Friday, August 02, 2019
Second Debates Are Over - It's Time For Some To Go
The field of 25 was always ridiculous. I guess the party needed to be fair and give everyone a chance, but the truth is that most of that 25 never stood a chance of being nominated. It's time for them to go! At least half of them should drop out -- if not more.
One thing that will help is the third debate. The party says the requirements to participate in the third debate will be more stringent. That debate will be held on September 12th, and if needed, September 13th. Let us cross our fingers and hope that second night is not needed. It's time for all the leaders to be on the same debate platform so Democratic (and Independent) voters can get serious about who they want to be represented by in November of 2020.
The requirements to participate in the September debate are 130,000 unique donors and to register at least 2% in four respected polls. Personally, I think those requirements are not stringent enough. It will probably still allow about 10 to 12 candidates to participate, and that's still too many. If after several months of campaigning and two debates, a candidate only has 2% support and 130,000 donors, then they are just engaging in wishful thinking -- not a real presidential campaign.
Here's who is likely to make the third debate stage, according to The New York Times:
Seven candidates have already met both qualification thresholds and are guaranteed a spot on stage. They are:
- Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
- Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
- Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.
- Senator Kamala Harris of California
- Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas
- Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
- Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.
Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).
We asked all three of their campaigns to provide donor numbers so we could assess where they stood. Ms. Gabbard had just under 114,000 donors as of Wednesday night. A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said he was “on track to collect the required number of donors to make the September debate stage” but did not give a number. Mr. Hickenlooper’s campaign did not respond, but Politico reported a month ago that he had only 13,000 donors.
The other 11 candidates in the race have no qualifying polls to their name, and they all went into this week’s debates seeking a viral moment that would attract new donors and lift them, even briefly, in the polls.
Thursday, August 01, 2019
The Public Is Not Buying Trump's Claim Of Exoneration
These charts show the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 27th and 30th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,101 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.6 points, and for registered voters is 3.1 points.
In an effort to stymie impeachment and keep his base behind him, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Mueller Report completely exonerated him of both obstruction of justice and collusion with Russia. Of course, his claims are outrageous lies.
Fortunately, the American public knows this. By a 32 point margin (37 points among registered voters), they say the Mueller Report did NOT exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. And by a 20 point margin (23 points among registered voters), they say the Mueller Report did NOT exonerate Trump of colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 election.
Candidate Debate Over "Medicare-For-All" Is A Moot Point
On Tuesday night in the first of the two debates, a lot of time was spent discussing Medicare-For-All (a government-run, single-payer health insurance system). The biggest supporters were Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and the leading voices against MFA were Tim Ryan and John Delaney. Sadly though, this was just a lot of wasted time, because the debate over Medicare-For-All is a moot one.
Don't get me wrong. I support our nation eventually moving to a government-run, single-payer system (like Medicare-For-All). But it is not going to happen anytime soon -- even if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is elected president in the 2020 election.
Why? Because it would require the support (and votes) of a clear majority in the House of Representatives and at least 60 senators in the Senate. I think there's a good chance that Democrats will hold their majority in the House and squeak out a slim majority in the Senate. But even if that happens, there won't be enough votes to pass Medicare-For-All. Even if the bill could get approved in the House, there's no way it could get 60 votes in the Senate.
But while that debate was a waste of time, the idea of improving our health care system is not -- and it's something the American voters want. And if Democrats do control both houses of Congress and the White House, that could be done. A bill could pass that would fix some of the problems with Obamacare and also create a public option health insurance (the first step toward MFA) that citizens could buy into -- and which would insure all American citizens have health insurance.
And there is no doubt in my mind that any of the Democratic candidates for president would sign such a bill -- even Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. So don't support a candidate because they support or oppose Medicare-For-All. Just understand that all of them would work to improve our health care system.
Let us instead get down to the most important issue (maybe the only real issue for 2020) -- nominating the candidate who has the best chance to beat Donald Trump.
NOTE -- If you think that sounds like I support Biden, you would be wrong. Currently, I am leaning toward Elizabeth Warren -- not because she supports Medicare-For-All, but because she supports a whole range of policies that would improve the lives of the bottom 90% of Americans ( and even the economic playing field, which is currently slanted to favor the rich).
Generic Vote Favors Democrats (For President & Congress)
The charts reflect the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 27th and 30th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,101 registered voters). The margin of error was 2.6 points for adults and 3.1 points for registered voters.
If the election was being held right now, the Democrats would do very well.
The Discretionary Budget: How Congress Spends Your Money
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (pictured) tells you how your tax dollars are really spent:
Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress claim that America spends too much on things like food stamps, welfare, and foreign aid.
But let’s look at how the government actually spends your federal tax dollars each year. We’re going to look at what’s known as the “discretionary budget,” which has to be reappropriated by Congress each year.
Start with foreign aid, the conservatives’ favorite boogeyman. It’s $29 billion a year. That may sound like a lot but it’s only 2 percent of all discretionary spending. Add all spending on international affairs, it’s 4 percent.
What about science and technology, including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and research in clean energy, which conservatives love to hate?Just 3 percent.
The environment and natural resources – money for clean air, safe drinking water and protecting public lands? Another 3 percent.
Roads, bridges, highways, airports, all transportation funding: Another 3 percent.
Community and regional development: 2 percent.
Law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the entire federal court system: 5 percent
The Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and rural health clinics: 5 percent.
Food stamps, energy assistance, child care, other income security: Just 6 percent.
But that’s only 46 percent. The remaining 54 percent of annual spending is on the military, which is more spent on the military than the next 7 nations combined. It’s huge. It’s about the only really big thing the federal government does.
You may be thinking, but what about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act?
By law, these programs are mandatory spending, which don’t require Congress to approve funding every year. Americans have paid into Social Security and Medicare over their entire working lives.
Yet they’re still vulnerable. In fact, if Trump and Republicans in Congress aren’t going to cut discretionary spending – especially on the military – the only places they can look to make way for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
That’s been their goal all along.
Know where the money is really going. And know what they have in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)