USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

**Love Mountain** · February 06, 2020, 03:39 PM

It depends on how it's implemented. Medicare for All is ultimately just a slogan, the actual implementation and draft documents are what will determine what the system emulates and whether it goes further than the NHS. There are many more nuances than the very rough Beveridge/Bismarck comparison gives. In particular, I think it's useful to look at Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore as models of a successful healthcare system. In particular because the planners for all three looked at existing healthcare models in United States and Europe when designing and modifying their own.

One thing is in common. Almost all policy makers want to avoid the U.S. healthcare model and every system is different, however slight that difference may be to our subjective opinions.

**Aexodus** · February 06, 2020, 03:40 PM

In the UK you can get private healthcare for broken limbs, dental care, just about almost anything.

**PointOfViewGun** · February 06, 2020, 03:45 PM

It exists in Turkey. We have universal healthcare and private healthcare. Everyone is part of the universal healthcare. Private insurance is bought on top of it. Private is often expensive but increasing supply of hospitals created affordable options as well. It can get you better doctors, quicker service, better service, etc. Even in the strictest sense, cosmetic surgery is not just like getting botox. There are many medical procedures that are done because the patients push for it, unless they count in psychological reasons; getting a mole removed, surgical treatment for snoring, tonsillectomy, cleft lip surgery, circumcision, etc. There are many medical procedures that are not essential or emergencies. In reality, when Medicare for All really comes to fruition it will be negotiated, and what we get in the end will be a hybrid.

**Cope** · February 06, 2020, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

The assertion was that the DNC should have embraced Sanders to pull him to the center, and presumably, to capitalize on his populist support base. If Sanders had any interest in being the center of the Democrat party, he wouldn’t have spent his career explicitly distinguishing himself from the Democrat party.

My point wasn't so much about Sanders the man as it was about the Dem. establishment's general refusal to meet the progressives half-way on a variety of policy issues.

There are umpteen ways in which Trump is the polar opposite of the principles the GOP claims to uphold. From the cynical standpoint of political calculus, however, he delivers. That is part of the reason why the GOP slavishly defends him, even while he treats them like a battered wife, to the point where they wouldn’t even entertain the pretense of having witnesses at the impeachment trial, mostly to avoid his wrath. The other reason is, by the same token, that they can’t afford not to protect him, because he is the party now. Hence the tail wagging the dog. Piss him off, and you get primaried, because Trump enjoys increasingly loyal support from a shrinking Republican base. Nobody liked Bush, everybody liked Obama, so rather than move away from their more unpopular policies and rebrand, the GOP went full tard to survive.

On the actual substance (not the platitudes, grandstanding or stylistics) Trump is largely following the standard conservative playbook. And when you get down to brass tacks, that's what matters to congressional Republicans. Democratic handwringing about the GOP's supposed moral/constitutional obligation to sabotage their own White House is delusional at best: of course Republicans aren't going to kneecap a friendly presidency to placate the sort of frothing liberals who'll continue hating conservatism regardless.

That said, the Dems' polemic on the GOP's "slavish" conformity to Trump's whims is false anyway. The open denunciations (which included a bipartisan House resolution) the administration was subjected to by so-called loyalists like McConnell, Graham, Nunes et al. on the Syria withdrawal is evidence enough that the relationship between president and party is a two-way street.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, enjoys the majority of public support on key issues. Obama was one of the most popular presidents in modern history. Hillary won the popular vote. Where’s the payoff in embracing a guy who doesn’t even want to be in the party? Let Bernie take his supporters and run on the DSA ticket if he thinks his “grassroots campaign” doesn’t need the national infrastructure and credibility of the filthy corporate DNC. Only half of his supporters plan to support the nominee if he doesn’t win anyway.

Whether or not you think congressional Republicans are "retards" is irrelevant. The reality is that the Democratic Party will probably need Sanders' people as part of their coalition in the general election. Taking the Biden approach of telling critics or doubters to "go vote for someone else" (or sod off out of our party) will probably be as successful as the Clinton's "deplorables" message.

Buttigieg has the closest thing to the usual standards of any supposed frontrunner other than Biden or Warren. Hence being third choice in a field of second choices in a world where an openly corrupt failson is POTUS. He has a better resume IMO than a Senator from Vermont whose primary qualifications are being ideologically consistent and surviving a heart attack. At a bare minimum, I’ll trust a scandal-free soldier who went to Harvard and Oxford on a merit scholarship to act in the best interests of the nation, more than I would either a career protestor, or the guy who spent the last 4 years telling us how much more he trusts a KGB officer than the people who dedicated their lives in service to the Republic.

None of that is a defence of the claim that Buttigieg is "running on a qualified resume". On paper, his prior experience one of the weakest elements of his candidacy - hence why his rivals lined up to chastise him about it in the debates.

....which, without the kind of leadership that lives in the nation’s past, is exactly what the country needs: a return to normalcy that lasts at least long enough for the extremists on either side of the aisle to politically starve absent the ability to feed off the other’s power or position in the public sphere.

Except the "populist" insurgency is itself a revolt against the very "normalcy" you crave a return to. The expectation that a stage-managed talking head like Buttigieg (who represents much of what the far left opposes) will provide the charisma or leadership necessary to pacify the rebels seems far-fetched. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt that the the Dems. will be so easily able to put this stuff back in the box.

My first piece of advice to the Dems. would be to stop encouraging the sort of sectarian identity politics emanating from academia (which goes hand in hand with far left economics) and start addressing the crisis of progressive/liberal over-representation in universities. The party shouldn't be shocked that one of their core demographics (young, college educated people) are turning out for people like Sanders when they're being drip fed unchallenged socialist platitudes for years on end in higher education.

“Authenticity,” whether that means ideological purity, or the proverbial ability to “sit down and have a beer with someone,” exists only as far as political marketing and virtue signaling can take it.

Authentic leaders do not (or are not perceived to) filter their expressions or personalities through various PR sieves. Authenticity is a powerful leadership attribute in and of itself, but in moments characterised by distrust in government, it is especially useful. Clinton's failure to master it (unlike Pres. O.) is a key reason why she was unable to win. Classifying authentic leadership as a form of "political marketing" is partially true, but then so is the easily detectable coaching that candidates like Buttigieg are the recipients of.

It’s an especially American fantasy born as a side effect of the belief in our unique and inherent virtue as a people.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Americans respond more positively to perceived authenticity/genuineness than anyone else. As above, its current appeal in US politics linked with the distrust that many ordinary voters feel toward the political institutions (a phenomenon which is being felt across much of the democratic world).

Sanders supporters certainly don’t like Buttigieg for ideological reasons, like being “morally tainted” by corporate donations.

And not supporting Medicare for all. Or free college tuition. Or cutting military expenditure etc.

Overturning Citizens United as part of campaign finance reform is at the core of the Democrat party platform at this point.

When the DNC starts doing favours for neocon. billionaires like Bloomberg (who shouldn't be anywhere near the leadership in the first place) in return for donations, that somewhat destroys the idea that the Dem. establishment has any interest in campaign finance reform.

If the reason that only 3% of Sander supporters name Buttigieg their second choice is because he supports transitioning to M4A via a public option, then they’re welcome to oppose something that enjoys the broader of public support.

Presumably only a small number of Sanders supporters list Buttigieg as their second choice because they view Warren, Yang and Gabbard as more progressive alternatives who're more independent from the Dem. establishment.

**Ludicus** · February 06, 2020, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

. So, would M4A be a step past the UK system? In many ways, yes.

The Euro Health Consumer Index ranked our healthcare in 2018. Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) report

Many proud Brits will tell you that the UK NHS is the best, but our NHS ranks higher than the UK.Our NHS scored highest in terms of patient rights and information, accessibility and waiting times, as well as overall health outcomes.Edit: this report conflicts with the World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health ...
( 12th in the world). France ranks n.1 in the world.UK n. 18.
How it works, in detail,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

It seems to me that the NHS of richest country in the world- the US- will certainly become the best in the world.

----

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

My first piece of advice to the Dems. would be to stop encouraging the sort of sectarian identity politics emanating from academia (which goes hand in hand with far left economics) and start addressing the crisis of progressive/liberal over-representation in universities.

Really? how exactly? I'm not surprised, populist authoritarian counter-movements promise unsettled sections of the population "to take back our country and our people" “Take Back Control!
You know,the term Ambivalox (ambivalence+paradox) is a splendid designation for the right wing populist desire of protection against excessive mercantilism- and simultaneous rejection of the state; for the diabolization of social policies and taxes and simultaneous invocation of a centralized, authoritarian state.
To sum up; a democratic state? Nein, nyep, no, thank you. Discipline and order in the name of the old moral authoritarianism? Yessss...!
---
Well, Bolsonaro has the solution.Ask him. The authoritarian virus of the right wing populism is even worse than the coronavirus. Freedom of expression in Brazilian universities came under attack during the electoral campaign in October 2018, and now ...Bolsonaro declares open warfare on higher education
The opposition movements are always stronger in the universities were there is free speech. As someone has put it, who need Humanities when you have Trump and Bolsonaro? the destruction of high education is the new chapter of neoliberalism around the world.The idea is to turn public colleges and universities into business-style enterprises.
--

**Phier** · February 06, 2020, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ludicus

The authoritarian virus of the right wing populism is even worse than the coronavirus. Freedom of expression in Brazilian universities came under attack during the electoral campaign in October 2018, and now ...Bolsonaro declares open warfare on higher education
The opposition movements are always stronger in the universities were there is free speech.

Counter point:

The Authoritarian left at Universities.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/St...-Ban-of/246097

https://www.businessinsider.com/list...olleges-2016-7

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...an-campus-2016

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...son-invitation

And on... and on...

The Left is the war on free speech here in the first world.

**Ludicus** · February 06, 2020, 07:05 PM

Professors and Politics, what the research says,Research confirms that professors lean left, but questions

...but challenge idea that this results in indoctrination or harms conservatives.

Read the full article.

-------
Back to to topic,

Election Update: What The First Few Post-Iowa Polls Say ...

**Aexodus** · February 06, 2020, 07:07 PM

Perhaps political movements that think they have the right to regulate people’s personal behaviour are the ones more likely to infringe on freedom of speech.

**Gaidin** · February 06, 2020, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ludicus

Professors and Politics, what the research says,Research confirms that professors lean left, but questions

Read the full article.

-------
Back to to topic,

Election Update: What The First Few Post-Iowa Polls Say ...

I was wondering when it was going to be convenient for someone to post Nate’s model. Interesting timing, bro.

**Roma_Victrix** · February 06, 2020, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Aexodus

Forgive me if I’m being ignorant, but would abolishing any private option not be step past what the UK for example has. Here you have the option of the NHS or going private.

In terms of being insured at the point of service, but the NHS literally owns and operates the hospitals throughout the UK, whereas in the US we still have private and non-profit organizations maintaining the nation's hospitals, plus some that are government operated. Medicare for All would also just insure people's medical needs when they seek service or come in for an emergency, so it has nothing to do with ending private practices for doctors either. As indicated by Legio_Italica on the previous page, it wouldn't affect certain private health insurers for things like cosmetic care, but the major health insurance corporations would no longer be able to provide duplicate coverage for most medical procedures. That insurance would be offered to all citizens via Medicare for All, without copays or deductibles, but with higher taxes.

Originally Posted by Aexodus

In the UK you can get private healthcare for broken limbs, dental care, just about almost anything.

I lived in Northern Ireland for several years as a postgraduate student and, since I was in the UK on a student Visa, when I had a medical issue I didn't pay a dime for my visits to the hospital and prescriptions afterwards. If the same thing had happened in the US I would probably still be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Again, this is about having insurance at the point of service, not about ending private practices for doctors, is that what you're referring to here? Because Medicare for All wouldn't end private clinics or hospitals run by NGOs, it simply insures everyone when they walk in the door with a medical issue. Similarly, all citizens and legal residents in the UK are insured by the government via the NHS. Apparently in the UK you can opt for private health insurance instead, but only 10% of the population chooses to do so: https://www.internations.org/go/movi...ance-in-the-uk

Originally Posted by Legio_Italica

The same has been true for over ten years. Obamacare was a compromise with the GOP against the public option. The idea of a public option may be ideological heresy for the Sanders wing, but the American people have been consistent, nonetheless.

While yes, there is an even greater amount of Americans who would prefer to have at least a public option of government-run health insurance competing with companies operating in the private market, as indicated by the link shared in my previous post there is still a very clear majority of Americans who want Medicare for All. At the very least both of these things indicate a massive polling advantage for Democrats that they simply failed to capitalize on in 2009-2010 with the passing of the ACA, which could have gone a lot further. The GOP might have very secure issues like Second Amendment rights, but the Republican Party is simply not representative of the vast majority of Americans when it comes to their desired healthcare system.

**Ludicus** · February 07, 2020, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

In terms of being insured at the point of service, but the NHS literally owns and operates the hospitals throughout the UK, ... Medicare for All would also just insure people's medical needs when they seek service or come in for an emergency, so it has nothing to do with ending private practices for doctors either.

Exactly.
-------
Here, there are both public and private/for-profit hospitals. Many of the private hospitals are run by large private healthcare organizations. BUT,
What really matters, public and private hospitals are in fact part of the universal healthcare offered by the NHS: private hospitals operate on both a private and a public basis.Let us be clear- the financial survival of for-profit hospitals ( in doubt ask them) is highly dependent on state conventions, agreements, public-private partnerships.
In some selected cases, we are now putting an end to public-private Partnerships (PPP).

---
January 7, 2019. US Health Care Spending Highest Among Developed Countries Johns Hopkins

The United States, on a per capita basis, spends much more on health care than other developed countries; the chief reason is not greater health care utilization, but higher prices, according to a study from a team led by a Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health researcher.
The paper appears in the January issue of Health Affairs.
Princeton health care economist Uwe Reinhardt, who died in 2017, came to the same conclusion in their well-known 2003 study, “It's the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries.” (1) The new analysis is in part a tribute to the late Reinhardt.
The researchers also found that health spending in the U.S. has been growing faster than the other OECD countries
Not only does the U.S outspend other OECD countries, on the whole it has less access to many health care resources
The researchers found that in 2015, the most recent year for which data were available in the U.S., there were only 7.9 practicing nurses and 2.6 practicing physicians per 1,000 population, compared to the OECD medians of 9.9 nurses and 3.2 physicians.
Similarly, the U.S. in 2015 had only 7.5 new medical school graduates per 100,000 population, compared to the OECD median of 12.1, and just 2.5 acute care hospital beds per 1,000 population compared to the OECD median of 3.4.

It’s Still The Prices, Stupid: Why The US Spends So Much On Health Care, And A Tribute To Uwe Reinhardt,” was written by Gerard Anderson, Peter Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan.

(1) It's The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different ...

My country currently spends around 9.1% of its GDP on healthcare. U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2018, reaching $3.67 trillion. As a share of the nation's GDP, the US health spending accounted for 17.7 percent.

**Aexodus** · February 07, 2020, 04:47 AM

In terms of being insured at the point of service, but the NHS literally owns and operates the hospitals throughout the UK

Actually it doesn’t. There are private hospitals not run by the NHS.

**reavertm** · February 07, 2020, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ludicus

Let's not exaggerate. Buttigieg is a good guy.

Is he though? Getting DNC to recall pre-caucus Iowa poll showing Sanders considerable lead, allegedly [1] getting DNC to recount satellite caucusus votes in pro Bernie areas, just when he started to take ever Buttigieg even according to DNC Iowa official records. Ignoring accounts of Pete's campaign financing [2] ($42k) online voting application that just happened to have technical error during the Iowa caucus and allegations of person within Pete's campaign being affiliated with company that developed said application. Having incomplete results (with yet no massively pro Bernie areas counted according to polls) yet publicly declaring victory to build artificial momentum for New Hampshire. #mayorcheat was not trending on Twitter without a reason. He did flip-flop on Medicare for all just like Warren, he has the most percentage of billioner donors out of any of the candidates (sans Bloomberg and Stayer who are financing themselves), he worked for law firm and questionable clients [3]. There doesn't seem to be any integrity to him no matter how much he preaches about his Christianity, being gay and a veteran.

Pete may be good guy or/and he might be a fraud. He seems like he would fit within corrupt DNC structures of operation just fine. Much better than old Biden.

On the subject of NHS. Where I live, we seem to have pretty similar model as the Turkey (as someone here reported). Free public health care with state run hospitals.
Also, clarification, what to US folks is "private health care", in Poland is called "corporate health care" (run by corporation, a company). "Private" term is more used for privately owned gabinets/offices by individual doctors, whose services are of course paid.
So, 'corporate' hospitals do exist and often they have financial agreements with the state to perform service as if it was public hospital (so no difference to people). There is also corporate paid health care, aimed primarily at corporations but available to individuals as well, akin to US one but waay cheaper than is US, differing from public service with shorter waiting time, perceived better quality (but most often not really).
Dental services are most often privately owned offices/gabinets, you would wait forever to get public one..
Many public health care specialists (psychologists, dermatologists, etc) also have own private offices anyway. They are often earning more on their own than when working within corporate health service. There is perception that you work only for public health service when you have a true dedication to your profession (emphasis on "service" in "health service" so doctors are in very high regard) or you are a 'looser' (= don't want to be entrepreneur) and when you work only for corporate health service when you're a 'looser'.
Everyone is always covered by public plan (and is paid by being subtracted from income - you need to be child, student, employed or have a 'certificate' of unemployment), corporate health care can be purchased in usually monthly paid subscriptions on top of public plan. Resigning from corporate health plan does not require 'getting back' to public plan via any formalities.
I cannot fathom how in US having public health care would suddenly equate communism. One needs to be incredibly stupid to ignore the fact that free market produces cartels and health care is health 'business'.

(disclaimer, as non American, I'm just watching 2020 presidential elections with most interest. And I'm deeply disappointed. Even Banana Republic of Poland where I live seems to be less corrupt)

1. https://youtu.be/gQ2mtzzVxHE
2. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-caucus-delays
3. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/11/21010731/what-we-know-about-pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

**Gaidin** · February 07, 2020, 02:59 PM

Re [1]: if only they’d done their poll correctly.

**reavertm** · February 07, 2020, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Gaidin

Re [1]: if only they’d done their poll correctly.

Which has not been confirmed they didn't.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9313481.html

Recalled after Pete's campaign called DNC, just minutes before scheduled release, long after its been conducted after alleged omission of Pete's name when reading candidates' names (like people didn't know he was running, admittedly there are plenty of democratic candidates this time around). Doesn't sound a bit, just tiny bit sketchy?
Oh, and coin-tossing during caucus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xhNSH5Pns4. Not sketchy at all. I'm sorry, that's Banana States of America.

**Ludicus** · February 07, 2020, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by reavertm

Getting DNC to recall pre-caucus Iowa poll showing Sanders considerable lead, allegedly [1] getting DNC to recount satellite caucusus votes in pro Bernie areas, just when he started to take ever Buttigieg even according to DNC Iowa official records. Ignoring accounts of Pete's campaign financing [2] ($42k) online voting application that just happened to have technical error during the Iowa caucus and allegations of person within Pete's campaign being affiliated with company that developed said application. Having incomplete results (with yet no massively pro Bernie areas counted according to polls) yet publicly declaring victory to build artificial momentum for New Hampshire. #mayorcheat was not trending on Twitter without a reason..He seems like he would fit within corrupt DNC structures of operation just fine.

I know, I know.Maybe you're right. I still found that very..."strange".Sanders, in a state of perplexity,

---
Things are changing (?)...Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary? | FiveThirtyEight

Originally Posted by reavertm

what to US folks is "private health care", in Poland is called "corporate health care" (run by corporation, a company). ".

The US is entering a golden age of corporate medicine

---

Originally Posted by reavertm

"Private" term is more used for privately owned gabinets/offices by individual doctors

Well, the "independent" physician is in decline, there is no return.Here -and I think around the world, private practice is dying, a variety of factors have led to the decline of the physician-owned private practice.
So, there are two options for young doctors, this is what they ask themselves: should I work in a private practice or the public sector?
That being said, in Europe, the NHS has lasted because it works for people. In Europe, everybody knows that healthcare is a human right. Nobody worries about a medical bill, no one goes bankrupt because of medical debt. That's unthinkable.
In the UK, even Thatcher wasn't able to privatize the NHS. Very recently, the Conservative Party in the UK declared : "The NHS is not for sale".

**Heathen Hammer** · February 07, 2020, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

Haha, very funny. Yeah, I heard about that "correction" they had to make in Black Hawk County where oops! Some of Bernie's delegates "accidentally" went to Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer, but were fixed when the county released their own data ahead of the IDP. Funny how that happens!

As for Sanders redistributing capital, he basically wants to do that slightly more than present Democrats and Republicans but certainly far less so than a truly social democratic country like Sweden. Even Republicans "redistribute" wealth if you think about where our tax dollars are currently going and what they are funding. For instance, our military doesn't pay for itself.

Although that would be cool if it actually did generate capital in a self-sustaining way somehow. Also, while they have tried several times to cut Social Security and Medicare for the elderly, even Republicans can't touch these time-honored golden gooses of the legislature, a legacy stretching back to FDR's New Deal. It's no wonder that "Medicare for All" as championed by Sanders is now supported by a clear majority of Americans: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/po...-january-2020/

I wouldn't really use Sweden as an example of socialist success, given its current state.
The only way to make economy self-sustaining is to axe Federal Reserve and back up the currency, as well as ending the policy of mass-importation of foreigners.
As for the social security, objectively being an economic brick tied to economy's ankles, it will be slashed once boomer voters die out.

**Ludicus** · February 07, 2020, 05:13 PM

This is interesting, Iowa Caucus Results - Iowa Caucus Errors - Who Won Iowa ...

and We Did the Math to Prove It... The four mistakes we’ve just highlighted have helped and hurt a mix of candidates. Three of them helped Buttigieg, while one hurt him. Biden broke even with one positive and one negative, and Sanders was hurt twice.

Sanders,

I think we will ask the Iowa Democratic Party to take a look at those precincts

----
Sanders attack on 'Pete's billionaires'
"This election is fundamentally about whose side you are on", he says,

**Lord Thesaurian** · February 08, 2020, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

My point wasn't so much about Sanders the man as it was about the Dem. establishment's general refusal to meet the progressives half-way on a variety of policy issues.

Sanders has largely become the ideological yardstick by which the other candidates are forced to either measure up or distinguish against. I don’t know how much further the party is supposed to go when the man who markets himself as the most progressive candidate in the race has already shifted the overton window of Democrat party politics toward his end of the spectrum.

On the actual substance (not the platitudes, grandstanding or stylistics) Trump is largely following the standard conservative playbook. And when you get down to brass tacks, that's what matters to congressional Republicans. Democratic handwringing about the GOP's supposed moral/constitutional obligation to sabotage their own White House is delusional at best: of course Republicans aren't going to kneecap a friendly presidency to placate the sort of frothing liberals who'll continue hating conservatism regardless.

That said, the Dems' polemic on the GOP's "slavish" conformity to Trump's whims is false anyway. The open denunciations (which included a bipartisan House resolution) the administration was subjected to by so-called loyalists like McConnell, Graham, Nunes et al. on the Syria withdrawal is evidence enough that the relationship between president and party is a two-way street.

The failure of the GOP to do anything but briefly clutch pearls every time Trump does whatever he wants, including in Syria, is evidence enough of the party’s slavish conformity to Trump’s whims; this despite efforts to reassure the public that they have the situation under control.

Whether or not you think congressional Republicans are "retards" is irrelevant. The reality is that the Democratic Party will probably need Sanders' his people as part of their coalition in the general election. Taking the Biden approach of telling critics or doubters to "go vote for someone else" (or sod off out of our party) will probably be as successful as the Clinton's "deplorables" message.

Democrat voters want a moderate candidate. There’s no one candidate for the moderate vote to coalesce around. Maybe Sanders has enough momentum to run away with the nomination in the meantime, maybe he doesn’t and his supporters stay home in the general. Half of Sanders supporters plan to support any other nominee if their candidate doesn’t win, compared to 80-90 % of supporters of other frontrunners. I don’t know what kind of coalition can be formed with people who are more interested in a particular candidate than in uniting behind a platform supported by the majority of Americans.

None of that is a defence of the claim that Buttigieg is "running on a qualified resume". On paper, his prior experience one of the weakest elements of his candidacy - hence why his rivals lined up to chastise him about it in the debates.

Buttigieg seems confident he can defend his prior experience as a matter of quality over quantity. As I said, with Biden and Warren sinking, I don’t personally consider it lacking in comparison to Sanders or Trump. Neither do I see the utility of debating what “the usual standards” are as a way to say Buttigieg is unqualified.

Except the "populist" insurgency is itself a revolt against the very "normalcy" you crave for a return to. The expectation that a stage-managed talking head like Buttigieg (who represents much of what the far left opposes) will provide the charisma or leadership necessary to pacify the rebels seems far-fetched. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt that the the Dems. will be so easily able to put this stuff back in the box.

My first piece of advice to the Dems. would be to stop encouraging the sort of sectarian identity politics emanating from academia (which goes hand in hand with far left economics) and start addressing the crisis of progressive/liberal over-representation in universities. The party shouldn't be shocked that one of their core demographics (young, college educated people) are turning out for people like Sanders when they're being drip fed unchallenged socialist platitudes for years on end in higher education.

Sanders is the standard bearer of identity politics in the race among any supposed front runners, touting his level of support among racial minorities, and attacking other candidates as elitist and ideologically fraudulent. College educated Democrats tend to prefer other candidates to Sanders who are perceived as more moderate, in 2016 as well as 2020.

Authentic leaders do not (or are not perceived to) filter their expressions or personalities through various PR sieves. Authenticity is a powerful leadership attribute in and of itself, but in moments characterised by distrust in government, it is especially useful. Clinton's failure to master it (unlike Pres. O.) is a key reason why she was unable to win. Classifying authentic leadership a form of "political marketing" is partially true, but then so is the easily detectable coaching that candidates like Buttigieg are the recipients of.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Americans respond more positively to perceived authenticity/genuineness than anyone else. As above, its current appeal in US politics linked with the distrust that many ordinary voters feel toward the political institutions (a phenomenon which is being felt across much of the democratic world).

American politics is especially obsessed with authenticity. The phenomenon predates and transcends any current prevalence in popular disaffection with political institutions.

And not supporting Medicare for all. Or free college tuition. Or cutting military expenditure etc.

Buttigieg considers the public option to be a natural vehicle by which M4A can be implemented. He’s proposed free college for all below a set income cap. He pledged to pull troops out of Afghanistan, and to reallocate military spending away from “endless wars.” The latter positions are in line with the public consensus, which supports a public option more broadly than M4A, believes military spending to be at the right level, and is split on free college. Recent polling of Democrats indicates opposition to the free college for the wealthy, and a belief that people should be able to keep their private insurance if desired. Sanders supporters certainly don’t like Buttigieg for ideological reasons. However, in terms of policy goals, being more in line with public consensus on major issues would preclude dismissing him as the proverbial billionaire’s Manchurian candidate.

When the DNC starts doing favours for neocon. billionaires like Bloomberg (who shouldn't be anywhere near the leadership in the first place) in return for donations, that somewhat destroys the idea that the Dem. establishment has any interest in campaign finance reform.

Again, overturning Citizens United as part of campaign finance reform is at the core of the Democrat Party platform. There’s also a sizable campaign finance reform bill from the House that’s been collecting dust in the Senate for nearly a year now. The DNC can run their debates however they want.

Presumably only a small number of Sanders supporters list Buttigieg as their second choice because they view Warren, Yang and Gabbard as more progressive alternatives who're more independent from the Dem. establishment.

Sanders supporters rank Buttigieg alongside Bloomberg as an alternate choice, despite the fact Buttigieg is often closer to Sanders on policy than is Bloomberg, especially on taxation, education, and healthcare.

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

While yes, there is an even greater amount of Americans who would prefer to have at least a public option of government-run health insurance competing with companies operating in the private market, as indicated by the link shared in my previous post there is still a very clear majority of Americans who want Medicare for All. At the very least both of these things indicate a massive polling advantage for Democrats that they simply failed to capitalize on in 2009-2010 with the passing of the ACA, which could have gone a lot further. The GOP might have very secure issues like Second Amendment rights, but the Republican Party is simply not representative of the vast majority of Americans when it comes to their desired healthcare system.

From the KFF link: support for M4A drops to an even split when respondents are told their taxes may go up even though insurance premiums would be eliminated. Responses also suggest many may not understand the difference between M4A and a public option, as 2/3 of those who support M4A mistakenly believe they’ll have the option to keep their current health insurance. Half of those who oppose M4A understand that they would not have that option. Democrats also support expanding the ACA over replacing it with M4A 55-40%. A public option not only has broader support, it also faces less opposition, which is a political consideration if nothing else.

There’s no question the Democrat Party has the support of the majority of Americans on key issues. That’s the point; or at least, it should be. A debate over which candidate can claim the lowest dollar amount per individual contribution in a given quarter, or who has the right to call themselves a “true” Progressive, might make political sense in the primary, but I don’t see the utility of such criteria in selecting a candidate to go up against Trump.