Massdriver

I'm not sure why you think my ideal policy would leave anyone bankrupt. No one has to be left out of a universal insurance system that has mandates and subsides for the poor and middle class. My evidence is the developed world. There are many other developed countries that have universal health care systems that are not single payer and people aren't going bankrupt. The point is M4A isn't the only policy that produces good outcomes. I think there is a misunderstanding with my position overall. I'm flexible, you aren't. I would accept M4A if it was transitioned to properly and the tax revenue was collected in an efficient and fair way. I don't believe in passing it without determining where the revenue is going to come from. As for the lobbying industry fighting against the public option, all I can say is expect the fight to pass M4A to be much harder than a public option. The public is behind the public option more now than they used to be, but M4A's support is lower and insurance will fight for survival with all they have. Many Democrats don't favor M4A, so you are off to a rocky start. But overall single payer works, so I'm not against it, I just am not obsessed with it as the only option that works since it isn't. But why do you always act like a carbon tax has to be done in isolation? I don't subscribe to the view that it is the only thing the government should do to combat climate change. I simply am pointing out it is the best single policy to get the ball rolling that we could do and it is a necessary component in an overall strategy to stop emissions. I also think you tend to downplay its effectiveness, or think a carbon tax has to be very minimal. Carbon taxes can be ramped up fast and would be extremely effective at steering us away from carbon sources of energy and fuel. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The Hill's article on it shows that Obama wanted the public option for several months and pushed for it. Do you have transcripts of the private meetings that took place between Obama's admin and various lawmakers? My guess is he dropped it after he realized the support wasn't there. Yeah, he could have fought harder for it, but he wanted to get something done. Which leads me to.... It just seems like this is all a giant counterfactual fallacy. Some are saying that X would have happened if all Democrats would have said or done Y, but since we can't go back in time and test this, there is no way of knowing. It could have been that Obama could have pushed harder for the public option and the ACA wouldn't have passed at all, just as cap and trade failed. No one here can tell me what would have happened if Obama would have done something different since it is impossible for you to know. If you want to test your theory, then by all means go for Warren and Sanders, but stop pretending it is a well known fact that if Democrats would have just done or said certain things, history would have unfolded in a different way when there are so many variables.

1. I never wanted Trump. I strongly disagree with him and quite frankly hate him, so this misrepresents me by making it seem like it's populist Democrats that triggered me when I feel it even more strongly towards the right wing, which has turned the GOP into a nationalist/protectionist party. It's not that I suddenly want normalcy on both sides just because Sanders showed up. I have felt this way for a while now. I don't want any populists in charge. I want leaders that listen to experts and bring people together. 2. The Iraq War was fairly popular right before and as we invaded. These Democrats probably voted for the invasion because they thought it was the right thing to do and Iraq had WMDs, not because they were scared. I don't think the votes were there to pass the public option regardless of what a political leader said. There were a number of senators that weren't ready even as Obama and Pelosi were.I think there is a middle ground between going all out Bernie and going to some swing state senator that killed the public option during the ACA debate. Obama is an example of a politician that I would refer to as normal, and he was for the public option then. 3. The Patriot Act passed because 9/11. Americans felt insecure. Saying this was a policy that was passed because Democrats didn't move the window seems like it ignores the mood of the nation at the time. America was in a war-like state after we were attacked. Not a politician on the left or right could stop the momentum. There isn't always a way for leaders or politicians to control what policies seem appropriate at all times. Sometimes outside factors such as 9/11 have such a drastic effect on the public that no one can alter for a time until people settle down. Pelosi and Obama did chase the public option. Pelosi got the ACA passed with a public option in the house. Obama pressed as hard as he could. It's nonsense and revisionist history to suggest that they didn't do their best to try to get it done. They eventually calculated that certain senators were a no no matter what, so they had to change gears and get as much done as possible. I agree with you about gay marriage. It was shameful how Democrats didn't push harder for it and I think a lot of people would have gotten on board sooner if they had. Anyway, I have no problem shifting the window in directions that are towards good public policy. A public option was always a good thing to fight for. A Federal jobs guarantee isn't. Rent control isn't. There are many others I could point to that populists favor that are just shitty policies. The alt right movement was likely caused by numerous other factors along with American policy. This is probably overly simplistic too, but I agree that costs of certain items rising faster than middle class items is the main reason that support is going up for populist policies, many of which wouldn't solve anything. I'm for course corrections that will help people. Just because something is drastic and would cost trillions of dollars doesn't mean it is the best policy and that it would help the most people. If this is directed at me, it's petty and misrepresents my position on climate change. Edited several statement to better express my thoughts

I'm all for having crazy libs and crazy right wing in Congress, not running the executive.

Normal was Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Trump is not normal. Sanders is not normal. Warren is not normal. The rhetoric is populist. It is about the "deep state" and the "top 1%". It's about the elites ruining everyone's lives. Edit: removed unnecessary quotes

Out of the front runners, I think Warren is a better bet to beat Trump than Biden. Biden is the worst of the top 5 with ease to me. He babbles regularly about nothing, he isn't raising much money for his front runner status, he inspires no one, and his son has created an email-like issue in the right wing media that will hurt him. He is simply too old.

I would prefer the extremist views on both sides to stop. I don't think you get back to normal by shouting populist leftist slogans all day. I would prefer cooler heads getting power.

The policies that Sanders wants wouldn't be better though. Neither would Warren's.

The bottom line for me is I'm ready to get back regular Democrats and Republicans. I'm tired of the "drain the swamp" populist nonsense that Trump supporters talk about everyday and I see the left-wing equivalent in Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren. The idealistic nonsense being peddled is not realistic regardless of the Overton window being the to-go-to justification around here. It doesn't have to be Buttigieg, but he is the candidate closest to my views with money that isn't too old. I'll take Klobuchar. I just want a regular politician.

Any moderate candidate is going to be a dogshit candidate to most of the people on this board, but a lot of democrats aren't left wing populists.

There are, but most of the countries that had them got rid of them. If you're referring to a property tax, you know that a wealth tax as Warren proposes and a property tax are administered completely differently.

The evidence from Europe indicates the opposite. I realize her plan has more teeth, but it's untested in the U.S., and all the data shows it is inefficient and hard to administer.

Then have the courage to tell everyone that the factories are closed and things will never be the same. Wage subsides coupled with a negative income tax would do a lot of good. Nothing is a panacea. A wealth tax isn't the panacea that Warren and Sanders make it out to be. Ask the European nations that tried it a few decades ago how it went.

Yeah (which is why we should have wage subsides), but the manufacturing jobs they are referring to, the empty factories, those jobs are gone because of automation. Warren makes it seem like this is just about trade policy and corporate structure, but even if you threw tariffs up, the factories that would be built here would have robots.

That was embarrassingly weak for Warren to come back and say her social security plan is like UBI. That's a stretch and everyone knows it.