A Telling Reminder from October

Refereeing Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren on Public Support for Medicare for All

Interesting article on the very subject we've all been 'discussing' of late--the popularity of Medicare 4 All vs a Medicare Who Want It (public option) Program. This is provided through Kaiser Healthcare News and Politifact.

According to the polls, choice in healthcare decisions wins the day as opposed to a single national healthcare system where everyone is required to join and private insurance goes bye-bye. Interestingly, the preference to open Medicare to those between the ages of 50-64 pulls the largest support (77%) crossing partisan lines where Democrats, Independents and Republicans actually agree on something. If I remember correctly this was, in fact, Elizabeth Warren's position a few short years ago.

The conclusion?

Buttigieg said that Americans “say that what they want is a choice” to join a single-payer system like Medicare rather than ending private insurance.

Polling on this question shows higher levels of support for an opt-in approach to expanding Medicare than for a required switch away from private insurance. We rate the statement True.



https://khn.org/news/refereeing-pete-buttigieg-elizabeth-warren-on-public-support-for-medicare-for-all/

I like Elizabeth Warren. Too Bad She's a Hypocrite.

Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania Governor, called out Elizabeth Warren this morning for her flip-flops on corporate funding. It's a fair assessment, made by someone who admires Senator Warren and has supported her in the past, politically and through fund-raising. In fact, I sense Rendell's biggest gripe is the fact that he put together fund-raising events for Warren, only to have the Senator turn around and criticize the same outreach for Joe Biden as:

. . . “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” a line from an email to supporters the next day.

Rendell goes on to say:

Warren didn’t seem to have any trouble taking our money in 2018, but suddenly we were power brokers and influence peddlers in 2019. The year before, we were wonderful. I co-chaired one of the events for the senator and received a glowing, handwritten thank-you letter from her for my hard work.


He also takes umbrage with this:

I also take issue with the notion, raised by Warren in her criticism of the Biden fundraiser in April, that people who give the maximum allowable individual donation of $2,800 to a presidential candidate are doing so because they believe it will get them a federal job, win their business a federal contract or even gain special access.


Rendell admits that some contributors may have ulterior motives but that most donate because they believe in a candidate, the positions he/she holds and in the leadership said candidate brings to the table.

From my read, this is less a hit piece than some advice from a friend: waving purity banners has a downside, as in getting tangled in your own threads.

Rendell concludes with this:

So, despite my feelings, Elizabeth, if you’re reading this and you win the Democratic nomination, I will be happy to support you and will campaign for you with all my heart. And, by the way, Philadelphia has a lot more swanky restaurants that you haven’t seen yet.


Because Ed Rendell is a loyal Democrat down to his tippy toes.


https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-like-elizabeth-warren-too-bad-shes-a-hypocrite/2019/09/11/409d5ed0-d4d3-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

The Ground Has Shifted

Interesting Op-Ed over at TPM by Josh Marshall. From Marshall's concluding remarks, I think he sees (as I do) a head-to-head primary match ultimately between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. This from the beginning of the piece:

For months now I’ve been in a back and forth with readers over what many have wrongly interpreted as support for Joe Biden. That’s not really right. It’s more like Biden Realism, which I’d describe as a focus on Biden’s apparent strengths despite many people’s wish that they weren’t strengths. The primary polls themselves are inherently volatile and heavily driven by perceptions of electability. That’s not the case with general election polls, which focus on voters who by definition don’t care about “electability.” Those polls have been very, very consistent all year. Specifically, Joe Biden is the only Democrat who consistently bests President Trump by big margins. Most of the others are closer to a tie. The exception is Bernie Sanders who has usually been between Biden and the rest of the pack.

Some people claim those numbers mean next to nothing more than a year from the general election. They’re wrong. When one candidate consistently does significantly better, it suggests they pull an electoral coalition that is different and larger than the others. The fact that things can change does not mean they will change or (more importantly) that they will change to conform to your hopes. But something has shifted over the last month.

Biden Realism. I like that. Seems spot on, too.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime/the-2020-dynamic-is-shifting

How Do We Know Joe Biden Would Make a Good President?

According to former State Sen. Jim Rosapepe and former U.S. ambassador to Romania from 1998-2001, the answer is simple:

Because He's Already Proven It.

This writeup was in the Baltimore Sun, adapted from an article published in Wall St. Journal in 2008. It underscores Joe Biden's hands-on experience in foreign policy and international affairs, something none of our other candidates bring to the table. And it speaks to Biden's in-depth knowledge regarding geopolitics. The op-ed is a behind the scenes peek from someone who was there and was able to observe Biden in action. Particularly fascinating (for me at least) was this scene:

In most of our meetings, Romanian leaders reiterated their strong interest in joining NATO. At lunch in my house with opposition party leaders, one of them said that NATO membership was important to their country for a reason I’d never heard before.

"If we’re in NATO, we won’t have to worry about NATO attacking Romania over our relations with our Hungarian minority the way you attacked Serbia," he said. "Since Turkey has been in NATO for decades, you let them do what they want with the Kurdish minority."

Mr. Biden, visibly angry, rose from his chair, leaned across the table and said: "If that’s why you want to get into NATO, I’ll make sure you never do!"

As it turned--despite what the opposition party member had blurted out--the Romanians were honest brokers committed to good relations with their Hungarian minority. They were admitted to NATO in 2004. Having proven themselves, Joe Biden supported their membership.

Rosapepe goes on to say:

What struck me was the frankness and passion Mr. Biden brought to U.S. foreign policy. He knew when to say the right thing in the right way. And the Romanians respected him for it.


Wouldn't it be grand to have an American President respected on the world stage? Rather than hated and ridiculed. Our standing in the world, the relationship with allies and adversaries, our ability to offer carrot or stick, has a lot to do with our own national security. This is an arena in which Donald Trump has proven himself completely incompetent.

Joe Biden's been there. He can turn it around for everyone because he understands that domestic and foreign policy is linked. We lead by example or we do not lead at all. Which is the position we're in right now, flailing in all directions.

More at the link:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-biden-rosapepe-20190829-7dbmwz4u3bbghl77mdemowr2re-story.html

Joe Biden: Banning Assault Weapons Works

The New York Times published a piece by Joe Biden on his gun reform plans centered on an assault weapons, one that he and Diane Feinstein initiated and helped enact into the 1994 law, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for 10 years.

Republicans allowed the 1994 law to expire, insisting that the ban was ineffective. The data shows the contrary. Police reported a marked uptick in criminals using assault weapons in 2004. From Biden's essay:

And multiple analyses of the data around mass shootings provide evidence that, from 1994 to 2004, the years when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned, there were fewer mass shootings — fewer deaths, fewer families needlessly destroyed.

There’s overwhelming data that shootings committed with assault weapons kill more people than shootings with other types of guns. And that’s the point.

Biden, however, doesn't stop there:

And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger. We’re going to stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products — modifications that leave them just as deadly. And this time, we’re going to pair it with a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible.

I won’t stop there. I’ll get universal background checks passed, building on the Brady Bill, which establishing the background check system and which I helped push through Congress in 1993. I’ll accelerate the development and deployment of smart-gun technology — something gun manufacturers have opposed — so that guns are keyed to the individual biometrics of authorized owners.


The moment for gun control has finally reached a tipping point. The NRA is on its heels and the Republican refrain of 'thoughts and prayers' sounds evermore hollow. I honestly thought the Sandy Hook massacre would tip the scales. But the NRA was able to push back the outcry, the horror of babies being gunned down. That was then, this is now. We win in 2020, we're going to finally start doing what we should have done all along: take battlefield weapons off the streets of America.

Good one on Joe and all our candidates for pushing this issue. The time has come.

Full essay can be read here (although it may be behind a paywall):


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/opinion/joe-biden-ban-assault-weapons.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

The Value of a Consoler-in-Chief

The Hill has an Op-Ed up today that clearly explains the reason Joe Biden is a favored candidate, particularly in light of the events in El Paso and Dayton. Excerpt below:

For all his faults, Biden has two great strengths. He has plenty of experience, which is important but not valued in this cycle. He also exudes empathy, which is in great demand because so many Americans are in such great pain.

The nation is so polarized and, in such anguish, that Biden's ability to relate to people is a great asset. Many Americans value Biden as the only candidate in the race who has the personal feel to comfort Americans and bring them together again.

People will need an empathetic president because it will take years to heal the divisions facing the United States after four years of Trump. A Consoler in Chief like Biden is the perfect antidote to a Divider in Chief like Trump. After tragedies like the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, Biden can go on national TV and begin the healing process; something Trump can't or won't do.



The writer refers to Biden's speech last week that was on-point and impacted a large number of Americans, even Joe's critics. The piece also underscores the report from Iowa describing Biden's unique ability of connecting with people, offering the comfort that he's so well known for and the positive response ordinary people have to that empathetic interaction. With Trump squatting in the White House, we've forgotten what solace and comfort looks like. Joe Biden offers a strong reminder, an antidote to the hate.

Good on on Joe!

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/457027-consoler-in-chief-like-biden-is-the-perfect-antidote-to-a-divider-in-chief

The Debate From a Slightly Different Perspective

I've just had my cable capacity restored after a major power outage in our area. Lost all my in-house electronic connections--TV, phones and computer. Consequently, my husband and I (and our dog Kiera) listened to last night's debate via my car's Sirius connection. Which meant we sat in the driveway for 2+ hours running the car, switching to battery assist, running the car, etc., etc., etc. We did this bc our pooch gets motion sickness, so a 2+ hour drive was out of the question. Anyway . . .

I listened to the debate devoid of the optics. I was a bit startled the some DUer's were making reference to Joe Biden's appearance or that he sounded 'shaky.' To me (husband and puppy agree), Biden defended himself and threw some punches back without getting nasty. He was also one of the few debate participants who honored the time limits. Only heard Joe go over his time allotment once though I might have missed another occasion running into the house to use the bathroom. In any case, he had a much better night than in the first round. He held his own, he answered his critics and he passionately defended President Obama's record.

Kamala Harris had a reversal of fortune last night, IMHO. She was not forthcoming on the details of her healthcare proposal, eg. that people will be kicked off their employer-based insurance programs. Simply saying that private insurance will still be available is tap-dancing around the major issue, specifically removing people from plans they have and want to keep. Then there was the surprise attack from Tulsi Gabbard which was pretty harsh and for which Harris seemed unprepared. Maybe a little karma worked its way into the room!

Cory Booker was as aggressive as I'd anticipated. According to Booker, we're all to believe that every flaw/fault of our criminal justice system is Joe Biden's responsibility. A step too far in my mind. Plus, Booker definitely got prickly when Biden mentioned Booker's own shortcomings in Newark. It was a 'what's okay for thee is off-limits for me' moment. Not an effective approach if you're that thin-skinned. That being said, I'm sure Booker will get the attention he wanted. Whether it will be good or bad remains to be seen. But I must say, criticizing President Obama could result in a huge backlash. Not a good strategy from where I was sitting.

Tulsi Gabbard was ready to rumble last night. Just can't figure her out. She's not going to be the nominee but I wonder if she's hoping for a cabinet position in a Biden Administration. She's not a fan of Kamala Harris that's for damn well sure. But I don't know why the laser focus on Harris' background and AG history? Puzzling.

Inslee is the go-to man for all things climate related. DiBlasio was a jerk for a second time and Gillibrand was ineffective (though I liked her Clorox the Oval Office line).

Castro needs to drop the decriminalization discussion because this is a fatal subject for Dems with all our current immigration problems. More effective would be a call for a renewed push on an actual immigration policy, so everyone knows the rules upfront and underscoring the right of asylum for those at the border. There are other strategies of increasing funds (rather than Trump's cutting) for our southern neighbors to improve their economies and reduce crime so people don't feel the desperation to leave in the first place. But the word 'decriminalization' is toxic in the present atmosphere.

Andrew Yang brings an interesting and important perspective to the discussion--the guaranteed income idea in face of the AI revolution which will decimate employment. It's something we're going to deal with in the future whether we want to or not. But I don't think it's enough to move the needle, at least not yet. Poor Michael Bennet's voice was lost in the noise. What became clear to me, however, is that Bennet shares a lot of Biden's positions, a liberal to moderate pragmatic platform, things we can get done and restore.

So, that was my personal reaction without seeing the expressions, gestures or body language. Biden (who is my choice at the moment) held his own. Harris took a number of slings and arrows and a few I suspect left a mark. As for Booker? Guess we'll have to see the post-debate polling to determine if the pugilistic debate style worked. It didn't for me (my husband and puppy as well). But we're just three entities and Kiera doesn't vote.

Black Lawmakers Have Joe Biden's Back Following Segregationist Comments

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus were quick to defend Joe Biden after the uproar over comments claiming Biden had worked with segregationists to 'get things done.' Jim Clyburn was quoted as follows:

“I worked with Strom Thurmond all my life,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking African American in Congress, said of the infamous segregationist senator. “You don’t have to agree with people to work with them.”



It appears that a number of CBC members would refute the idea that Biden is the 'most tone deaf politician in American history.'

Which btw would be Donald Trump.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/joe-biden-segregationist-comments-1370844

Is There An Anti-Biden Lane for Other Democratic Candidates?

Nate Silver has a pretty interesting discussion up this morning on what candidates might do to knock Biden off his lead. Link here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-an-anti-biden-lane-in-the-democratic-primary/

I think it's the sort of thing we should keep in mind as time goes by and the debates draw closer. As to be expected the majority of the group are squarely in the 'anti-electability' corner. But even this group is willing to admit that the electability factor (be it real or not) is playing into Biden's early success.

They also agree that knocking off Joe Biden will not be easy. Biggest vulnerability: in their opinion, Joe's age. I'm reading this slant in a number of articles reflecting Biden's casual rollout, the fact that he's not barnstorming the crucial early states as are other candidates. Could it be, the articles query, a lack of stamina?

Also, the attacks on Biden will (they believe) ramp up though the effectiveness is yet to be determined. They made an interesting observation that if a number of Dem candidates start slamming on the same issue, it might break through. For instance the 90s Crime Bill, something Hillary Clinton caught heat over. The same attack from Trump would be less effective since his stance on criminal justice has been historically abysmal, despite the reform bill. The Manhattan Five, anyone?

Anyway, I think the maxim: To be forewarned is to be forearmed is useful to remember. Discussions are heating up even at DU and we're only a tiny slice of the Democratic community. The most recent slam over Joe Biden's attention to the 10-year old girl at the Teachers Union town hall was silly and lame. But that doesn't mean there won't be plenty more where that came from.

The other thing pointed out in the discussion is the determinative power of the debates. I think we all realize this. I have confidence in Biden standing his ground. But this will be the moment that lesser candidates will use as a breakout moment. Which means releasing the Big Guns, even if the fire is ultimately impotent. So far, none of the attacks have lessened Joe's undeniable lead.

Should get very interesting! Did I say ugly?