Bernie v Joe, Who do you like?

[Razgovory]

Well, yeah.  This is all sort of pointless.  So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.

[Tamas]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

[Sheilbh]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

I've already seen the first story about someone who's been hit by medical fees getting checked for coronavirus.

And the Trump Health Secretary has not guaranteed that any treatment/immunisation will be universally available as private companies need to be incentivised to do research.

I think this virus does highlight the need for robust labour laws - such as sick pay - and some form of universal healthcare. Or you'll have people who should be off sick, getting treatment if necessary spreading it.

[dps]

Well, yeah.  This is all sort of pointless.  So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.

Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.

Look, this isn't rocket science.  Either man is a risk in the general election.  Nominate Bernie, and the risk is that moderate voters and black voters don't turn out--and the Democrats can't win a Presidential election without a high turnout in those two groups.  OTOH, if the Democrats nominate anyone but Bernie, the Bernie Bros won't turn out--and since the Bernie Bros seem to be about 30-35% of Democratic votes now, the party probably can't win the White House without them, either.

But that's the downside for the Democrats.  There's an upside with both candidates, as well.  If Bernie is the nominee, there's a chance that the party establishment will be able to get enough of the traditional Democratic voters to turn out to beat Trump, despite their reservations about/dislike for Bernie and some of his positions.  With Biden, the upside is that enough of the Bernie Bros will realize that it's better to turn out to vote against Trump than to stay home and sulk because their guy doesn't have the support of the majority of Democratic voters.

This dynamic hasn't changed since it became apparent that both Bernie and Biden were going to run in 2016.  And it has virtually nothing to do with what Trump might or might not do.

FWIW, I think Bernie would be the riskier choice for the Democrats because he probably has the potential to cost the party Senate and House seats as well as the Presidency, and the potential for him being completely whipped by Trump is higher.  Biden, one way or the other, is probably going to get about as much of the popular vote as Hillary did in 2016, and the hope is that the votes will be distributed a bit more favorably for him, letting him pick up some of the states Hillary lost by narrow margins.  His downside in the Electoral College is pretty much what Hillary actually did in 2016--232 votes (not taking into consideration that there were a few faithless electors).  His upside is probably about the 332 EC votes that Obama got in 2012.

Bernie, OTOH, probably has a slightly higher upside--I'm guessing about 367 EC votes.  His downside, though, is horrible for the Democrats.  I've seen some people suggest 1972 George McGovern or 1984 Walter Mondale levels in the Electoral College (that would be just 17 or 13 votes).  I don't think he could possibly do that badly, but I can easily see him getting significantly fewer EC votes than Clinton in 2016.

[Legbiter]

Look, this isn't rocket science.  Either man is a risk in the general election.  Nominate Bernie, and the risk is that moderate voters and black voters don't turn out--and the Democrats can't win a Presidential election without a high turnout in those two groups.  OTOH, if the Democrats nominate anyone but Bernie, the Bernie Bros won't turn out--and since the Bernie Bros seem to be about 30-35% of Democratic votes now, the party probably can't win the White House without them, either.

Yeah the risk is Bernie blows up the party either way.

Imagine if Bloomie hadn't gone on that debate stage, he'd probably be polling in second place now. 

[HisMajestyBOB]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

[dps]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you?  I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).

If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult  life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it.  Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.

[frunk]

Well, yeah.  This is all sort of pointless.  So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.

Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.

Well not the DoJ but the FBI certainly was a significant factor.  The DoJ will just make it easier, and I think Trump has already checked that Barr is personally loyal to Trump.

[dps]

Well, yeah.  This is all sort of pointless.  So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.

Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.

Well not the DoJ but the FBI certainly was a significant factor.  The DoJ will just make it easier, and I think Trump has already checked that Barr is personally loyal to Trump.

You do remember that Trump wasn't President, and therefore not in charge of the DoJ or FBI during the 2016 election, right?

[Berkut]

Extremism is also the position of privilege.  The position where you aren't paying the price for anything, nothing actually works, but you get to virtue-signal and nail yourself to a cross and pretend that none of the dysfunctional solutions are your fault, that it's always the moderates and the extremists on the other side that are to blame.

I like Bernie, as a guy.  I think that he is sincere, even though ineffective.  I think he'd be no danger to the country if elected, because he doesn't have any power base and wouldn't let himself be used as a tool of the vested interests.

I loathe every one of his followers that I have met personally, though.  They are self-righteous to an obnoxious extent and think that they and their messiah are the only moral people in the country.  That's the definition of "the position of privilege."

Indeed.

the Bernie Bros, meaning the annoying fucking dbags, are almost all universally white male middle class assholes.

Again, I am sure most Bernie followers are fine, and you don't notice them because they are just like people who prefer Biden, or Warren, and don't go around screeching about how their candidate is getting screwed if they don't win, or if they don't win ENOUGH.

But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?

[dps]

But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?

Well, that narrative is already written--Trump used the DoJ to steal the election by doing, well we aren't sure what, but we can be sure it was tricky and illegal! 

[Grey Fox]

But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?

Well, that narrative is already written--Trump used the DoJ to steal the election by doing, well we aren't sure what, but we can be sure it was tricky and illegal!

Did you really forget the emails?

[HisMajestyBOB]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you?  I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).

If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult  life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it.  Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.

That's good, but there's many who have high deductible insurance or large copays after any serious hospital visit (not to mention lost pay from no paid sick leave). Personally, my insurance is pretty awesome: I only pay $20 on doctor visits and everything else is fully covered, but not everyone has that.

WaPo article that I wanted to post last night, but I couldn't find it until this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/worries-about-medical-bills-and-lost-pay-may-hamper-coronavirus-efforts-in-the-united-states/2020/03/02/75825be0-5c9c-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html

[Valmy]

Out of those two? Sanders I guess. I think he would energize the rust belt working class and help up win those critical states.

But utlimately if I cannot have Andrew Yang then I just want somebody who will win.

[celedhring]

You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.

I've already seen the first story about someone who's been hit by medical fees getting checked for coronavirus.

And the Trump Health Secretary has not guaranteed that any treatment/immunisation will be universally available as private companies need to be incentivised to do research.

I think this virus does highlight the need for robust labour laws - such as sick pay - and some form of universal healthcare. Or you'll have people who should be off sick, getting treatment if necessary spreading it.

Yeah, having universal health care, besides being the right thing to do, is also self-serving: you don't want sick people spreading around diseases because they can't afford health care. Having pockets of uncovered people is dangerous for the population as a whole.