The Democratic Presidential Debates

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You know, that would be an interesting strategy for a party.

Figure out what you consider to be swing states and only hold primaries there. Solid red states won't vote D no matter what. Solid blue states will vote D no matter what. Find out which candidate is preferred in the states where you have to duke it out.

I think it's a recipe for failure.  It will decimate your party at the non-swing state level and possibly negatively affect down ballot and local races.  My argument is tongue in cheek completely.  I could get behind a 3 Super Tuesdays (vs all voting in one day) or some other type of calendar, but I would not support a swing state-only primary. 

Man, I don't know. There was an NBC/WSJ poll a week or so ago where Bernie had a 12 point lead. If you just pulled out respondents from what they identified as swing states it was Biden by 1. Kinda interesting. 

pjl44

It would never happen because it's Not What We're Used To Doing but....a little interesting 

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

I know you don't mean it this way, but here's how that would play...  You're basically telling the 60% of Dems in SC that are black to move to the back (of the bus).  That won't play well.  Remember, this is why that state is an important bellweather, it's the first one that is diverse.  

That's how it would play on cable news and in the twittersphere. I don't care about that. I also don't believe that people of color in South Carolina necessarily have the same thoughts and concerns as those in Michigan or Pennsylvania. As far as bellweathers go, South Carolina is a poor one. 

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You know, that would be an interesting strategy for a party.

Figure out what you consider to be swing states and only hold primaries there. Solid red states won't vote D no matter what. Solid blue states will vote D no matter what. Find out which candidate is preferred in the states where you have to duke it out.

I think it's a recipe for failure.  It will decimate your party at the non-swing state level and possibly negatively affect down ballot and local races.  My argument is tongue in cheek completely.  I could get behind a 3 Super Tuesdays (vs all voting in one day) or some other type of calendar, but I would not support a swing state-only primary. 

Man, I don't know. There was an NBC/WSJ poll a week or so ago where Bernie had a 12 point lead. If you just pulled out respondents from what they identified as swing states it was Biden by 1. Kinda interesting. 

Was it in a head to head only, or are you saying it's Biden by 1 with all candidates in the race?  I ask because I would bet if there were only two candidates (Bernie + Moderate), the moderate wins by more than +1, nationwide.  Bernie's lead has something to do with Warren's current weakness, and the mediocre strength of the four moderates.  

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

I know you don't mean it this way, but here's how that would play...  You're basically telling the 60% of Dems in SC that are black to move to the back (of the bus).  That won't play well.  Remember, this is why that state is an important bellweather, it's the first one that is diverse.  

That's how it would play on cable news and in the twittersphere. I don't care about that. I also don't believe that people of color in South Carolina necessarily have the same thoughts and concerns as those in Michigan or Pennsylvania. As far as bellweathers go, South Carolina is a poor one. 

I don't know enough about AA voting patterns to say that the AA community in SC has a different set of priorities and beliefs than those communities in PA, MI, etc.  

pjl44

2012
Obama NY +23
Romney SC +10

2008
Obama NY +26
McCain SC +9

2004
Kerry NY +18
Bush SC +17

2000
Gore NY +25
Bush SC +16

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You know, that would be an interesting strategy for a party.

Figure out what you consider to be swing states and only hold primaries there. Solid red states won't vote D no matter what. Solid blue states will vote D no matter what. Find out which candidate is preferred in the states where you have to duke it out.

I think it's a recipe for failure.  It will decimate your party at the non-swing state level and possibly negatively affect down ballot and local races.  My argument is tongue in cheek completely.  I could get behind a 3 Super Tuesdays (vs all voting in one day) or some other type of calendar, but I would not support a swing state-only primary. 

Man, I don't know. There was an NBC/WSJ poll a week or so ago where Bernie had a 12 point lead. If you just pulled out respondents from what they identified as swing states it was Biden by 1. Kinda interesting. 

Was it in a head to head only, or are you saying it's Biden by 1 with all candidates in the race?  I ask because I would bet if there were only two candidates (Bernie + Moderate), the moderate wins by more than +1, nationwide.  Bernie's lead has something to do with Warren's current weakness, and the mediocre strength of the four moderates.  

Both numbers are with the full field and I agree with the rest of your post

JimmyV

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

I know you don't mean it this way, but here's how that would play...  You're basically telling the 60% of Dems in SC that are black to move to the back (of the bus).  That won't play well.  Remember, this is why that state is an important bellweather, it's the first one that is diverse.  

That's how it would play on cable news and in the twittersphere. I don't care about that. I also don't believe that people of color in South Carolina necessarily have the same thoughts and concerns as those in Michigan or Pennsylvania. As far as bellweathers go, South Carolina is a poor one. 

I don't know enough about AA voting patterns to say that the AA community in SC has a different set of priorities and beliefs than those communities in PA, MI, etc.  

They might very well have the same priorities, but I think it is a mistake to simply assume that they do. That's pretty much what we do when we look to South Carolina as an indicator. 

Spiritual_Chaos

HughFreakingDillon said:

if bernie wins he's choosing either kamala or pete. for obvious reasons. I'd personally go with kamala. 

why would he pick anyone of those?

Spiritual_Chaos

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if bernie wins he's choosing either kamala or pete. for obvious reasons. I'd personally go with kamala. 

What makes you think Kamala or Peter are going to drag their good name through the mud by hitching a ride to that dumpster fire?

Nobody with any sort of reputation is actually going to want to be Bernie's vp.

I bet many with a reputation would want to be the most favorable and beloved senators vp. 

mcgruff10

I think the true indicator next Tuesday will be the results from America Samoa.  

mrussel1

mcgruff10 said:

I think the true indicator next Tuesday will be the results from America Samoa.  

As Samoa goes, so does Pennsylvania. 

Lerxst1992

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

Lerxst1992

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

SC is important not because it never votes D in the general, thats not the issue.

SC is the first test to see how enthusiastic the D base is. You can infer based on turnout in the SC primary how the base might turn out in swing states in the fall.

SC is also important because Biden needs momentum going into Super Tuesday. If Sanders gets a blowout in Cali and splits the rest of the states evenly Tues, that could spell trouble for voters wanting a democrat on the ticket in Nov. 

pjl44

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

What does "privatizing Medicare" mean? I've tried searching it and all I can find is that he plans to "expand" or "bolster" Medicare Advantage, which is kinda vague.

mickeyrat

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

What does "privatizing Medicare" mean? I've tried searching it and all I can find is that he plans to "expand" or "bolster" Medicare Advantage, which is kinda vague.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/types-of-medicare-health-plans/medicare-advantage-plans

JimmyV

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Then you also shouldn't care what TX, CA, NY, ME, MD and 40 some other states think either.  

What?

If SC isn't voting for a Democrat either way, then you're right.  Who cares.  But CA and NY ARE voting for a Democrat, no matter who, so why do you care about that?  The same logic applies.  Under that logic, the only primaries that matter are FL, MI, PA, WI, and maybe AZ, CO, VA.  The rest, you can just scrap.  

South Carolina isn't voting for a Democrat either way. That is the point. And, yes, I do believe the SC primary could be scrapped. 

So why not scrap NY?  They are voting D either way.  Like I said, just let swing states vote and concentrate all the campaigning and debates into the 8 or 10 swing states.  If we don't care what our SC party members think, then logically we shouldn't care what the NY members think.  

Because New York might not always vote Democrat and keeping voters there inspired is important. Because asking voters you need to win who they think is the best choice is important.  

So SC can never possibly vote Democrat, so don't bother to give them a voice?  These arguments cut both ways.   

If there was a realistic chance of South Carolina voting Democrat in the near future, or any history at all of them doing so in my lifetime, I would not be making this case. There is neither. And I would be fine with scrapping the SC primary altogether, but my greater point is that, of all the early states, South Carolina should have the least say in who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. At the very least move it to the back of the line. 

SC is important not because it never votes D in the general, thats not the issue.

SC is the first test to see how enthusiastic the D base is. You can infer based on turnout in the SC primary how the base might turn out in swing states in the fall.

SC is also important because Biden needs momentum going into Super Tuesday. If Sanders gets a blowout in Cali and splits the rest of the states evenly Tues, that could spell trouble for voters wanting a democrat on the ticket in Nov. 

South Carolina is neither a swing state nor a good indicator of Democratic base turnout. Iowa voted for Obama in 2008. New Hampshire has been blue since 2004 but historically has not been as reliably Democratic as other New England states. Both would paint a better picture of turnout and enthusiasm than South Carolina.

Jimmy Carter. 1976. Red state ever since.

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

What does "privatizing Medicare" mean? I've tried searching it and all I can find is that he plans to "expand" or "bolster" Medicare Advantage, which is kinda vague.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/types-of-medicare-health-plans/medicare-advantage-plans

With all due respect, I work in healthcare. I know what Medicare Advantage plans are. What I'm asking him is what is going to be different vs. today.

mickeyrat

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

What does "privatizing Medicare" mean? I've tried searching it and all I can find is that he plans to "expand" or "bolster" Medicare Advantage, which is kinda vague.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/types-of-medicare-health-plans/medicare-advantage-plans

With all due respect, I work in healthcare. I know what Medicare Advantage plans are. What I'm asking him is what is going to be different vs. today.

more will be pushed to these plans.

like my employer pushes hsa plans vs ppo. more up front cost borne by the consumer.

with the massive proposed cuts to medicare in his latest budget, what does that tell you?

pjl44

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

JimmyV said:

So much angst about Iowa (justified, IMO) and New Hampshire (less so) shaping the race, but South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. It's hard for me to really care about who Democrats there think should be on the ticket this year.  

Yes, many are indifferent about preexisting conditions and privatizing Medicare which will happen if trump wins. Surprising but true.

What does "privatizing Medicare" mean? I've tried searching it and all I can find is that he plans to "expand" or "bolster" Medicare Advantage, which is kinda vague.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/types-of-medicare-health-plans/medicare-advantage-plans

With all due respect, I work in healthcare. I know what Medicare Advantage plans are. What I'm asking him is what is going to be different vs. today.

more will be pushed to these plans.

like my employer pushes hsa plans vs ppo. more up front cost borne by the consumer.

with the massive proposed cuts to medicare in his latest budget, what does that tell you?

How will people be "pushed" though? Medicare subsidizes MA plans. Someone enrolls with Medicare, continues to pay Medicare, and then has the choice to supplement Medicare (Medigap, MA, etc.). 90% of Medicare beneficiaries have some supplemental coverage. 30% have MA and that number grows every year. What are people afraid is going to happen?