A question for Democrats and Republicans:

Ross Dolan said:
Yup, that is how things stand. Not sure I completely agree that the situation cannot change, but I agree that it will be a very steep hill to climb.

This next presidential election will tell us a lot about that question. I was having dinner with my sister in New York on Tuesday...and we started discussing this issue. I asked her about her favorites. She is a Democrat (I am an Independent) and she will vote in the primary. The one thing we finally agreed on was that there was no Republican front-runner with whom we could feel comfortable. Unfortunately, there were not many Democrats that we loved...and those that I find reasonable are almost sure to lose. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg both seem to me to be competent, but both are almost sure to lose if nominated. (I doubt either will be.) Gonna be a trudge.
Click to expand...
I think so as well.
 
Ross Dolan said:
If, during the primary elections, you deem some candidates to be more competent than their opponents, but less electable***...would you be more inclined to vote for the more competent person to be your party's nominee...or for the more electable one?

Essentially what I am looking for is: Is electability your major criteria for your vote...or is electability.


***As a "for instance"...younger white males are often considered to have an electability advantage over female or non-white persons.
Click to expand...
Actually older white males tend to be the most electable for higher offices.
 
Grim Reaper said:
You didn’t bring a variety of sources. You brought a pile of op‑eds and advocacy pieces and tried to pretend they outrank actual data. They don’t.

If all your links agree, it’s not because they’re right, it’s because you only picked the ones that already matched your script.

You’re not proving anything, you’re just curating your own echo and hoping no one notices the silence where the evidence should be.
Click to expand...
Go back and look again. Two are reports by House committees of Congress. One is by a think tank, one by an industry publication, and only one is an op ed.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I asked you a question in another thread which you never answered. Here it is again, re-worded:

Which do you think is the better attempt to get more and better coverage for as many Americans as possible...

...Obamacare...

...or the plan Trump devised and got passed in Congress that gives more coverage to more people who need it and at a much lower cost?

Which, TA?
Click to expand...
Neither. I think Obamacare was a plan concocted in part by insurance companies in collusion with government to get them subsidized--heavily--while FORCING people into the system.

Trump's plan is no better. It too heavily involves government as a solution.

Government created this problem. Government has made it far worse. More government involvement won't solve it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Neither. I think Obamacare was a plan concocted in part by insurance companies in collusion with government to get them subsidized--heavily--while FORCING people into the system.

Trump's plan is no better. It too heavily involves government as a solution.

Government created this problem. Government has made it far worse. More government involvement won't solve it.
Click to expand...
So, only rich people can afford health care? How is that a better system?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That is possible. I watched some of the California governor's debate. The Democrats kept saying insanely stupid stuff.
Click to expand...

The candidates from the democrats are the bottom of the barrel. Eric Swalwell was anointed by the party and these others were just dressing to make it appear there was some sort of choice. But the party and their press couldn't cover up for the serial rapist and now all they have are morons like Porter and Bass- both virtually unelectable.

Further, with ass clowns on the Marxist side, it will split the vote to the point the Hilton will be on the ballot without question. Bianco very possibly end up in second place.

If it is Bianco and Hilton in the general, I'll campaign heavily for Chad. Hilton will be Ahnold 2.0 - better than any democrat, but still fairly useless.
 
LurchAddams said:
Well, then you'll be voting for a bunch of un-electable Republicans over the next few cycles. Thanks to Cankles, or even better "Don Snorleone".
Click to expand...

Yet comrade stooge, Republicans hold all three branches of the federal government, the overwhelming majority state governors, and are heavily favored to win the governorship in the Peoples Republic of California.

Sounds more like you're a partisan blowhard rather than Republicans being "unelectable," given that they are elected more often than you Communists are.
 
Hume said:
You really are not intelligent. Health care as a for profit system prevents government from making it universal.
Click to expand...
Why do we use health insurance to pay for it instead of just paying as we go? Please don't say something utterly stupid like "Because it's so expensive..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top