Depends on if you define majority or plurality as "most votes". — Nobeernolife

Maybe the DNC can implement a Condorcet method internally at least, to definitively resolve issues like this, and ensure the nomination always goes to a candidate who is preferred in a one-vs-one choice against any other option by a majority of voters. With our broken FPTP system, it's possible to have no clear majority winner, in which case the plurality winner is the closest option, but then you get issues of vote-splitting and strategic voting and all that nonsense. Goddamnit the Condorcet criteria are older than this country, how did the founders not bake them in to our voting system from the beginning.

You seem overly worried about homelessness. It's not an irrational concern, but in my view if you're fairly intelligent and resourceful enough, you can make your way -- even if that means working the menial jobs. There are a lot of ways to survive in this country. The point that it's getting harder to merely survive, let alone to live by the same standards we had 60 years ago, is obviously true.

You seem overly worried about homelessness. — Xtrix

The state of California generally recognizes that there is a homelessness crisis here... finally, after I’ve been screaming about it for well over a decade, ever since I first had to pay for my own housing, nearly couldn’t (spending a month homeless soon thereafter) despite making a median income already, did the math to figure out how long it would take to get free of that danger entirely, and realized the answer is “possibly never”. I’ve also been watching my elderly mother wavering on the edge of homelessness for years. I’ve been screaming about how can nobody see this doom coming for themselves and why isn’t anybody doing anything about it for all that time, and only now that said doom is actually starting to befall large numbers of people are they finally starting to acknowledge the problem.

If Bernie shows up in Milwaukee with a plurality but not a majority of the votes, then the superdelegates will have their way. — fishfry

I agree with most to your post, but I wasn't being facetious: if you know how the process works, what evidence is there that suggests this is most likely to happen? I realize the DNC doesn't want Bernie, but Bernie will end up with most of the delegates in the end. I have a hard time believing that the DNC is stupid enough, given the delegate numbers, to simply hand it over to Bloomberg. That's a disaster.

You could be right, but I need more. Bloomberg plotting against Sanders we knew from the beginning.

Hillary is Humphrey, the centrist beating back the challenge from Bernie in 2016; and Bernie, if he wins, would be McGovern. — fishfry

Except there are stark differences, despite the similarities.

Atlantic ran a good article about this. For those without access, here's a snippet:

No comparison of Sanders and McGovern is sufficient without acknowledging that McGovern’s campaign in the summer of 1972 was a one-of-a-kind disaster. At the national convention, McGovern faced widespread opposition from major Democratic figures, including future President Jimmy Carter. After securing the nomination in a messy war for delegates, he struggled to find a prominent Democrat to serve as his running mate. Senator Ted Kennedy, widely seen as the most popular choice, rejected multiple offers. When the convention finally agreed on Senator Thomas Eagleton, it was so late that McGovern famously didn’t take the stage to deliver his acceptance speech until after midnight on the East Coast. And this was all for naught: Within days, it was reported that Eagleton had received electroshock therapy for severe depression, and party officials urged him to quit the race. Eagleton withdrew from the ticket, the first vice-presidential candidate to ever do so, and McGovern went into late August down one running mate and 20 points in the polls.

Interesting you cite this article. He's actually arguing that while Bernie is like McGovern in many ways, the context is so very different as to make the comparison essentially meaningless. Nixon was polling very well against McGovern, and was in general a popular president --65% approval rating prior to watergate. Trump is nowhere near those numbers, Americans are not feeling the "great economy" in real terms - no matter how many times the conservative AND liberal media rams this down their throats, and Bernie has a better campaign strategy.

The state of California generally recognizes that there is a homelessness crisis here... finally, after I’ve been screaming about it for well over a decade, ever since I first had to pay for my own housing, nearly couldn’t (spending a month homeless soon thereafter) despite making a median income already, did the math to figure out how long it would take to get free of that danger entirely, and realized the answer is “possibly never”. I’ve also been watching my elderly mother wavering on the edge of homelessness for years. I’ve been screaming about how can nobody see this doom coming for themselves and why isn’t anybody doing anything about it for all that time, and only now that said doom is actually starting to befall large numbers of people are they finally starting to acknowledge the problem. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. I forgot you lived in California -- I believe you mentioned it before.

The cost of housing may be going up in many areas that have been reasonable in the past. I live in a nice middle class prairie community south of Colorado Springs with a population of about 40K, ten miles from a city of 100K where half the population is on medicaid. Until a couple of years ago one could buy a fairly new three bedroom house with three bathrooms on 2.5 acres with unrestricted views of Pikes Peak and the Wet Mountains for $250K. Yesterday I saw a house down my street go up for sale for $450K. This house would probably go for a million bucks in a comparable region of California.

Colorado has become a blue state, and our governor admires and wants to emulate California. May the saints preserve us . . .

What influence does the political leaning of a state have on the cost of its housing? I expect it’s the other way around: people getting screwed by rich landowners demand more welfare from the state in compensation.

Yeah, because those Republicans do such a great job on a state level. Everyone is dying to live in Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Try to grow beyond your simplistic red/blue dichotomy view of politics. You'll find the world is a complex place.

We're probably not going to have medicare for all, but is it a good idea?

What's the argument against it? How about: we should be trying to simply fund medicare as it is before we consider going further.

Shooting for the moon when we cant even get a ride downtown just undermines our ability to get anything done.

Shooting for the moon when we cant even get a ride downtown just undermines our ability to get anything done. — frank

An argument that has been given for decades.

I say the contrary: shoot for the moon. Who's to say what's "radical" and what isn't? Any of these things can be done. It makes sense, and it's what people want. Look at how far we came with marijuana, gay marriage, etc. Just a few years ago, there were people quite like you saying the same old stuff --- it's impossible, don't ask for it, settle for compromise.

Things have swung so far right in this country it's time for a shift to the left. At the very least it will help maintain balance in and stretch what's considered a "limit."

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support. Look at the plan in depth. John Oliver had a good segment on it, actually. If you can get by the silly humor, it's fairly well-researched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z2XRg3dy9k

Everyone is dying to live in Alabama, .... — Xtrix

https://matadornetwork.com/life/10-reasons-moving-alabama-right-now/ :razz:

An argument that has been given for decades. — Xtrix

The first American to "give" it was Benjamin Franklin, who edited Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to avoid pissing off the south while they were trying to run a revolt. Do the revolt first, then worry about slavery.

The next famous giver of the argument was Frederick Douglass, who argued that women's rights should be put aside to pursue black citizenship post Civil War.

It's an argument that makes sense and deserves more than "it's old."

MFA is a distraction from the more pressing issue: save Medicare period.

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support. — Xtrix

Sure, but it's not going to happen.

We can fund Medicare as it is. If you’re talking about the dwindling trust, that was always supposed to run out as the Boomers died off, since it was only set up to handle the Boom and otherwise Medicare is meant to be funded on an ongoing basis from working-age people.

An argument that has been given for decades.
— Xtrix

The first American to "give" it was Benjamin Franklin — frank

I'm laughing at this comment. I realize it's not meant to be funny, but I guess that's partly why it's funny.

I worked with Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was a friend of mine. You sir are no Ben Franklin.

who edited Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to avoid pissing off the south while they were trying to run a revolt. Do the revolt first, then worry about slavery.

The next famous giver of the argument was Frederick Douglass, who argued that women's rights should be put aside to pursue black citizenship post Civil War.

It's an argument that makes sense and deserves more than "it's old." — frank

It's not that "it's old," it's that it's stupid, easy, boring, unimaginative, and shortsighted. It's been used over and over again to essentially keep the state of affairs within predetermined limits. Ask yourself: who determines the limits? And why do we accept them?

Why is Medicare for All radical, for example? Why can't we do it? People like you remind me of those nobles in Braveheart, always saying how impossible and reckless it is to do this and that. And you continually miss the point: even if we lose, even if it doesn't get through -- the very attempt changes things, and makes it even easier to get something else passed that we were all advocating to begin with. It's like the door-in-the-face compliance technique. Suddenly, after fighting this war, the battle over "fixing" medicare isn't so dire. If we settle for just fixing it, and demanding nothing more, then it's no wonder McConnell and others are getting away with setting the stage for "cutting entitlements." They're coming for social security, medicare, medicaid, and anything to do with the New Deal. Don't be fooled.

MFA is a distraction from the more pressing issue: save Medicare period. — frank

Yawn. People have been screaming for decades about saving social security, saving medicare. It's going bankrupt! Etc.

Medicare for All is a good idea and has majority support.
— Xtrix

Sure, but it's not going to happen. — frank

It will happen. But fine, take that position. Gives you a real sense of superiority. How incredibly realistic you are! A real straight-shooter!

You keep working on fixing medicare. That strategy has been a real winner so far. Way to advance the zeitgeist.

What influence does the political leaning of a state have on the cost of its housing? — Pfhorrest

They may have just been pointing out that a high number of republicans in the neighborhood keeps property values low :razz:

@Hanover

Why is medicare for all a bad idea?

How do you feel about Sub-Blue Laws, Modernized Significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes. Is socialism or approaching the threshold of socialism the only option? Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. They actually aid the future enslavement and (after X time) astronomical violence that will come upon America.

Why is fiscal conservatism always given a bad name by many (not all) of the liberal elite? I fully understand that many republicans shouldn't be called republicans because they have no intention on embracing a truly free market. — christian2017

The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has.

The idea of a free market is a fantasy. It doesn't exist and never has. — Xtrix

Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution.

Why do you say that. I assume you know what a spectrum is. Yes you are right an absolute free market has only ever existed when we had a band of 20 people living 500 miles from another 20 people, so by and large an absolute free market has never existed. Asking our society to move much closer to that end of the spectrum would be the best solution. — christian2017

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.

I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course.

I say it because it's nonsense. All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention. — Xtrix

Towards a fantasy, and one that always justifies eliminating Big Government "interference", always excepting the corporate masters, of course. — Xtrix

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. Sub-Blue Laws, modernized significantly reduced zoning laws and electric trike lanes circumvent these problems. It can be extremely tedious to legislate a religious observance to morality. Dealing with mean bosses will always be a potential no matter who takes over.

I say it because it's nonsense — Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point.

All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention. — Xtrix

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats.

30 percent of Democrats are opposed to Medicare for all.

I'm drawing a blank on why. Because it's not feasible? Because it's counter to American ideals? What do you think?

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that? — christian2017

I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.

Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with.

In China the government is the corporate master and the government at the same time. In America there is so much red tape that we approach the threshold of being like china. — christian2017

China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters.

I say it because it's nonsense
— Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point. — christian2017

What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence.

All the so-called examples of free-market capitalism (including the US) all turn out to be shaped by very heavy state intervention.
— Xtrix

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats. — christian2017

I really don't see the relevance of that remark.

I'm drawing a blank on why. Because it's not feasible? Because it's counter to American ideals? What do you think? — frank

Because they probably don't even know what it means. Which is yet another reason to push for it -- gets everyone talking about it and familiar with it.

Do you mean voters or politicians?

If politicians, because their corporate donors tell them to be, because medicare for all weakens corporate power and threatens many big (medical and insurance) corporations’ profits.

If voters, because those politicians and the media tell them that medicare for all will bankrupt the country and implicitly make them pay taxes through the roof and so bankrupt them, and make them wait in literal lines outside the hospital while dying of cancer instead of... not getting any treatment at all, like they probably do now.

You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests.

I had a theory since my last post on this topic. Economics is irrelevant in the absence of scarcity. Housing is most people’s biggest economic factor: their biggest expense and/or biggest asset. Wherever most people live, housing is necessarily scarce relative to demand. So in the places where lots of people live, their biggest economic factor is necessarily scarce, so people in those places more readily face the failures of out capitalist economic system and call for policies ameliorating them. People who live in places that nobody wants to live therefore face no scarcity of housing and see little of the failures of capitalism, and think it’s all fine and everybody else must just be whiney losers who should leave them the fuck alone and just move somewhere nobody wants to live to escape those problems.

You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests. — Pfhorrest

It's the 30 percent of Democrats I was asking about. I was hoping you'd have a thoughtful answer.

↪frank Do you mean voters or politicians?

If politicians, because their corporate donors tell them to be, because medicare for all weakens corporate power and threatens many big (medical and insurance) corporations’ profits.

If voters, because those politicians and the media tell them that medicare for all will bankrupt the country and implicitly make them pay taxes through the roof and so bankrupt them, and make them wait in literal lines outside the hospital while dying of cancer instead of... not getting any treatment at all, like they probably do now.

You know, the normal ways that people are made to support things against their or their constituents’ interests. — Pfhorrest

This is excellent.