The distribution of answers is this:Do you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it. People who currently have other coverage could keep what they have. Would you favor or oppose this type of plan?
I’ll let you in a dirty little secret I’ve been sharing for years. The general population polls WAY more progressive than how they’re represented. See the Princeton study on political outcomes and/or my Carlin thread about the donor/owner class.JohnStOnge wrote:I do not support the idea of universal government-guaranteed health care. But while I was looking through polling results to day I saw something that started me. Its the Emerson poll conducted 10/1 through 10/4/2018 (https://www.emerson.edu/news-events/eme ... 7fgajWZ1E7). You can download and Excel file with all the results. As I was going through it I saw this question:
The distribution of answers is this:Do you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it. People who currently have other coverage could keep what they have. Would you favor or oppose this type of plan?
Favor: 53.2%
Oppose: 30.7%
Unsure: 16.2%
Pushing the Medicare for all clearly appears to be a winning approach. I wonder if we'll start seeing more of that.
This is some Hippie Bullsh!t right here... ^kalm wrote:
End the war on drugs, Medicare Part E, military pull back, regulate Wall Street, etc are all winning planks.
I’m not saying you can do them just that they’re planks that will help not hurt.Chizzang wrote:This is some Hippie Bullsh!t right here... ^kalm wrote:
End the war on drugs, Medicare Part E, military pull back, regulate Wall Street, etc are all winning planks.
1) The only way we're going to "End the war on Drugs"
is if Corporate America can somehow capitalize on it
2) Keep your Socialism off my Medicare
That's about how 50% of America feels - So you'll need a crayon drawing to get that worked out
3) Military pull back is for slack jawed homosexuals and Women's book clubs
4) The only thing capable of Regulating Wall Street is full blown lynching in the streets
Our Federal Government is completely on the take
Good luck
Don't forget about gender identity being on a spectrum and not binary...kalm wrote:I’ll let you in a dirty little secret I’ve been sharing for years. The general population polls WAY more progressive than how they’re represented. See the Princeton study on political outcomes and/or my Carlin thread about the donor/owner class.JohnStOnge wrote:I do not support the idea of universal government-guaranteed health care. But while I was looking through polling results to day I saw something that started me. Its the Emerson poll conducted 10/1 through 10/4/2018 (https://www.emerson.edu/news-events/eme ... 7fgajWZ1E7). You can download and Excel file with all the results. As I was going through it I saw this question:
The distribution of answers is this:
Favor: 53.2%
Oppose: 30.7%
Unsure: 16.2%
Pushing the Medicare for all clearly appears to be a winning approach. I wonder if we'll start seeing more of that.
End the war on drugs, Medicare Part E, military pull back, regulate Wall Street, etc are all winning planks.
Systems tend to become more complex and convoluted over time...kalm wrote:
I’m not saying you can do them just that they’re planks that will help not hurt.
MAGA.
I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of all those issues as well. I say that as someone who is very pro life and who believes the second amendment, if we're honest about it, says people have a right to have nuclear weapons if they want.Pwns wrote: If the Democrats ever ran a candidate who was pro-life, pro-gun, and not a pro-illegal-immigrant candidate...
Yeah, but if a donk in a blue state votes with the NRA and gun rights advocates, it probably won't hurt that donk in the election much. However if you have a donk in a red state or district that votes gun control they're going to be feeling the heat (see 1994). It's about weighing which issues will be deal breakers for what number of voters.JohnStOnge wrote:I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of all those issues as well. I say that as someone who is very pro life and who believes the second amendment, if we're honest about it, says people have a right to have nuclear weapons if they want.Pwns wrote: If the Democrats ever ran a candidate who was pro-life, pro-gun, and not a pro-illegal-immigrant candidate...
When it comes to guns see this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
As of the most recent assessment 67% thought gun laws should be made more strict, 28% thought they should stay as they are, and 4% thought that they should be made less strict.
When it comes to abortion see this: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first- ... gh-n893806
71% thought Roe vs. Wade should stand vs. only 23% thinking it should be reversed.
When it comes to the status of illegal immigrants, see this: https://immigrationforum.org/article/po ... mmigrants/
There are a bunch of different polls cited there but it's clear most people favor giving illegal immigrants legal status.
I’m not smart enough to be anything but a reductionist so I’m gonna continue to ride this horse whether you like it or not.Chizzang wrote:Systems tend to become more complex and convoluted over time...kalm wrote:
I’m not saying you can do them just that they’re planks that will help not hurt.
MAGA.
(See: 2,500 page Tax Code)
Advanced systems don't uncomplicate themselves...
instead of subtraction we tend to add to them and build on them
Legalizing Marijuana is complicated (except for the Police part) it's generated more complexity (not less)
Legalizing drugs in general would be a half a million pages of legislation in this country
The simple answer is rarely the answer complex organizations settle on
And presently our system is a convoluted mess
I enjoy your Hippie Spirit and also wish we would go back to the simplicity of common sense
But we're way past that now... Everything is a rubics cube now
kalm wrote:I’m not smart enough to be anything but a reductionist so I’m gonna continue to ride this horse whether you like it or not.Chizzang wrote:
Systems tend to become more complex and convoluted over time...
(See: 2,500 page Tax Code)
Advanced systems don't uncomplicate themselves...
instead of subtraction we tend to add to them and build on them
Legalizing Marijuana is complicated (except for the Police part) it's generated more complexity (not less)
Legalizing drugs in general would be a half a million pages of legislation in this country
The simple answer is rarely the answer complex organizations settle on
And presently our system is a convoluted mess
I enjoy your Hippie Spirit and also wish we would go back to the simplicity of common sense
But we're way past that now... Everything is a rubics cube now
And I would quibble on your drug legalization analogy. Nothing is more complicated than the court/criminal justice system...which is also by design I think. We stand the chance that someday growing weed in your backyard is as simple as growing tomatoes. Hell we might already be there as I’m to lazy lately to grow my own tomatoes too.
Pwns wrote:There is broad support for some minimum wage increase as well.
If the Democrats ever ran a candidate who was pro-life, pro-gun, and not a pro-illegal-immigrant candidate along with being liberal on these economic issues, they'd clean up. But of course they won't because it's more important to be multicultural and divide people by race and sex with noxious social justice crap.
(Of course, to even think about medicare-for-all system, you pretty much need to control immigration more than we do now.)
Kind what "THEY" said about Obamacare, except it didn't pan out once the dirty little hands in Washington finished with it.JohnStOnge wrote:I do not support the idea of universal government-guaranteed health care. But while I was looking through polling results to day I saw something that started me. Its the Emerson poll conducted 10/1 through 10/4/2018 (https://www.emerson.edu/news-events/eme ... 7fgajWZ1E7). You can download and Excel file with all the results. As I was going through it I saw this question:
The distribution of answers is this:Do you favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it. People who currently have other coverage could keep what they have. Would you favor or oppose this type of plan?
Favor: 53.2%
Oppose: 30.7%
Unsure: 16.2%
Pushing the Medicare for all clearly appears to be a winning approach. I wonder if we'll start seeing more of that.
Actually I think that right before "Obamacare" passed the majority opposed it. That's one thing that caused the Democrats problems. Then later on it became more popular until, about the time Trump was trying to repeal it, most people supported it.Gil Dobie wrote:Kind what "THEY" said about Obamacare, except it didn't pan out once the dirty little hands in Washington finished with it.JohnStOnge wrote:I do not support the idea of universal government-guaranteed health care. But while I was looking through polling results to day I saw something that started me. Its the Emerson poll conducted 10/1 through 10/4/2018 (https://www.emerson.edu/news-events/eme ... 7fgajWZ1E7). You can download and Excel file with all the results. As I was going through it I saw this question:
The distribution of answers is this:
Favor: 53.2%
Oppose: 30.7%
Unsure: 16.2%
Pushing the Medicare for all clearly appears to be a winning approach. I wonder if we'll start seeing more of that.
FIFYChizzang wrote:This is some Hippie Bullsh!t right here... ^kalm wrote:
End the war on drugs, Medicare Part E, military pull back, regulate Wall Street, etc are all winning planks.
1) The only way we're going to "End the war on Drugs"
is if Federal Government can somehow capitalize on it
2) Keep your Socialism off my Medicare
Medicare is money WE paid in. Nothing “socialism” about it
3) Military pull back is for slack jawed homosexuals and Women's book clubs
A good percentage of Americans (including a good percentage of former/retired military) support a military pullback and a ceasing of being the world’s policeman
4) The only thing capable of Regulating Wall Street is full blown lynching in the streets
Our Federal Government IS Wall Street. And lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.
Yep. Idyllic Portland, Oregon, the bastion of inclusivity.Baldy wrote:Emphasize?
It doesn't matter, this is what they're turning into.
I smell a road trip with the boys...93henfan wrote:I can't wait until I can shoot them.
The oldest one would probably dress in black and yell at elderly white people. He's trending down the wrong path.Rob Iola wrote:I smell a road trip with the boys...93henfan wrote:I can't wait until I can shoot them.
93henfan wrote:The oldest one would probably dress in black and yell at elderly white people. He's trending down the wrong path.Rob Iola wrote: I smell a road trip with the boys...
His mother is from Bay area, CA. They're all confused liberals.Chizzang wrote:93henfan wrote:
The oldest one would probably dress in black and yell at elderly white people. He's trending down the wrong path.
I can't imagine how he got to that place in your house...
You’re channeling your inner Kasich. God help us.GannonFan wrote:This is, to me at least, what I think the Democrats have done wrong in the past few years. There is way too much focus on the peace and justice/social identity politics, and even more so the anger aspect of those, rather than on the regular political positions of the day. I don't mean to say that Identity politics doesn't have a place in the pantheon of political discussion, because it most certainly does (women's equality, LGBT and so on civil rights, ethnic minority civil rights, etc).
But the Democrats have increasingly, for years now, gone to an all-out, "we're right and the other side is literally evil-incarnate" mantra, and demanded outrage as the mode of political discussion, that hasn't resulted in them being able to win elections outside of safe blue bunkers. It certainly was capsulated in Hillary's ill-advised "basket of deplorable" reflection but of course you've seen it time and time again in terms of campus violence against speakers, ANTIFA actions, and the various protests and marches probably ever since Occupy Wall Street. They're doing great at protesting, but not so great at elections. The GOP clearly has their flaws too (they are mainly white, they are evangelical to a fault, and they certainly cater to the financially elite), but the GOP isn't the one resulting to violence and oppression of thought to carry their message.
I like what JSO has pointed out - the Dems should have issues that they could and should win on. Frankly, nationalized health care should be something they could stand behind. Raising of the minimum wage. Immigration (making this complex topic something more understandable in terms of what we're actually doing). These are all better things and could stand them well come election time. However, they can't seem to stop themselves from being uncontrollably angry and outraged (the whole quote "if you're not outraged then you're not paying attention"). Neither party has to genuinely like the other party - it's still politics and people will always have different opinions. But we'll never get back to a politics where people can genuinely reach across the aisle on anything if we continue the scorched earth approach of anger that, if politics were a see-saw, is tilting to the left for too long now. Neither side is evil - we need to get past that idea if we're going to move ahead.
