and the personal info would be dismissed.

          You were “pretty sure”, were you?  Well, you were wrong.

      • #308098

        Jim Lane
        Member
        • Total Posts: 382
        @jimlane

        @bettykarlson

        I didn’t “assume” anything.  That’s why I repeatedly used the word “suggests” to describe the impression I formed.  That’s why I asked whether what I had inferred was what the poster intended.

        • #308127

          Betty Karlson
          Member
          • Total Posts: 438
          @bettykarlson

          You’re just impressionable. Which is why you (unwittingly, no doubt) repeat DNC talking points.

           

          Got it.

          • #309403

            Jim Lane
            Member
            • Total Posts: 382
            @jimlane

            @bettykarlson

            You convey an insinuation that I don’t think very clearly and just form impressions.

            You’ll note, however, that xyzse confirmed that my understanding of the OP was correct.

            You say that I “(unwittingly, no doubt) repeat DNC talking points.”  There’s another cleverly underhanded attack.  Obviously, no rational person could possibly disagree with you, so anyone who expresses a contrary opinion must merely be parroting talking points.

            There’s a website I’m not allowed to name where there are a lot of people who apply that same methodology.  They say that anyone who disagrees with them must be a Russian troll, instead of a DNC shill, but the basic approach is identical.

            I read both sites, although I learn less and less from each as time goes by.  The knee-jerk dismissal of any dissenting point of view — on both sites — gets dispiriting.

            • #309546

              Betty Karlson
              Member
              • Total Posts: 438
              @bettykarlson

              This debating technique is all to familiar from “the other place”: where lack of sources equals dismissal of any opinion that isn’t the replier’s one.

              You project unto me knee-jerk dismissal, but look at your own first contribution in this thread! The polls are unquestionable to you, and conversations with friends and family are dismissed as numerically insignificant and therefore completely insignificant. May I remind you that in 2016, the polls all said that Clinton was assured of victory, while the personal stories mostly said she was going to lose? Now who’s knee has been jerking here?

               

              For the last five years, the polls have been talking points for the DNC. That’s why their outcomes were so carefully manufactured. When your first contribution in this thread suggests your unquestioning acceptance of such results, I do not want to assume that you purposefully repeat such talking points, but that you repeat them unwittingly. Yes, that does make you a little bit impressionable, and I am fresh out of patience for accusations of reading comprehension failure. “underhanded” – no sir, I say exactly what I mean. Just as I know exactly what you wrote.

               

              @jimlane – thanks for the explanation of FUBAR though. I appreciate it.

              • #309556

                Jim Lane
                Member
                • Total Posts: 382
                @jimlane

                @bettykarlson

                What I wrote: “My personal view is that it’s a mistake to put a lot of weight on polls, favorable or unfavorable, with more than half a year to go until the actual election.”

                What you say I wrote: “The polls are unquestionable to you….”

                In short, your paraphrase of my view is the exact opposite of what I actually wrote.

                As for 2016, most of the polls sampled the national popular vote. They predicted that Clinton would win that vote. They were correct. Her lead over Trump in the officially reported vote was a bit less than what most polls had projected, but it was within their stated margin of error. (There’s also the possibility that the officially reported vote was inaccurate – something that’s an article of faith on JPR when people want to say Bernie was cheated in the primaries, but receives much less attention with regard to the general election, because it might be seen as favorable to the hated Hillary Clinton, and can therefore be summarily dismissed.)

                At least you and I share an interest in language. I’m glad you appreciated knowing about FUBAR. It’s generally believed to have originated as World War II military slang.

                • #309655

                  Ohio Barbarian
                  Moderator
                  • Total Posts: 12,879
                  @ohiobarbarian

                  “Article of faith.” Bullshit. Actual results were an average of 11% off in favor of Biden in every state. The UN calls such an event, where the actual results differ by 4%, evidence of election fraud. We have almost three times the discrepancy needed to say there may well have been election fraud and you imply we are crazy or too biased to see reality.

                  Then you say the same thing applies to Hillary in 11/2016. It most certainly does not. Trump won all but one state where he trailed Hillary within the margin of error in pre-election polls. Note that he was within the margin of error in every swing state. Biden wasn’t. It’s not the same thing. You can bugger right off with that shit, part-time DUer. @jimlane

                  It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                  If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

                  • #309675

                    Jim Lane
                    Member
                    • Total Posts: 382
                    @jimlane

                    @ohiobarbarian

                    Remember the context here.  A post by @bettykarlson implied that people talking with a few of their friends and family members was a more reliable predictor of election results than a professional poll of more than 1,000 people (the typical size of a major national poll) in which an effort is made to achieve representation of all the relevant demographic groups.  She supported this view by pointing to the experience of 2016.

                    You and I both understand that, contrary to her assertion, the polls did not all say “that Clinton was assured of victory….”  Polls generally don’t say such a thing.  They report a margin of error.  (Even that doesn’t mean that the actual numbers can’t possibly be outside that error range.  I think most pollsters use a 95% confidence interval.)  As you point out, the polls were generally showing a close race, often with Trump trailing but not by so much as to relegate a Trump win to that 5% of cases that are outliers.  That’s why the experience of 2016 does not establish that polls are worthless.

                    But there’s a lot of terrain between “worthless” and “infallible”.  Most professional polls occupy a middle ground that qualifies as “more reliable than just talking to a few friends and family members”.

                    • #309688

                      Betty Karlson
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 438
                      @bettykarlson

                      The quintessence of my objection to polls is that their results were manufactured.

                       

                      Manipulation 1: exclude potential repondents from groups that are likely to answer in an unfavorable way (like: if younger voters are likely to say “To Hell with Biden” make sure you call landlines mainly).

                      Manipulation 2: phrase the questions in a way that get you the results that you desire. “Do you intend to vote for Joe Biden?” is a neutral question. “Do you believe that Trump has let America down, and will you be casting your vote for his Democratic opponent?” is not at all neutral. It’s two questions lumped into one.

                      Manipulation 3: Still not good enough? – because of the low number of respondents from the 18-45 age groups, we have had to exclude them from the tabulation.

                       

                      @jimlane could you please make up your mind already? One reply you hide behind “I never said that I trust the polls” and the next you are extolling their virtue in order to dismiss an OP.

                      I stand by my observation that the majority of polls said Clinton would win swing states that she lost. I also stand by my observation that all those small anecdotal stories about friends and family told us exactly why she lost them.

                    • #309921

                      Jim Lane
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 382
                      @jimlane

                      @bettykarlson

                      Either the polls are infallible or they’re utterly worthless, and I have to make up my mind, meaning that I have to pick one option from the false dichotomy you offer.

                      In the world I live in, it’s much more complicated. A professional pollster interviewing several hundred people gives more accurate results than a politically committed citizen talking with a few of his or her family and friends, so poll reports can convey better information, but they aren’t perfect. Therefore, the polls are neither infallible nor worthless. On that point, I’ve made up my mind!

                      Even polls from reputable pollsters face many well-known problems. One of them relates to cell phones. In your world, all pollsters are a bunch of fraudsters who hate young people (or who hate the candidates the young people will vote for) and therefore don’t call cell phones. In my world, many polls are conducted using automated dialing systems, because it’s much cheaper than using humans. The relevance is that it’s illegal to use automatic dialers to make unsolicited calls to cell phones. Pollsters are aware of the resulting skew and they try to correct for it. It isn’t easy.

                      Most of the most widely reported polls are conducted by media outlets, private opinion research firms, and academic institutions. Do you believe that all these various entities are deliberately distorting the results? And you believe that respondents age 18-45 are excluded from the tabulation – and you say this in thread in which @xyzse linked to a Washington Post poll reporting precisely such a tabulation? Such wholesale dismissal of polls represents a level of tinfoil hattery that I just can’t cope with.

                      As for your faith in “all those small anecdotal stories about friends and family”: There were people whose anecdotal stories told them that Hillary Clinton would win 400 electoral votes. There were people whose anecdotal stories told them that Jill Stein would get six million votes and had a chance to carry Vermont. The point is that any outcome in the real world will have been “forecast” by some bogus method. Over a period of seventeen consecutive presidential elections, the winner was accurately foretold by the result of the last pre-election home game of the National Football League franchise in Washington, D.C. (Link) On the comparative merits of polls versus anecdotes, you and I will just have to disagree.

                    • #309924

                      Betty Karlson
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 438
                      @bettykarlson
                    • #309722

                      Ohio Barbarian
                      Moderator
                      • Total Posts: 12,879
                      @ohiobarbarian

                      @jimlane I replied to you because you mocked JPRers as believing the primaries were rigged as an “article of faith,” and that was mockery. I understand why you have no answer to the facts I presented, because a non-bullshit/propaganda one doesn’t exist. But to not even attempt to address it or acknowledge it?

                      That’s pure DU, man: When confronted with uncomfortable facts, ignore the facts. I haven’t been a member for 11 years now, but I look at it from time to time and you are one of the few reasonable voices at that place. This reply was worthy of your most vicious critics over there. I am disappointed.

                      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

                    • #309929

                      Jim Lane
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 382
                      @jimlane

                      @ohiobarbarian

                      I’m so boring.  People bring up an exciting subject — all the published polls are manipulated!  the exit polls show that the votes were rigged! — and I keep seeing nuances and complications.  Sorry, but that’s just the way I am.

                      With regard to your specific point about exit polls, I wouldn’t be willing to accept the conclusion of widespread rigging of vote results unless and until that conclusion were supported by a careful analysis of all the evidence.  I, personally, haven’t undertaken that inquiry.  It would be very labor intensive.

                      I referred to the rigging as an article of faith on JPR because the posts that I’ve read here (admitting that I haven’t read all of them) don’t establish the case.  I agree with you that discrepancies between exit polls and published results are evidence of election fraud.  As a lawyer, though, I’m using the word “evidence” the way it’s used in court.  That there’s evidence doesn’t mean that the point is conclusively established, or established beyond a reasonable doubt, or even that it’s shown to be more likely than not.  Evidence is relevant if the point in question is more likely to be true than it would be without the evidence.  To take a simple example, if two different pedestrians who were standing next to each other saw the taxicab enter the intersection just before the collision, and one says that the light was green and the other says that it was red, then each of these statements is evidence, even though they’re directly contradictory.

                      I’m sure you’re aware of the phenomenon of confirmation bias.  If a juror is predisposed to believe that all cabbies drive like maniacs, then that juror will seize on the one witness’s testimony and conclude that the cabbie ran a red light.

                      “Discrepancies are evidence of fraud” and “discrepancies are conclusive proof of fraud” are two different statements.  My assessment of what I’ve read on JPR is that it’s insufficient, without more, to prove fraud.  That’s why I characterized the immediate adoption of that conclusion as an article of faith.

                      As should be obvious, that doesn’t prove that the conclusion of fraud is false, either.  If my wording conveyed the impression that I had seen enough evidence to reject that conclusion, then I apologize for not being clear.

                      BTW, you now have two posts in this thread that violate JPR rules by naming a particular website.  I’ve had a post removed here by @deadpool for precisely that transgression.  Of course, you’re naming the site to disparage it, so I rather suspect that you’ll be given a pass.  Or perhaps the admins will even take this occasion to rescind that petty and petulant rule.  Until then, I’ll have to forgo responding to that aspect of your posts, because I have no reason to believe that my comments would be accorded similar leeway.

                    • #309975

                      Ohio Barbarian
                      Moderator
                      • Total Posts: 12,879
                      @ohiobarbarian

                      @jimlane For one thing, that means you probably have different class interests than I do. For another, it explains a lot about how you think. Lawyers are trained to think that what’s right for their client, and in following the letter of the law, is the morally right thing to do because it makes it easier to be a good lawyer when one can do that.

                      I’m a law school dropout because, at the time, I couldn’t live with that, and wasn’t strong enough to stick with my own values if I stayed on that career path. That’s a self-criticism, BTW, and is not aimed at you. A few years later, things would have been different for me, but life or destiny intervened and made a return impossible.

                      Sorry, but polls are deliberately skewed all of the time to fit a preconceived narrative. What questions are asked, how they are framed, and what sampling of the electorate is targeted are critical in measuring the accuracy of a poll. @bettykarlson is 100% correct on that.

                      If you really want more information on possible election fraud, please peruse the posts under the topic Election Fraud. There’s all sorts of info there on the subject.

                      BTW, it’s not a JPR rule or term of service not to mention DU by name. It’s more of a tradition, and I personally think it’s a silly one now. We do consider DU a hate site for reasons of which I’m sure you are well aware. You’ve had that hate thrown at you yourself. The management of that site really does hate progressives and progressive ideas; as the name indicates, it’s a Democratic Party website, and a leadership site at that.

                      This means that it is against JPR terms of service to link to the site, or to screenprint from it. Calling out DU posters by name is also prohibited because that really is kind of a personal attack and because we don’t want this site to become dominated by people complaining about DU or any other website. The same applies to Stormfront, which is a different flavor of hate site. No screenprints or links are permitted to that place either, but there’s no reason not to type the site’s name.

                      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

                    • #310188

                      Jim Lane
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 382
                      @jimlane

                      @ohiobarbarian

                      You write, “For one thing, that means you probably have different class interests than I do.” Well, if I need to know what the poors are thinking, I can always ask the butler, the cook, or the chauffeur.

                      As I hope you guessed, the foregoing is pure sarcasm. I live in a one-bedroom apartment. I am the butler, I am the cook, and I don’t own a motor vehicle so there sure as hell ain’t no chauffeur. My income has been affected by court closures, with the result that I’ve had to draw down savings to pay the May rent. But if it makes you feel better to dismiss me as some out-of-touch upper-class twit — as portrayed in this clip — feel free.

                      You write, “Lawyers are trained to think that what’s right for their client, and in following the letter of the law, is the morally right thing to do….” Actually, some lawyers are trained to assess the case as best they can. My work is almost entirely in representing injured victims in personal injury cases. Plaintiffs’ PI lawyers are generally on contingency fees, meaning there’s no money in a case that loses. The practical consequence is that a PI lawyer must weigh the pros and cons to decide if a case has merit. Dan Quayle and his ilk would have you believe that we love to bring frivolous cases. In fact, most PI lawyers turn down far more prospective cases than we accept.

                      You’re correct to the extent that, once we take a case, our obligation is to represent the client zealously, even if that means making an argument that we think isn’t sound. As long as it’s not frivolous, we try to win it.

                      As for the JPR rule, my understanding is different from yours. I thought I was told that the other site couldn’t even be mentioned. Perhaps @deadpool or @sffh will clarify for us.

                    • #310204

                      So Far From Heaven
                      Administrator
                      • Total Posts: 5,160
                      @sffh

                      All of you.

                      Just take a fucking chill pill.

                      Since when would either @deadpool or myself think this kind of shit happening here between the three of you is either progressive (which is ISN’T boys and girls) and/or necessary and therefore publishable on JPR???? You think I approve of any of this???

                      I’m talking the snide shit here. The personal jabs and jousts.

                      What the fuck is this????

                      Here is my take on this whole voter poll crapfest.

                      Exit polls are a nightmare. Because they can be HIGHLY under representative EASILY. They can fucking lie as easily as tell the truth. Because the ‘personal’ part of voting gets in the fucking way of them.

                      That is a KNOWN, studied, and VERIFIED result. Exit polls are a VERY slippery slope to play on. The participant can utter any choice he/she wants and NO ONE will ever know the difference. Who in their right mind would admit they voted for Orange Face for example???

                      I sure the fuck wouldn’t. SO I’d lie about who I voted for or refuse to answer. Throws the whole fucking sample out the window if a small percentage does that.

                      How do I know????? I got a fucking degree in mathematics, that’s how.

                      HOWEVER.

                      The exit poll CAN allude to voter fraud. It can’t EVER PROVE it, but it can sure make the vote tabulation questionable. And there lies a huge problem for election monitors. How do you get to the real story behind the discrepancy?? How do you tell how many that voted for the creepy molester either refused to be polled or lied about their vote?? Most progressives would have no problem answering and taking the poll, so they are influencing the result just because they are proud to be progressives and yell it out to any who will listen. Creepy Joe voters, not so much. So his numbers are way low on the exit poll and there is absolutely no fucking way to determine the actual vote, EVEN WITH THE VOTES….

                      Why???? Cause they might be tampered with. Who the fuck knows?? The only way to know for sure is a hand counted paper ballot with sufficient witnesses to the entire process…. Given sufficient resources any electronic calculation (even those using paper ballots such as the ones they use here) can be manipulated.

                      You have to catch someone altering the results. The exit polls can go one step further along this path by showing a discrepancy in the exit poll results on a site by site versus demographic voter comparison. Then you got a smoking gun, though you still have no proof of election tampering.

                      Now, what was the question that brought me here?????

                    • #310222

                      Jim Lane
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 382
                      @jimlane

                      @sffh

                      I’ll add one: I think that many of the exit polls done in other countries ask the voter only how they voted.  In the U.S., by contrast, exit polls are often used to get a read on different demographics.  How did each candidate do among people over 65, among people without a college degree, etc.?  Therefore, each person who’s willing to be interviewed has to be asked numerous questions.  The consequence is that the sample size is typically smaller than if pollster is asking only one question and then moving on.

                      Standard deviation goes up as the square root of the sample size, IIRC?  So that standard deviation expressed as a fraction of the number of respondents goes down as more people are interviewed?  Been a while since I was in a math class but I think that’s how it works.

                      That wasn’t the question that brought you here, but since you are here, and since we spend so much time talking about polls, maybe you could give us a quick math primer.

                      The question that did bring you here was a digression from a digression.  @ohiobarbarian wrote:

                      This means that it is against JPR terms of service to link to the site, or to screenprint from it. Calling out DU posters by name is also prohibited because that really is kind of a personal attack and because we don’t want this site to become dominated by people complaining about DU or any other website. The same applies to Stormfront, which is a different flavor of hate site. No screenprints or links are permitted to that place either, but there’s no reason not to type the site’s name.

                      By contrast, I was under the impression that even typing the site’s full name or abbreviation was prohibited (unless you’re talking about depleted uranium or the like).  If my impression is wrong, I’d be glad to be corrected.

                    • #310270

                      So Far From Heaven
                      Administrator
                      • Total Posts: 5,160
                      @sffh

                      The problem with exit polls isn’t necessarily numbers of polled individuals.

                      I can arbitrarily lower my error bars just asking more people, but the REAL issue of them is that I ask more people to participate.

                      but that does’t cure the problem at all.

                      You can ask the entire country the question, but if one side of the polled individuals is reluctant to tell you the truth about their vote, then you have a virtually worthless result with itsy bitsy error bars, which you would think cannot happen.

                      but of course it can happen.

                      I’ll do a poll on anal intercourse nationwide.

                      You think that poll is going to be representative in any way shape or form? No matter how many I ask??

      • #308109

        closeupready
        Member
        • Total Posts: 1,177
        @closeupready

        @bettykarlson – he is the presiding DNC apologist here.

        The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

        • #308126

          Jim Lane
          Member
          • Total Posts: 382
          @jimlane

          @closeupready

          Then explain to me why fucking Perez is late with his check again this month.

          • #308147

            closeupready
            Member
            • Total Posts: 1,177
            @closeupready

            I didn’t really mean that remark in a bad way, so my apologies if it seemed that way.  Peace.  Over and out.

            The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

            • #309157

              Jim Lane
              Member
              • Total Posts: 382
              @jimlane

              @closeupready

              There’ve been posts on JPR denouncing “vote-shaming”.  As I understand it from the people who use the term:

              • If someone urges people to vote for Biden, that’s vote-shaming, and it’s despicable.
              • If someone urges people not to vote for Biden, that’s perfectly OK.

              This is an obvious double standard.  It finds its expression by saying that Bernie (of all people) is a sellout and sheep dog who’s stabbed his supporters in the back, that anyone posting reasons to vote for Biden is an apologist for the DNC, and that people who plan to vote for Biden are doing so because they’re unable to escape their programming.  I’ve seen all these things on JPR.  None of them has been called out as vote-shaming.

              Of the two blatantly inconsistent positions on display here, I agree with the second one.  I believe that the people urging any course of action other than a vote for Biden are making a serious mistake.  Nevertheless, I’m not saying that disagreeing with me is irresponsible.  This is a political message board, where people post views, sometimes conflicting views.  Outside JPR, there are also discussions of political issues, be it open letters in The Nation or jeremiads in Counterpunch.  All these things are perfectly normal, even when they argue for precisely opposite points of view.

              Your post seemed to me to be part of this attitude — this refusal to acknowledge that people of good will can come to different conclusions.  That’s why I got exasperated and responded by making fun of what you’d written.

              • #309660

                Ohio Barbarian
                Moderator
                • Total Posts: 12,879
                @ohiobarbarian

                @jimlane You write:

                • If someone urges people to vote for Biden, that’s vote-shaming, and it’s despicable.
                • If someone urges people not to vote for Biden, that’s perfectly OK.

                Urging people to vote for Biden is not in and of itself despicable. What is despicable is arguing that those who refuse to vote for Biden are in effect casting a vote for Trump, or that those refusing to vote against Trump in the way the Biden-voter wishes are in fact supporting Nazism or fascism or racism or gay-bashing or whatever, and that if Trump wins, it’s their fault, not Biden’s, and not the corrupt Democrat Party’s.

                If you want to argue that we should vote for Biden for the purpose of harm reduction, that’s fine. Just be prepared for the counterargument that Biden is in fact the greater potential harm, or that there is insufficient difference between the two to be arguing over the issue in the first place. That would be an interesting debate, I think.

                OTOH, arguing for the policies which Biden has advocated for years, like NAFTA, the TPP, Forever War, blind support of Israel, intervention in Latin America, erosion of workers’ rights, mass incarceration of the poor, and supporting the legal rights of corporations, banks, and other businesses to extract more and more wealth from the working class to the top is pretty fucking despicable in my book. Just as arguing for most of Trump’s policies is pretty despicable in the same book.

                I don’t see you doing that, though. I just see you arguing that Biden is the lesser evil and that our only–I’m having trouble finding the right adjective here–mature choice, maybe? is to vote for Biden. Argue away, preferably with a better adjective, but don’t expect to persuade anyone or get upset and start flamebaiting when you don’t. (No, I haven’t seen you do that, either, to your credit.)

                It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

                • #309686

                  Jim Lane
                  Member
                  • Total Posts: 382
                  @jimlane

                  I personally have never liked the “a vote for X is a vote for Y” formulation.  It’s just a matter of algebra when X does not equal Y.  What I would say, as to 2016, is that a vote for Stein was a failure to cast an effective vote against Trump.  (The problem is immediately obvious, that my version, while more accurate, is far less catchy.)

                  A vote for Stein was nominally a vote against Trump, but one that had no effect on what could be called the January 20 Question — namely, who would be taking the oath on Inauguration Day.  The only way to cast an effective vote against Trump was to vote for Clinton.  People who chose any other course, including voting minor party, writing a name in, or not voting at all, were abstaining on the January 20 Question and choosing instead to pursue some other goal.

                  I feel no need to call that decision irresponsible or immature.  Calling it a mistake is quite enough to convey my views.

                  What I see as a double standard is that some people who take umbrage at being called irresponsible have no problem turning around and saying that Bernie is a sellout or a sheepdog, or that Chomsky is senile, or that anyone who plans to vote for Biden must be impressionable or unable to overcome their programming.  It’s pretty lame to demand respect for one’s own choices while refusing to extend that courtesy to others.

                  I personally have also never liked the “lesser evil” formulation.  I don’t use that phrase.  What’s salient to me is that I have never had the chance to vote for a perfect candidate.  I voted for Bernie in 2016 despite disagreeing with some of his votes on gun issues.  In choosing among imperfect candidates, I give a lot of weight to the likely consequences of the election outcomes.  That usually means looking at the candidates who have a realistic chance of winning and picking the one whose election would be best.

                  If someone can’t bear the thought of saying that Biden would be better than Trump, but will agree with me (however grudgingly) that Trump would be worse than Biden, fine, I’ll take it.  The two statements mean exactly the same thing.

                  You advise me not to expect to persuade anyone.  Trust me, I have no illusions about persuading anyone on JPR.  The members of this board will, overwhelmingly, not vote for Biden, just as they overwhelmingly did not vote for Clinton.  Meanwhile, out in the real world, most of Bernie’s supporters will, overwhelmingly, vote for Biden, just as we overwhelmingly did vote for Clinton.  The majority of one of those groups is making a mistake.  I think the former group is wrong.  Nevertheless, I don’t take it personally when others argue that those of us in the latter group are wrong.

                  • #310287

                    JonLP
                    Donor
                    • Total Posts: 1,880
                    @jonlp

                    He is known for the bankruptcy bill and he was wrong about the Iraq war every step of the way. This isn’t a Republican we are talking about this is Biden well known to us for these reasons. I do think it is possible Biden could be a Progressive President since LBJ was also very conservative but had a very liberal first term. By the second term he had Operation CHAOS (like COINTELPRO but by the CIA) but I can’t vote for him because of Tara Reade no matter how far to the left Biden moves. If not her there is Lucy Flores and all the Biden pictures.

                     

                    I still haven’t forgiven Susan Collins (I actually used to like her for a Republican) or Joe Manchin. I can’t compromise my values on this.

                     

                    I did vote for Hillary Clinton so I’ll be one of those Clinton ’16 Green ’20 voters. I regret my vote because of all her disqualifying statements she made this primary. She is like Biden and others. She shows she either doesn’t get the problems facing us or does but doesn’t care.

                    This doesn’t even mention the DNC coup before Super Tuesday and the constant propaganda from the 24/7 news channels. Fox News was actually more fair to Bernie Sanders this primary. That stuff I can’t forgive not for a second time. They won’t let me have Sanders but I get Trump instead. I lost a lot of respect for the party. That reminds me Nancy Pelosi came out with Joe Biden is Joe Biden as a defense against the accusations against him.

        • #308129

          Betty Karlson
          Member
          • Total Posts: 438
          @bettykarlson

          @ closeupready – not over here at least.

          @ Jimlane – I don’t know why Perez is late. I thought him behind the times four years ago, and I’m glad to read that you won’t excuse him for another week. Try applying the same standard to the rest of the Democratic Party.

    • #308242

      xyzse
      Member
      • Total Posts: 1,423
      @xyzse

      @jimlane

      Hi, so let me try to see if I can get to your concerns.

      The word “many” occurs six times in your post.  That, and the total absence of any polling data or the like, suggests to me that your conclusion is based on your conversations with family and friends, plus the odd YouTube video.

      Yes, actually, I do have friends but there are polling data that shows waning support for the Democratic Party particularly with the young.  If you make a comparative assessment between prior Presidential elections, it is hard to dismiss (Washington Post Poll).  Biden is still ahead, but the fact that it is already close to the equal margin, considering these polls are geared towards registered voters, is concerning.  One must consider, that historically the young favor the Democratic Party.  They have lost quite a bit of ground there.

      So yes, as I was saying, since these voters will be around for a long time coming, the ramifications of the softening of support will be more apparent in the next election cycles.  Hillary had a much larger support and enthusiasm from the young than Biden.

      I have some polling data that I look at, and I also look at what individuals of my age group and younger say.  Being that I also have contacts still in College, and that I work with an organization that deals with grants, I would like to think that I get to hear about their actual opinions rather than just “Polling Data”.

      There’ve been posts on JPR saying that published poll results are totally fraudulent, concocted to serve the interests of (insert name of entity manipulating public opinion).  Your post suggests to me that you agree with that assessment.

      You write that the Democrats “will have a much steeper climb to get back in to power.”  The most recent published polls give Biden a lead over Trump — a lead that includes winning enough swing states to be elected, but a lead that’s fairly small, with several months left to go, with the result that most mainstream analysts consider that the election could still go either way.  By contrast, there’ve been several posts on JPR stating that Biden’s defeat is absolutely inevitable.  Your post suggests to me that you agree with the latter view.

      Actually, I do consider Biden’s defeat inevitable.  You are correct.  By the time Hillary lost in 2016, with the polls massively saying she was going to win, I was confident in the prediction that she was going to lose, that also holds with Biden.  Polls are definitely out there, and they are showing a lead for Biden, but I can still make guesses.  In fact, I lamented that I probably should give up till 2024, since I don’t think Democrats learned from their mistakes.  I am very much unhappy about this, since the Republican Party can be very cruel in their policies.

      The Republicans will overwhelmingly vote for Trump, and even very highly educated Republicans I know will vote for Trump.  He will not have an issue there.  They may say differently, but push comes to shove, they will vote for the Republican over a Democrat.  So here’s Trump’s favorability rating from Gallup.  He’s at 43%.  If you also look at percentages by party also by Gallup.  There are 31% Democrats, 39% Independents and 27% Republicans.  If you just base that on Democrats and Republicans by ratio, it looks like Trump still has 90%+ positive favorability with Republicans.

      Then, couple that with the fact that during Obama’s  presidency the Democrats have lost ground in Local and State levels.  With these individuals ensuring that gerrymandering as well as other advantages of being an incumbent.

      Are my interpretations of your post correct?

      Yes, your interpretations are correct.  I have based many items due to anecdotal evidence, social contacts, random polling from a wide variety of sources, even though I did not cite them on the initial posting.

      I add a personal note.  You write, “Their ‘Affordable’ is not affordable at all, unless you’re a multi-millionaire.”  At the time the Affordable Care Act was enacted, I was unemployed.  I was better off than many unemployed people, because I did have savings, but I was very far from being a millionaire, let alone multi.  Having no health insurance through work, I was able to buy coverage through the ACA exchanges.

      Then I got cancer.

      I have no idea what my treatment would have cost if I had had to pay for it out of pocket.  It probably would have bankrupted me — on the optimistic assumption that I would have been able to obtain the needed treatment at all.  The ACA is not Medicare for All and it did leave far too many people behind.  Shamefully, there are still people who suffer or even die because they can’t afford health care.  That’s why I favor scrapping the ACA in favor of Medicare for All.  Nevertheless, the ACA has helped some people.  I admit my bias in that I’m in that group (I’m now completely cancer-free).  It’s a mistake to dismiss the ACA completely.

      I actually am not dismissing the ACA completely either.  That program was able to bring in more people initially to get some sort of Health Care.  Unfortunately, the reason I am very much against it is because it in the end will do more harm than good as it goes.

      I do think that the ACA slowed down the cost of insurance initially due to all the new people who were placed in there that now had to pay in to the system.  The problem however, is that there was no cost controls and much they created added administrative costs.  What that did, was guarantee that Health Care costs will balloon for years to come with no end.  That it now ensures that those with pre-existing conditions get some sort of insurance is a good thing.  It’s just that, it is nowhere enough.

      Speaking of Cancer, let me tell you a story of a friend of mine who lives in Denmark.  This person I know personally.  I also wrote about her, as well as the co-worker of my best friend comparing their outcomes.  I wonder if I can still find it here.  Yes, another anecdote, I’m sorry but I will NOT be giving personal information about either of them.

      This friend from Denmark, was having a routine eye-exam, where they found something on her eye that concerned them, so she got immediately tested, and found out that she had cancer within less than a week.  Where they were able to immediately schedule a treatment plan and surgery, where all of this was done in less than three weeks.  She is able to do this without the medical costs ruining her livelihood or bankrupting her.

      I compared this to the co-worker of my best friend who works in the Medical Field.  He had a co-worker who worked under him.  She was diagnosed with cancer.  To pay for this, she had to do a “GoFundMe”, this while having Insurance.  I don’t even want to tell you what happened after.

      A more recent incident.  A friend of mine was fortunately travelling in Canada when this Covid shut-down happened.  She got hit by this, and is currently stuck in Canada.  Had she been here, since she has a host of pre-existing conditions, I doubt that she would be here any more.  If she does survive, her financial situation would be even worse.

      The ACA has helped some people, but right now, with further deregulation, we have Insurance that pay for nothing.  Yes, this one is on Trump(link), but that is just one of the many problems.  So we are both in favor of a Medicare for all system.

      Hope that clarified things a little, I understand that many might not agree with me, but this is my current opinion.  It is also what I see at the moment, but honestly these are what I think due to my social connections and just looking around wherever I can.  I am limited by the information I can get.

      • #309159

        Jim Lane
        Member
        • Total Posts: 382
        @jimlane

        @xyzse

        As I read that Washington Post poll report, Biden leads Trump among voters 18-29 and 30-39, trails among the 40-49 and 50-64, then leads again among the 65+. You refer to “a comparative assessment between prior Presidential elections,” but Real Clear Politics, looking at several other polls, found Biden to be a bit behind Obama but a bit ahead of Hillary Clinton among young voters. (Link)

        Of course, enthusiasm is also a factor, as you point out. If Biden leads among young voters by x%, then his net margin from that group depends on how many of them vote. Some years ago I read a satirical headline, in The Onion or some such source: “Young people totally intended to vote in record numbers this year.” Unfortunately for the left, turnout tends to correlate with age. Bernie concluded that his defeat this year occurred in part because there was no huge surge in young-voter turnout.

        My personal view is that it’s a mistake to put a lot of weight on polls, favorable or unfavorable, with more than half a year to go until the actual election. It’s also a mistake to fixate on any one factor, such as the youth vote. In an election that spans a continent, with a campaign that’s extraordinarily long (by the standards of Western democracies), culminating with votes cast by more than 100 million people, the outcome will be affected by many different things. In particular, the ongoing pandemic will have a major impact – probably to Trump’s detriment but even that isn’t certain.

        Regarding the ACA, you write that you are “very much against it is because it in the end will do more harm than good as it goes.” At the time of the ACA debate, I was very concerned about that point. In a post on a website that a foolish JPR rule will not permit me to name, I raised the possibility that the effect of the ACA, as compared with doing nothing, could be that more people would get health care the next year but fewer people would get health care ten years down the road. My concern was that it would blunt the drive toward a greater overhaul of the system.

        Now, with several years of experience under the law, I think that has not happened. The idea of Medicare for All is receiving more public attention than it did before the ACA was enacted.

        One reason the ACA has not set back the cause of improving the system is that the ACA has been a success. It has exposed the idiocy of the Republican attacks on “government takeover of health care” and their usual drivel that the government must always foul up anything it gets involved in (except of course for military adventures). The ACA has helped millions of people despite the Republicans’ dire predictions.

        The other reason is that the ACA has serious shortcomings. A for-profit insurance system with ACA laid on top of it is better than a for-profit insurance system standing alone, but either way there are problems. The ACA went about as far as one could go while maintaining the central roles of private insurance carriers and employment-based insurance. Maybe it could be tweaked a little with a public option, but that’s about it. One reason that Medicare for All is getting more attention is that, thanks to the ACA, more people can see the limits of Medicare for Only Some combined with Private Insurance for Some and even (despite ACA) No Insurance and Good Luck Pal for the rest.

        Thus, even aside from the short-term benefits for people like me, I think the ACA will have a long-term benefit of bringing us Medicare for All sooner than would have been the case if the ACA had been defeated.

        • #309239

          xyzse
          Member
          • Total Posts: 1,423
          @xyzse

          @jimlane

          Hi Jim, yeah I can see that the polls show Biden on the lead in many of them at the moment.  As you said, it would be a mistake to put that much weight on polls, which is also one of the reasons I don’t quite cite them much.  Most of my posts are from observances, and a result from social contact.

          Also, the point of my post is not about this current Presidential Election, but the way many of the young feel about the Democratic Party now.  If I go by just my younger siblings and their friends, these are from the age group 25-40.  I just very recently hit my 40th decade, those slightly older than me do have a better view of the DNC.  That these individuals who would usually be closer aligned to the Democratic Party now don’t trust them, if I were part of the party, I would consider it a worrying trend.

          The other points of the initial post, is that the DP may have made inroads with older voters, but that was by alienating the young for two election cycles(2016 & 2020).  These two generations of voters will have little to no attachment to the Democratic Party.  One must also consider that the older demographic have a higher percentage of Republicans.  Which to me means that the shift on voters would actually be nominal.

          I consider that the reason Obama won, was because he was able to generate excitement and bring in more voters who typically do not vote.  There is a saying, that if there is more voter turn-out, it is usually favorable for Democrats.  Without that, the Republicans has an innate advantage that older and typical voters tend to vote Republican.  Especially now.

          I theorize that the reason for this, is because the Democratic Party has not offered much for the disenfranchised and those who just left the process altogether.  The scuttlebutt seems to indicate that 2016 and 2020 has shown that more consider that the DNC have lost their credibility.

          Unfortunately, I think that is the trend.  That the ones who will be voters and will keep to the process will most likely be those who would typically vote Republican.  Where Democrats are offering and fighting for less and less.

          As for the ACA, though I think we agree on the conclusion that Medicare for All is needed and is more on the forefront now than ever.  However, the reasoning of ours to getting to that point is completely different.

          I think more people found that the system just does not work for them.  That the insurers are greedy and covers close to nothing, if they do, they will try to ensure that the patient covers as much of the burden as possible, even inflating it.  The reason Medicare for All is getting attention, is because people are hurting so much on the cost, that they want any other system.

          I think that the ACA has been an abject failure, and that though it covered some individuals more, it has shown to wreck the lives of people who received treatment and are now hurting due to the costs.  We now hear about people who would rather just die than go to a hospital, of which I am one of them.

          I for one, would rather die if I ever get sick and stuck in a state of long term-care.  I already have made it known that I am a DNR(Do Not Resuscitate), since I would not wish to burden my family with the cost of taking care of me.

          Not just that, the COST and the Complexity of Administrative Paper Work hurts people.  I was helping out to prepare the taxes of an acquaintance of mine, since she had issues.  She is lower income, but she took a distribution from one of her accounts to be rolled over.  Unfortunately due to bank and user error, the roll-over did not happen on time, so that it looks like her gross income is higher.  Putting her at a higher tax bracket.

          She was using the ACA Healthcare Exchange and was paying insurance through that the whole year.  With that error, her taxes where she should have only been paying around $2-3K ballooned to $24.5K.  Since the bracket changed, and all of a sudden she didn’t qualify for that rate any more.

          That happens, and that happens to the elderly(prior to hitting 65 that is) and most vulnerable.

          The ACA may have helped some, but that people are clamoring for better, is because they have been left out and failed by the system.

          Apologies for being a little bit hyperbolic there, but it isn’t by much.  However, I mean it when I do not wish to burden my family with the cost.  The fact that people are even thinking that way just shows how much we are in the wrong track.

  • #308070

    carrotguy
    Donor
    • Total Posts: 444
    @carrotguy

    at some point, politics will be a manner of dealing with terms set forth by the planet and all i can hope for is that some people remember the ideas and themes of the OP

  • #308082

    FedUp
    Member
    • Total Posts: 396
    @fedup

    There are still many many people out there who simply don’t get that the Democratic Party politicians are as corrupt and money grubbing as those in the Republican Party. The “blue no matter who” crowd is vocal and they truly are convinced that Obama was great and that Biden would represent a return to “Normalcy.” Until these people can somehow be reached and convinced that progressive ideas are a good thing and worth voting for, the Democratic Party will continue its slide into irrelevance. Biden isn’t offering jack shit. He’s already told the wealthy donors he won’t change a thing. If he does pull off a win, what then? No improvement in the health care system. No relief for college students facing tuition hikes. Maybe a few bones thrown regarding minimum wage. A Supreme Court nominee who is maybe a centimeter to the left of a Scalia. Big whoop. Trump or Biden…We lose either way.

  • #308115

    David the Gnome
    Member
    • Total Posts: 2,255
    @davidthegnome

    The ACA really did help a lot of people.  @jimlane He himself is a case in point, as he explained.

    Here is the thing though – it still costs thousands of dollars for an ER visit, or life saving surgery, or medications or other things, for people who have little or even no more money than I do – and I am on SSI (currently 700 a month).

    My fiance makes 1600 a month in terms of net, take-home pay.  She had to have her gall bladder removed – and will be paying on that (roughly 125 a month) for the next ten years.

    That is one example- there are millions more and some are a whole lot worse.  The problem, in part, was that it made it mandatory for people who couldn’t afford it to purchase bad health insurance plans.  It subsidized some – and in the states where Medicaid was expanded helped many.

    Yet it also greatly enriched the insurance industry, drug companies and so on – who were already making fortunes out of mass suffering.  Then it became worse, with the prices of even things like insulin going through the roof.

    Not for a legit reason – like a shortage in supply – no, simply because some assholes saw an opportunity to increase profit and took it.

    This is not all that simple.  I will say, even as someone who did not support the legislation – that there were some good parts to it.  Subsidies, no denial based on pre existing conditions – and Medicaid expansion…

    However, the mandate was absurd to force on the Nation – and the millions who DID get screwed with higher premiums and deductibles likely numbered considerably high among Trump supporters.

    A more equitable system… which we all damn well know, would be one that us taxed for – and covers us all.  It would make it necessary to actually tax the rich though- and the DNC of today, the establishment, such as it is, lacks the spine to do so.

    Prove me wrong, please.  By all means, show me the stuff that supports the notion that the new bosses (same as the old bosses) will improve things.

    Nothing personal against any of you, whatever your opinion, we are all in this crazy shit – and approaching even crazier shit together.

  • #309231

    Hobbit709
    Donor
    • Total Posts: 1,595
    @hobbit709

    the only realistic thing is to start over.

    the Democratic Party has FUBARed itself.

    I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing.

  • #309940

    Captain Arizona
    Member
    • Total Posts: 113
    @captainarizona

    The corporate deep state thru the democratic establishment and the donor class has the dnc lead the liberal/progressive base in ways that are no threat to the corporate state. This may surprise you but the corporate establishment are mildly liberal because they are so smart that they realize what would happen to the country if they were conservative and pushed a conservative agenda the country would be unstable. If all the so called liberal media were corporate conservative the masses wouldn’t listen too or believe them and they could not set the agenda or control the masses. The right is no threat to them and doesn’t need to be controlled. We are because we know how to “deal” with them hence the democratic party needs to control masses so they won’t be a threat to the system.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.