ESOCommunity

btw @Cometk I misread your post on the former page. After reading it again today, it seems to me we were on the same page

@spanky4ever It doesn't seem like the election buying is going so well for them

fightinfrenchman wrote:@spanky4ever It doesn't seem like the election buying is going so well for them

That pleases me, a lot

Success at campaigning is clearly not about money spent in this time and age, with the most prevalent example being the Clinton vs Trump election. It's about how you craft your image and use your resources, how you identify your voter base's preferred channels and language of interaction and squeeze it out as much as possible. (Plus gerrymandering when it comes to the general election with the two major parties competing)

Buttigieg hahahahaha

Another one bites the dust

wonder why she will endorse? with her 2%.

fightinfrenchman wrote:Another one bites the dust

Bites the crust

I really do not think a candidate that will NOT campaign for M4A, can win in the long run. The support for it is just too big in the Dem base. When ppl find out where the different candidates are landing on this issue, I think they change their minds about some of their preferences.
This is the biggest issue in this election.

I worry that if the debate becomes too much about health care, whoever wins will be busy spending all of their political capital on it when by far the most pressing issue is democratic reform. If you start by making sure the government actually represents the people, dems win the next 5 elections (or just as good: you force the GOP to move left instead of sprinting further right) and you have all the time in the world to get M4A implemented.

I do agree that getting money out of politics, is a really big issue (if that is what are you talking about here?) And why not do both?

iwillspankyou wrote:And why not do both?

What could possibly be the reason

I mean, you have to do both to accomplish medicare for everyone.

So, as far as I can see, there is only one candidate, who is running on both of those issues (psst it is Sanders). Pete is taking corp money, like nobody else, while saying he will get money out of politics. That is not very trustworthy though. Sell your soul to the and he will collect, someday.

btw, Warren is dropping in the polls, and it seems to me, that Sanders is the main receiver of Warrens's voters? Imo Warren should drop out, and endorse Sanders. In the end, this will be a battle between Sanders and Biden.

I think if a candidate can create a cult of personality similar to what Trump has done, then I think "political capital" is irrelevant. In this way someone like Bernie might be able to get away with pushing for many more issues than just healthcare. I think Trump has proven that if you can convince people to believe in your cause (for better or for worse) then our previous ideas around what political capital is, is almost debunk. Consistently Trump does things which many would have said should have him plummeting down the polls (how many scandals have their been now?) yet he is really rather resistant. Arguably he isn't really achieving a whole lot now that he has lost the house and even his big agenda items besides his tax plan, still never really passed despite controlling all 3 branches of government beforehand.

The only remaining question would be if Bernie could unite the Democratic base like Trump did in 2016. Probably a much harder task as it is much more fractured than Republicans but still could happen.

Tbh just make "stupidgate" end, Americans. As the US or rather NA gets used as a proxy for "the West" in many parts of the world, we can't have you embarrassing the rest of the "West" on top of our own Brit-EU issues anymore. Stop that goofy orange man and be a strong and reliable partner once again. If you happen to vote for someone decent who might also curb income and social inequality as well as infrastructure issues at home, even better.

iwillspankyou wrote:I really do not think a candidate that will NOT campaign for M4A, can win in the long run. The support for it is just too big in the Dem base. When ppl find out where the different candidates are landing on this issue, I think they change their minds about some of their preferences.
This is the biggest issue in this election.

I dunno about that. I mean, sure, if you check surveys, more people in the USA say they support universal healthcare now than they did some years ago. But that doesn't tell you what kind of scheme they would support. It's like Brits voting for Brexit, you have no idea what kind of Brexit they would support or if there's any majority for any kind of Brexit (there probably isn't).

I think the main issue in any US election will be money, the economy. Trump made some bets when he started trade wars with other countries and he promised Americans can only gain from slapping tariffs on other countries' goods. If his policies don't deliver and the economy gets in a worse shape, then this will have consequences. You forget that Americans have some of the highest wages in the world. Those who have high wages don't care that much about universal healthcare. And the number of people with very low wages in the USA is not that large. They have a pretty balanced distribution of income levels. Most Americans make more than 50000 dollars per year:
In 2012 the average income in the USA was 51000 USD. In Norway the average income after tax in 2012 was about the same, but cost of living in Norway is very high. The only major difference is that the distribution of income levels is skewed towards the bottom in the USA, while in Norway it's skewed towards the top, meaning the number of people with very high incomes in Norway is much higher than the number of people with very low income.

Norway, income per households (breakdown in percentiles per levels of income after tax):
It seems like income inequality is rising in Norway: the middle class is starting to shrink while the top earners are making a lot more money than they used to, 5 years ago. I don't have data to compare with the USA, but there's probably a similar trend.
Bear in mind that other European countries have much lower average income levels than Norway and the USA. But in terms of purchasing power, Europeans are slightly better or close to American levels, I think. And that's thanks to free healthcare and education.

So, as long as Americans continue to have very high levels of individual income, I doubt universal healthcare will be their uppermost concern. And those that say they would agree with such a scheme have very different notions of what universal healthcare should be about. Which makes me doubt that this will be the main theme of the next elections. Sure, it's up there among other themes, but I doubt it's the be all and end all theme of the next elections.

And the number of people with very low wages in the USA is not that large

I'd dispute this, although I guess we have different definition of "large" here.

Dolan wrote:Most Americans make more than 50000 dollars per year:

Most households*. The difference is rather significant. And 20% of households having a combined income of less than 25k is definitely a problem. That's near or under the poverty line depending on the size of the family. We're talking about ~60 million people.

Well, it also depends on where those households are located. I think those that are among the top earners (above 75k) live in more expensive areas which also pay higher wages. While those who earn less live in less expensive areas. On average. So things get evened out in terms of cost of living, if we take into account location.

I think you'd have trouble making a living as a household with an income between $10k and $15k, which was apparently the most common household income in 2012, pretty much anywhere in the US.

Goodspeed wrote:

And the number of people with very low wages in the USA is not that large

I'd dispute this, although I guess we have different definition of "large" here.

Many of those included in those low-income brackets are part-time workers and students making a buck while completing their studies. There are also probably lots of immigrants that have just arrived in the US and who lack the skills and training to have access to higher paying jobs.

Goodspeed wrote:I think you'd have trouble making a living as a household with an income between $10k and $15k, which was apparently the most common household income in 2012, pretty much anywhere in the US.

If by "the most common household income" you mean 6% of all households, sure...

By most common I mean most common, i.e. more common than any other household income. And 6% of US households is ~20 million people. That's not a small number.

If the most common anything amounts to 6%, you know the statistical distribution among categories (here income brackets) is pretty diversified.

And? My point was that Americans don't have "high incomes". Diverse or not, if the most common household income is far below the poverty line, "Americans have such high incomes they don't care about health care reform" and "the group of Americans with low wages is not that large" seem like strange points to make.