Trump in a landslide 2020

[Econoline]

You just beat me to it, Jim!

[Crackpot]

I was stunned into silence

[Joe Guy]

Just thought I'd drop this one in here...

[Darren]

I'm not seeing anyone wanting to bet. That is smart.

In the summer of 2016 I noticed a man sitting in a booth in a restaurant with a Burrelles folder. For those who aren't familiar with Burrelles, they are the premier news clipping service. Tell them the subject you want and they will provide you with clippings from newspapers across the nation. I used them in a different lifetime for sales leads based on classified ads.

The clippings the man was reading were all Trump related. When I asked him how the campaign was going he said, "We gave him a billion dollars of free publicity." Think about that. "WE gave him a billion dollars of free publicity." Has the media changed? They're still like a pack of dogs chasing a car.

For your consideration I give you a media that made Trump a savior to many and a demon to many. Is there no in between? Not according to the media who continues to shovel shit into the fan. Seems to me they haven't noticed that since 2016 they been shoveling shit against the wind. If you doubt that check out network ratings. Is CNN still pulling less viewers than Nickelodeon?

What's that tell you? You can howl at the Moon all you want. It ain't going away.

[wesw]

trump is a vehicle.

trump v0ters weren t viewers f the Apprentice.

silly little pictures , memes, GIFS whatever y0u call them,,I d0n t really kn0w the difference, aren t swaying any0ne.

they may make y0u feelbetter, but pe0ple are c0ncerned with m0re important things

dem0crats are seriously talking ab0ut changing the 1st amend. , t0 pr0tect precious wittle feelings fr0m being hurt

we will n0t stand f0r such a thing.

we have devel0ped call0uses 0n 0ur feelings

y0u can call us Nazis r KKK 0r gay haters 0r whatever....

we d0n t even care anym0re

we kn0w 0urselves and we kn0w what facism really l00ks like

we d0n t see it in the mirr0r, we see it in Antifa, we see it 0n CNN and MSNBC

th0se pe0ple are stupid if they think pe0ple d0n t see them f0r what they are.

the c0untry is W0KE t0 the bullshit and we appreciate trump calling a spade a spade.

and y0u are s0 easily distracted, I just dr0pped 0ne little phrase, ab0ve, and y0u will ign0re the imp0rtant things and f0cus 0n derisi0n.

[Lord Jim]

I'm seeing the same factors going into 2020 as I saw in 2016.

I don't know what alternate Earth in the multi-verse you dwell on Darren, but here on Earth I the electoral dynamics for 2020 are vastly different from those that prevailed in 2016...

The differences are way too numerous for me to give a comprehensive list (poke around this board a little and you'll see tons of them) but just to mention a couple of the major, bleedingly obvious ones:

1. Trump has proven as President to be so openly corrupt, criminal, self-dealing and abusive of the powers of his office that a majority of his fellow citizens in poll after poll now favor his Impeachment (with sizable pluralities and in some cases also majorities also favoring his removal; even before a public airing of all the evidence in the House and trial in the Senate)

2.The 2018 mid-term where millions of people who voted for Trump turned around and delivered control of the House to the Democrats to serve as a check on the excesses of the would-be tyrant...

I could go on and on and on, but as I said time simply does not permit...(Perhaps none of these things have happened on Earth 12 )

None of these numerous differences of course means it's impossible for Trump to win reelection. If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate a candidate that holds hugely unpopular positions on major issues, issues that should play to their advantage if they nominate someone who takes responsible stands, (nominating a candidate with positions like embracing the "If you like your plan go fuck yourself" Mandatory Medicare for all scheme, or decriminalizing illegal immigration, will give Trump's re-election prospects a big boost...)

He will of course still have the bulk of his "Donald I'll always believe you over my lying eyes" Noisy Minority behind him, (As a wise man observed a while back, "it's always much easier to con someone than it is to convince them they've been conned")...

But that alone won't be enough for him to eke out another narrow electoral victory (especially if the Democrats nominate a candidate who can mount a general election campaign that can attract a broad coalition; Moderates and Conservatives fed up with Trump to the point that they're willing to support a candidate more liberal than they would normally vote for, and progressives willing to turn out to vote for a candidate who is not as far to the left as they would like... Democratic House candidates that were able to do that are the ones who delivered a Demo controlled House in 2018. )

As for betting on the election, I learned my lesson on that back in 2004 when I was so convinced that Howard Dean was going to be the Demo nominee that I bet that George W. Bush would be re-elected with 400 electoral votes...(I lost nearly $200 in $20 bets I took on that one... )

So:

[Darren]

Medicare for all would be a disaster under the current circumstances. By that I mean the billion in medicare fraud each year, the current shortage of medical personnel, the best Congress that money can buy, and the VA with protocols approved by panels in DC.

There's not enough money given the trillions of dollars estimated to do medicare for all. You'd get VA modeled medical care which is, in many cases I've seen, take two aspirin and come back in six months ... if you're still alive.

Case in point a Nigerian nurse who insisted clear liquids meant water only. A perforated (ruptured) appendix, treated with antibiotics followed by a release and "We'll check you again in a month."

Something has to be done about out of control drug pricing before we can hope for a medicare for all program. That would means terms limits for Congress. Expecting the government to print money to cover medicare for all means we'll be seeing bread at $5 a loaf or more.

[BoSoxGal]

I call BS; I’m on a Medicare for all model system in Massachusetts and get fast access to high quality care. There will always be issues with rural access and much of this country is rural - but under a national healthcare scheme government will further subsidize medical education and doctors will make salaries like at Mayo Clinic, removing all the disgusting profit motive that drives many money grubbing doctors to peddle drugs and push unnecessary surgeries and treatments, and much routine and preventive care will be directed to PAs and NPs as we do here - they are more than competent to do a wide range of healthcare without a MD/DO on the premises and the only reason it’s not the law everywhere for them to treat patients is because of the medical doctors wanting to keep a tight grip on profits.

I encourage people to watch the Ken Burns documentary on the Mayo Clinic to see that the world's best doctors can be happy with living wage salaries over profit machine private practice model, and give the best patient-driven care in the process - all while the hospital thrives both reputationally and financially.

[RayThom]

I'm not seeing anyone wanting to bet. That is smart.

In the summer of 2016 I noticed a man sitting in a booth in a restaurant with a Burrelles folder. For those who aren't familiar with Burrelles, they are the premier news clipping service. Tell them the subject you want and they will provide you with clippings from newspapers across the nation. I used them in a different lifetime for sales leads based on classified ads.

The clippings the man was reading were all Trump related. When I asked him how the campaign was going he said, "We gave him a billion dollars of free publicity." Think about that. "WE gave him a billion dollars of free publicity." Has the media changed? They're still like a pack of dogs chasing a car.

For your consideration I give you a media that made Trump a savior to many and a demon to many. Is there no in between? Not according to the media who continues to shovel shit into the fan. Seems to me they haven't noticed that since 2016 they been shoveling shit against the wind. If you doubt that check out network ratings. Is CNN still pulling less viewers than Nickelodeon?

What's that tell you? You can howl at the Moon all you want. It ain't going away.

We'll see.

[Joe Guy]

[Lord Jim]

Okay, this is going to be a long one...

Whatever the policy cost/benefit merits of Mandatory Medicare For All pro or con, the politics of it for the coming election cycle are indisputably absolutely terrible based on all the polling...

In fact, given the stakes should the impeachment process ultimately fail (and those stakes once again are the existential imperative of removing the greatest threat to our Constitutional system since the Civil War) the politics of nominating a candidate who embraces Mandatory Medicare For All (like Warren or Sanders) are not just terrible; they are dangerously terrible...

When the question is simply asked "do you support Medicare For All?" it polls rather well. But the drill down polling clearly and consistently indicates that the reason it polls well is because people are mistakenly interpreting that phrase to mean "Do you support Medicare for All Who Want It?"...

Once it is explained that "Medicare For All " actually means "Mandatory Medicare For All" in other words, every single American must participate in it, or the math doesn't remotely begin to work (and as I've pointed out before, if a pro-Mandatory Medicare For All candidate is nominated, the Trump Campaign, the RNC and their allied groups can be counted on to spend about a billion dollars explaining this) public support collapses into the low teens...

And the reason for this is pretty simple; polling also consistently shows that about 80% of those who have healthcare are happy with their existing plan...(You can say that they shouldn't be, but facts is facts)

Those people are simply not going to be persuaded by the argument, "Don't worry that we're taking away the health plan that you have and that you're happy with; the government plan we're forcing you to take will be as good or better and wind up costing you less. Trust me." ...

They will instead perceive that as a threat to the health and well being of themselves and their family...

And they will not react well with their votes to that perceived threat...

I had this discussion with a good liberal friend of mine a few days ago. She's a very sweet and good-hearted lady and she means well, but she suggested that the way a candidate like Warren could overcome this problem would be to "educate the voters" about it during the campaign...

I have to confess my response was a tad on the sarcastic side...

"Brilliant! Yes that's it exactly", I replied...

"The history of American presidential elections is the history of the candidate who does the best job of 'educating the voters' always wins"

(I then had to add that I was just joshing; and pointed out that the reality is that the list of Presidential candidates who won by 'educating the voters' is precisely as long as the list of Presidents who were worse than Donald Trump.)

But I digress...

I firmly believe (despite all of Trump's efforts to change this) that in the aggregate, the vast majority of the American people remain a good and generous people...

That is why when they interpret, "Medicare for All" as "Medicare For All Who Want It" they support it...

They genuinely want all of their fellow citizens to have access to good healthcare they can afford, and they support that, and they support candidates who support that...

In the 2018 election cycle, exit polling indicated that healthcare was ranked the number 1# issue for voters (polls indicate that voters continue to rank it that way) and those who chose it as number one voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Congressional candidates over Republicans...

It was the single most important issue in terms of delivering control of the House to the Dems...

In that election cycle the issue was successfully framed around the efforts of Trump and his allies on The Hill to eviscerate Obamacare and throw 22 million people off of having any health coverage at all...

And most Americans, being good and generous folks, were opposed to that; and voted accordingly...

But...

If the political dynamic on this issue for the 2020 election is re-framed (and make no mistake; if the Dems nominate a "Mandatory Medicare For All" candidate, it will be re-framed in this way) so it is no longer about protecting the healthcare of others but protecting the existing healthcare for themselves and their families, "protect me and mine" will win out over "good and generous"...

Nominating a pro Mandatory Medicare For All candidate,(or as I have pithily put it, a candidate who rather than saying dishonestly as Obama did, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" one who in effect says "If you like your plan go fuck yourself") would boot this 2018 winning issue back to the favor of Trump and his allies, or at the very least make it wash with the voters...

Dangerously, recklessly, and needlessly imperiling the afore mentioned existential imperative of removing the greatest threat to our Constitutional system since the Civil War...

Look folks, it doesn't take a political genius to look at the numbers and figure out what the smart play is here...

The Dems need to nominate a candidate (like Biden, or Buttigieg or Klobuchar or a few of the others) who takes a position in favor of some version of "Medicare For All Who Want It" or a public option, (which is basically the same thing) while also promising to continue to protect those millions now dependent Obamacare and it's existing medicare extension provisions...(And if they want to, to please the progressives, they can say that personally they believe Medicare for all would be best, but they want people to be able to be persuaded of this by offering the option, rather than forcing them into the system when they are happy with what they have)

That's where all the polling indicates the American people are on this central issue...That's the winning position to take...That's the position that assures that the issue will cut for the Dems and against Trump and his allies just as it did in 2018...

I don't want to have to explain this again...

[Big RR]

I agree Jim, but I do think that the most important thing for any public option would be a change in the law permitting the government (including medicare) to negotiate pricing with the pharma companies. And big pharma will try very hard to block that--even if it means 4 more years of Trump. sure, Trump saus he wants to make those changes, but he won't (and Congress won't back it, being addicted to the big pharma money).

[BoSoxGal]

If we could just have meaningful campaign finance reform, we could change the country so it works for working people.

[Big RR]

True, but after Citizens United, it appears it will take a Constitutional amendment to do this--and there's not enough support for that.

[Darren]

True, but after Citizens United, it appears it will take a Constitutional amendment to do this--and there's not enough support for that.

There is a constitutional convention afoot among the red states. Campaign finance reform may be a possibility.

[Long Run]

I do think that the most important thing for any public option would be a change in the law permitting the government (including medicare) to negotiate pricing with the pharma companies.

Prescription drugs are expensive, especially new ones, but Rx is about 15% of the typical health care cost. Nice to get some savings there, but what about the other 85% of health care costs? The only way to control costs will be for reduced pricing for everything, like Medicare does now, and which marginally works now only because the private market subsidizes everything. And Medicare as we knew it is fading away, being replaced by the Advantage plans which are simply a voucher program (which sounds a bit like a Libertarian concept ).

[Big RR]

True, but even though medicare provides some prescription drug coverage, it cannot negotiate prices as it can with services; there is simply no reason to leave the pharmaceutical industry free from these constraints. I agree any public option should permit such negotiation for all services, drugs, supplies, etc.

As for medicare advantage programs, I am unsure why you see them as voucher plans. HMOs and PPOs maybe, but I don't see vouchers.

[Long Run]

As for medicare advantage programs, I am unsure why you see them as voucher plans. HMOs and PPOs maybe, but I don't see vouchers.

Medicare provides a voucher for a member to go out and buy an Advantage plan. These are replacing the medigap policies, where Medicare paid its benefits, and the medigap helped pay the difference. The trend is that the medigap policies are being phased out because everyone who wants additional coverage is moving to the Advantage plans. Under an Advantage plan, most/all of the dealings is with the insurer (who is paid partly from the Medicare voucher and partly from the member's payment). According to my (older) friends who have gone through the decision, the Advantage plans are also more popular with providers as the reimbursement rates are better than Medicare. I think there are a slug of us on this board that will be figuring this out for ourselves in the next 5-10 years.

[Big RR]

Thanks LR, I see your point now.

[Sue U]

Well, not exactly a "voucher." Once you're eligible for Medicare, you can choose to enroll in either "traditional" Medicare Parts A & B or Medicare Part C (now called "Medicare Advantage"). Medicare Advantage is a subsidized managed care system (capitated payments) that was meant to privatize "traditional" fee-for-service Medicare on the theory that "free enterprise" would yield competition, efficiency and cost savings. But of course healthcare and health insurance is not a market segment for which capitalism actually works. And insurers are finding that their government-subsidized Medicare Advantage plans yield double the gross margins (i.e., difference between premiums collected and medical expenses) per covered person.