Giantaxe

They are copying what the Republicans did in '16. You could certainly argue that the process then encouraged selection of a candidate like Trump, so why would the Democrats go down the same road.

BenK91

As of now, there are 24 Democrats running for president before the primaries, there were 11 Republicans running for president in 2016 before the primaries...

Giantaxe

There were 17 Republicans running initially. They were split into primary (10 or 11 candidates) and secondary (7 or 4 candidates) debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_R...tes_and_forums

Realistically, the Democrats will be down to 10 or less for the September debate.

scrubbedexpat099

Perhaps the media is spending more time on it? Seems much more prevalent this time around.

Steerpike

I just don't get your thinking here. I've already said, if I thought we could actually impeach Trump (succeed in the impeachment process) then I'd be in favor of it. But as you yourself concede, the process has no chance of succeeding. So we need to be clearer in our terminology - when you say "I don't see how impeaching helps Trump", you mean, "I don't see how putting Trump through the impeachment process (but knowing it will fail) helps Trump". And when you say "why if Trump is so bad wouldn't you want to impeach", you mean "why if Trump is so bad wouldn't you want to subject the nation to a lengthy, costly, and futile process that will end with Trump being cleared".

As for 'doing things that hurt me personally' - I'm currently getting my healthcare through an ACA plan from the exchanges. His attempts to kill the ACA are causing me uncertainty and I honestly don't know what I'll do if these recent lawsuits succeed in rendering the ACA invalid. As a 60-year-old, healthcare is high on my list of personal priorities.

How long will the process take? How much will it cost? Once we get into the gory details of the process, will the electorate be engaged or put off? We now have just over 1 year to get ready for the election. Will this process help the democrats? If impeachment fails right before the election, what message will that send - can that be spun up into an 'exoneration' for Trump? I'll say it again - I'd love to see Trump impeached, rotting in jail, disgraced, etc ... but I don't see this process as achieving that.

Steerpike

Saw this ahead of me at a traffic stop today in Scottsdale. First one I've seen of this variety. I suspect this will become a major theme of the campaign.
"Trump. Save America From Socialism"

"

zargof

Still going with the political angle. I made it quite clear I was talking about the principle. But since you want to talk about the politics, it's really quite simple. If Democrats go through the impeachment proceedings and as is likely it fails, then Democrats can place the blame on Republicans because they will be the ones who acquit Trump in the Senate. If however, Democrats don't go ahead with impeachment, Trump gets to say Democrats said all these mean things about me, but Nancy Pelosi wouldn't impeach me. That's the message that would be send.

As for your troubles with the ACA, do you not think there are so many others who have similar issues with healthcare and how it's provided. Don't you think it helps to make the case for why Medicare for All is a good policy to pursue?

robtuck

I could of course be wrong, but I doubt Trump gets a higher vote count than in 2016. It's therefore down to the Democrats - can they outperform Hilary in a few States. My point is that nobody is going to add to Trumps vote count. Sure, the Democrats can put someone in front of the electorate that garners even lower support than Clinton could muster in those States, but it won't be because of Trump. It matters not a jot what Republicans think of the Democrat candidates or their performance - they are hardly going to be watching thinking how good they all sound, not when we are playing this least sum game of politics.

robtuck

Oh, and Tulsi has not a cat in hells chance of getting nominated for the Democrat party, not with her past, even if she has had a change of heart and mind.

Giantaxe

Which past position are you referring to? Same sex marriage?

Yes, she has no chance of winning the nomination.

Giantaxe

I'm pretty much in the same position as Steerpike regarding health care, but for my spouse as opposed to myself. It's extremely worrying to think that the insurance she will rely on until Medicare may disappear under a Supreme Court ruling based on the sabotaging of the law by Republicans. But I don't see why this automatically means "Medicare for All" is the answer. For example, the ACA could be strengthened by going the opposite way to Republicans and reinforcing the mandate. Really, there has to be some form of mandate if you're going to cover pre-existing conditions, be it through the ACA approach or through taxation. I am note sure where all the candidates stand on this; are any of them saying that coverage under "Medicare for all" is a mandate as opposed to an option?

scrubbedexpat099

Begs the question which one does not have a past?

Steerpike

Of course there are many others in the same boat - but statistically, the number of Americans getting health insurance through the exchanges is relatively small - 12m compared to 155m from their employer. Not only do the majority of Americans get their insurance through their employer, surveys have shown they are overwhelmingly satisfied with that coverage. Threaten to take away something that currently works (employer-based) and replace it with something unproven, and that's a political risk.

This page has a nice graphic that shows just how small the 'ACA exchange' number is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health..._United_States


And just because I might personally benefit from an 'M4A' solution doesn't mean it's the best solution. As Giantaxe just posted in his reply to this, strengthening the existing ACA may be a better approach.

I would personally welcome (and benefit from) an M4A solution if it were to come to pass. But is it politically viable? If the chosen candidate pushes for a full-blown M4A solution, one that includes the complete elimination of employer-provided health insurance, that may be enough to put off a number of moderate voters, and that could give us 4 more years of Trump - and that's a nightmare scenario.

scrubbedexpat099

I do not know anybody who gets Employer coverage who thinks it is wonderful, I have heard many people with issues, perhaps these are people who have never had to use it?

johnwoo

I worked 35 years in the US, and steadily saw healthcare benefits diminish over time. Higher employee contributions and deductibles plus the fact when you lose employment you lose Healthcare along with it.
Medicare only covers 80% hospital cost, for two. I pay approx $800/month for supplemental, plus the cost for medicare parts A,B and D and copay on certain medication.
On the plus side I get excellent care but how many retired persons can come up with $800/mo