Going by a single poll, even when whose foundation supports a single payer system, is dangerous. Unfortunately, Real Clear Politics doesn't seem to be aggregating polls for Medicare For All. That's a shame because the RCP average gives you a better idea as to how things stand. That said, even taking the averages of numerous polls and taking it as gospel is dangerous. The polls, even the averages, did not show Trump winning the presidency. Yet, look what happened.

I completely disagree with the last part of your post based on Bernie's track record as a Senator. I think Bernie would have been our savior in 2016 and I think the he can still be our savior in 2020. IMO, Elizabeth slipped a notch in this last debate. That said, I'd still vote for her if she won the primary.

I will not support anyone who is "owned" by corporations. I simply won't do it. Biden is a closet Republican just regurgitating crap others say, stuff the he allegedly accomplished as vice president and claiming he spearheaded things that he clearly did not. I will not vote for Biden. I did not vote for Temper TanTrump the first time and I most certainly won't vote for him his time; assuming he's not impeached. Furthermore, I will not vote for any Republican.

I'm a little younger than you are and you know a bit about my situation. So, you know that the policies our next president is going to make are going to affect me more than they will affect you. We need someone who is going to make the Left on the left again. Not Center or even slightly Right of it.

As much respect as I have for Tulsi, I don't think she has a shot at winning the primary; much less the general election. Furthermore, I think that Bernie is the only candidate who truly understands the concept behind "Not me. Us." It's not the president that is going to bring about a revolution. Sure, he/she can be the catalyst, but the revolution is going to be brought on by "we the people". "We the people" need to be active in all levels of government. We cannot be active on one day and expect that everything is going to be peachy. We have to be active throughout. Sign petitions. Attend peaceful protests. Write your representatives, mayors, governors, etc. Have an active voice. Let them know that your eyes are on them and they need to answer to their constituents; not a handful of billionaires.

I could go on, but I'll stop here for now. I have things I need to get done anyway.

As always, you present as a very well reasoned thesis, John. I have just a couple of questions.

A really minor one first: What percentage of Americans do you suppose know the difference between Medicare for All and the Public Option? I'm not sure I do, and I'm not sure even the Universe herself knows: Is there a difference at this point? Is either proposal well enough fleshed-out to identify a concrete difference? And if not, then to what are the American people responding? I suspect the answer is Marketing (read: Propaganda). And if this is what's going on, then what does that mean? (I think Walter Lippmann identified what it means in 1922.)

The second question has to do with the role a moderate democratic president would/could play in governing. It's intuitive that a moderate would "play better" with Ol' Mitch and the rest of the GOP, but is this intuition based more on history and (perhaps) wishful thinking than on reality? The GOP has proven itself so off-the-rails partisan in the last decade that I'm not sure anyone -- not even a moderate republican; hell, for that matter, not even one of their own -- could work effectively with them, unless we define "working with them" to mean "doing exactly as they demand".

If this is true, and I'm willing to entertain the possibility that it's not, then how would that change the calculus? If we discard "ability to work with republicans" as a variable in our cost function (on the assumption that the value of this variable will be zero no matter whom we elect), then what do the remaining variables say about whom we should elect?

Or to put the question a bit differently, what if it turned out that the only way to "work with" the GOP (or more accurately, whatever faction of the GOP happens to be slightly more powerful than the others at the moment) is to give in completely; to cede 100% to their demands? That is, what if the GOP persists in refusing to compromise at all, on anything, ever, period? (Let's imagine that "working with them" entailed simply accepting everything Trump has tried to put into place: Destroy the EPA, the Dept. of Education, etc.; abandon American infrastructure; embrace the New Gilded Age; become completely isolationist in our international affairs, etc.) In this world, is it better to cede to their demands in order to keep government running or to resist them at the cost of the kind of gridlock we now have?

A natural response to my "what if" question is to say, "well, that's really extreme. Even the GOP isn't that bad." But I'm not sure it isn't that bad.

@John Hummel - Did you watch the fourth debate? I'm about 70% of the way through it.

October Democratic Presidential Debate

As far as people like Klobuchar, Biden and Yang are concerned, there's a big difference between what Bernie and Elizabeth are calling Medicare For All and the "public option". The biggest difference being that you must opt in. I think giving people a choice is only going to lead to confusion. We either need to be all in for a single payer system or it's not going to work.

To hell with Mitch! There are ways of getting around that stubborn jackass! His crown is being threatened anyway. He might not be there in 2021. The biggest thing we must do away with is the filibuster. It should never have existed. Either come to an agreement or work together to make something better. Don't waste taxpayer dollars reading a darn dictionary for umteen hours!

Like I said, I'm not voting for a moderate (read corporate) Democrat. I might as well vote Republican because that's not going to provide "we the people" with a real solution. The solution is in the last longish paragraph in my comment above.

I used KFF @DavïÐ Låzårµ§ because they have a wonderful record of accuracy, but they aren't the only poll finding this conclusion. I use NCPP standards polling from many sources. Places like Gallop, Pew, PPP, as well as some professional political polling. This is certainly not the only one supporting the conclusion.

I completely disagree with the last part of your post based on Bernie’s track record as a Senator. I think Bernie would have been our savior in 2016 and I think the he can still be our savior in 2020.

Bernie is a great Senator, and a great man. He did wonderful things in his life. He would also be a terrible president. Nothing would get done, and it would be four more years of Senate gridlock (we're not winning the Senate back without a miracle). What's important to understand is that this isn't an opinion of mine, it's reality. Bernie won't help this country as president. He will divide it further because he's socialist, and like it or not most people hate the idea of socialism (misguided or not). He's popular among young people, but young people show up to stadiums not polling places.

The good polls don't lie, and Bernie hasn't recovered. It's unlikely he will.



No politician is our savior. If we're waiting on a politician to be our savior we're already lost. They are politicians and only one cog in giant wheel. They are not rock stars, they are not actors, and they should never be worshiped. Bernie is a great man, but he's a politician. He's not innocent and he's not special. He's human. Lincoln didn't free the slaves by himself.

I will not support anyone who is “owned” by corporations. I simply won’t do it.

I truly understand this feeling, and I agree. Anyone owned by a corporation would be awful. This idea is also the worst possible trend today. This is not the sword to die on, and it's misguided. Presidents aren't the ones you have to worry about being bought. They have no legislative power in the US government. Not taking money on principle means losing, losing means Trump for four more years, and if that's worth it then people should vote for Trump. No president is owned corporations. Even Trump's executive powers were not used because he owned, it's because of who he is and what he believes. If anything Trump did what he did to profit, that's different than being owned. Not taking big donations is guaranteed to be a loss in the election.

We need someone who is going to make the Left on the left again. Not Center or even slightly Right of it.

Absolutely false. We need a president that can bring the two sides together. Anything else means nothing changes. You get nothing from a far left president except more division and gridlock. Do you know how many laws have been passed this session that addressed climate change, healthcare, or anything important to the future? None. That's because the House can't get them past the Senate or the White House. Put Bernie in the White House and republicans are obligated to oppose all things that even smell of Bernie's ideas. They have no choice. Trump or Bernie legislation is dead. Bernie is better for all things presidential, but I don't care about that. We need both.

As much respect as I have for Tulsi...

That's shocking coming from you. She's literally a republican and always has been.

To hell with Mitch.

Yep he sucks, but you can't go around him. It's impossible. He's also not losing losing to McGrath in KY. Obama has a better chance of winning a third term.

Like I said, I’m not voting for a moderate (read corporate) Democrat. I might as well vote Republican because that’s not going to provide “we the people” with a real solution. The solution is in the last longish paragraph in my comment above.

I would never want someone to vote for a corporate anything. But pretending moderate means bad is why nothing will ever be fixed. Single-payeer, strong climate change legislation, and permanent campaign finance reform will not be touched in the next five years.

...other visionary legislation, from the Dodd-Frank financial protections to the largest-ever investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides legal justice for women facing pay discrimination. Speaker Pelosi also passed the toughest ethics reform legislation in the history of the Congress, the strongest-ever set of hate crimes protections, the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the first increase in the minimum wage in 10 years, and a new GI education bill for post-9/11 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Nancy Pelosi did all that in the last decade, and much more. I guess if those are "corporate" or "moderate' qualities then so be it. I'll take that all day over zero getting done.

By the way, and this is something you must come to terms with, you _ _ win elections if you have money.

It's important to understand that polarization isn't about democrats vs republicans. I'll get to that.

How many know the difference @John Hummel? Best guess 10-20% without explicitly being told. That's one of the reasons I like this poll. They word the questions clearly, but there will always be some that don't totally understand it. That's why the first question is important.

The second question in the poll has two problems, which are "public option" sounds like "single-payer," and "option" always polls well. That's why the number is so high for the second poll, but the first question using Medicare-for-All provides a nice clear support line. The second question is more for trends than accuracy. That's why you'll notice the huge swing in the second column of the third image. The more accurate data is in the first column with the clearest question.

There is a distinct difference. Most simply put "Medicare-for-All" means "European medicine" and "Government Option" means "I get to keep my insurance." It's 100% about propaganda and marketing. That's why it's dangerous to keep pushing these policy ideas without any workable legislation already done and tested. That's why nobody can honestly answer how much it will cost, where the money comes from, and how it will impact the market. It's a fragile idea that can either mature into something, or die due to the weight of propaganda. I prefer the former, but we need to turn the rhetoric dial back down to 6 before it becomes a joke that nobody takes seriously.

The GOP has proven itself so off-the-rails partisan in the last decade that I’m not sure anyone – not even a moderate republican; hell, for that matter, not even one of their own – could work effectively with them, unless we define “working with them” to mean “doing exactly as they demand”.

This is the most interesting point of our current political climate. It's important to distinguish between the GOP and the Trump GOP. It's also important to remember that I'm not saying we need a moderate candidate. I'm saying we need someone who isn't openly hostile. There's a big difference. Pelosi has passed progressive legislation for decades (at least relative to the times), and she did all of that because she didn't get into public wars unless it she had to. She knows it's better to play a centrist and win the majority, then pass laws accordingly, rather than to alienate voters, disrupt the party, and eventually lose as a fanatic.

From a more analytical view I'll turn to a right-leaning R Street publication. They have a very high accuracy rating on Media Bias, and they sum this up well. Considering we're talking about the GOP we should use their feelings.

Social scientists tell us that we can expect this gridlock to continue as long as our electorate remains polarized. And so it seems that ending congressional dysfunction is inseparable from ending, or at least reducing, polarization. That is, if the ideological distance between the parties is what drives dysfunction, then our only hope is a public that somehow transcends current differences and elects candidates cut from a different mold, politicians more interested in solving America’s problems than are our current partisan warriors. Absent such changes in the electorate, reform-minded members seeking to make Congress work are left with no choice but to wall off the legislative process from the polarized conflict endemic in politics today and try their best to weather the storm.

On closer inspection, it turns out that the evidence on which the polarization thesis depends is hardly decisive. Rightly understood, polarization is more an optical illusion than a solid fact about American life. A better way to understand politics today is to focus on what members actually do in Washington.

This is it. It's not about reality, it's about the illusion people have of those doing the governing.

Our political world is considerably more mixed up and uncertain than the standard story suggests. While political scientists can confidently state that Democratic and Republican legislators are voting more distinctly in the current political moment compared with recent decades, they have not really told us what this means.

It turns out that the conventional wisdom on polarization does not explain legislative behavior particularly well. That may be because polarization, properly understood, characterizes the appearance of politics, not its reality.

Today’s divergence between Democrats and Republicans in Congress does not indicate that members share no common beliefs or values. Instead, it reveals a political environment in which legislative leaders are extremely skilled at agenda-control and issue-suppression — at avoiding certain kinds of votes, for instance.

Republican leaders, in particular, have refined the art of restricting roll-call votes to just those matters that serve to unify their caucus. Debates that produce votes on amendments that have not been carefully weeded out by the leaders have become vanishingly rare. There are no more open rules in the House, for example. And Senate leaders utilize a complex assortment of rules and practices to exert greater control over the legislative process than at any previous point in the institution’s history. The principal means by which leaders establish such control is their ability to block amendments on the Senate floor, which they use to structure the amendment process so as to permit only uncontroversial amendments. This protects senators from having to cast tough votes that could be used against them in their effort to secure re-election.

By the loud boisterous opponents on Twitter. They can't take up risky legislation because AOC and her "Squad" crucify them if they even try to have a discussion where don't concede to everything they want. All this time you would think Mitch is just being a dick, and he is a dick, but there's more to it than that.

Mitch is actually not the one solely responsible for the obstruction, and he is has a legitimate argument to say that it's the democrats who are unwilling to down the pitchforks and get things done.

Given this dynamic, measured polarization, of the sort used by DW-NOMINATE, is largely an indicator of the majority party’s active dominance of the agenda-setting process within Congress. Of course, setting the agenda gets harder when members of the majority party do not agree on policy. So when more and more issues divide a given party’s members, more and more issues must be kept off the agenda in order to prevent the party coalition from fracturing. Fear of such a fracturing in today’s environment is what prompts party members who can’t agree on policy to empower their leaders to keep divisive issues off the agenda.

This helps explain the near-exclusive control of the legislative process by party leaders today. Leaders use their control to keep the focus on issues that unite their partisan colleagues, while drawing favorable contrasts with the other party. The result is to create the appearance of polarization between two parties, despite the fact that the members within a single party disagree on quite a lot. In this way, declining cohesiveness of a party’s membership ends up creating the impression of “stronger,” more ideologically homogeneous parties — “polarization.”

What empirical measures like DW-NOMINATE are really picking up on is the stage-managed process of agenda-setting, not polarization. This is easy to overlook because the result — gridlock — is the same regardless of the underlying cause.

For example, both parties are divided internally on such pressing issues as health care, immigration, government spending, and gun control. This prompts leaders to avoid taking up legislation dealing with these issues and to structure the legislative process to prevent other members of Congress from doing so. “Gridlock” ensues.

We need less extremism in public, more cooperation in private, and less hostility overall. We can work with McConnell. What we're seeing isn't gridlock based upon unwillingness to work together, it's based upon the nature of extreme candidates throwing wrenches into everything for no good reason.

There's a little more to the article, but that's the sum total of what's happening. At the time it was written (June, 2018) it was controversial, but today it no longer is.

https://www.rstreet.org/2018/06/15/congress-is-broken-but-dont-blame-polarization/

@John Brooks - We're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, Bernie would be our savior. Why? Because, like I said, he is the only one who truly understands the concept behind "Not me. Us." He knows that a single person can do nothing, but a mobilized, enthusiastic, highly motivated populace can move mountains. He knows he can't take on Big Oil, Big Pharma, the health insurance companies, etc on his own. He needs a mobilized populace willing to fight along side him. That's what he's about. He started a movement in 2015 that has only gotten stronger over the past four years. Bernie will get thing done because "we the people" will have his back.

As I've been saying, "No me. Us." is about everyone taking an active roll in government at every level. It's not about participating on a single day electing a lone person to the White House. It's about keeping in regular communication with your representatives, signing petitions, attending town halls, participating in peaceful protests and writing key people to make your voice heard. When our elected officials know that all eyes are on them all the time and they'll be held accountable if they step out of line, they will answer to their constituents; not corporations.

"We the people" are ultimately responsible for the state of this nation. We need to realize that and do what it takes to make it what we want it to be. That's the only way it's going to work.

I just finished watching the fourth debate. The only three people who seem truly genuine are Bernie, Cory and Tulsi. And the latter is not a Republican. That's propaganda BS. None of what she stands for are Republican ideals. Particularly on women's rights and her stance on the endless wars. And, yes, I know her parents are religious.

@DavïÐ Låzårµ§ I don't disagree with Bernie. I just know that if he's elected he simply cannot do what he's talking about. The president can't do anything in terms of legislation, and if Nancy were there I would have to rethink my position. But without a strong majority leader, an opposition Senate, and a divided nation those giant policies just have nowhere to go.

Bernie is absolutely genuine. So were Pete and Yang, but they're not serious challenges yet (Pete had a good night in terms of polling so maybe). You're killing me with Tulsi, in a way where I'm so confused and interested in why. She's pro-life (she doesn't not believe in abortion she says the government shouldn't be involved, and that is pro-life), anti-LBGTQ (that's just a fact she can't escape), supports Assad, spends more time of Fox News that Hannity, and she's supported by every huge republican donor. Which I would bet a kidney is where her $2.3 million in large donations is came from https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033281. She's the literal opposite of Sanders. I don't really care, I just find it strange. Bernie I totally understand, though.

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, is impressed with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.”

And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.

“She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person,” Mr. Cernovich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”

Brian Levin, the head of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, said Ms. Gabbard had “the seal of approval” within white nationalist circles. “If people have that isolationist worldview, there is one candidate that could best express them on each side: Gabbard on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side,” Mr. Levin said.

“She’s taken a series of policy steps which signal to the right that she has deep areas of alignment,” said Neera Tanden, a longtime policy adviser to Hillary Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Republicans lover her, even Trump. That's scary. I don't care if you like her, but she's 100% a republican, and likely a Trump republican. I can't find anything she's done to say otherwise. I would actually like her if she had any democrat in her. Cross appeal is good, but she's basically a better looking Mitch McConnell so far.

If it were the 90s Bernie could do great things as president.Not because of his age, but the political climate. Today the climate would cripple him.

@john I needed to consider my answer to your question about "changing the calculus," because that's important question. It also happens to be difficult.

We need to understand what politicians have successfully crossed party lines in terms of vote getting, and then look at a president that was wildly popular but only in their party. A few come to mind for the latter. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. For the former it's obvious, Bill Clinton. Let's look at all three with a snapshot of each in terms of official job satisfaction.

Obama
https://i.imgur.com/8mBCGTC.png

Trump
https://i.imgur.com/7hvdZht.png

Clinton
https://i.imgur.com/DwB122e.png

What you notice right away is that Clinton, even among his scandalous impeachment, was immensely popular among independents and democrats, but his republican approval numbers are 3x-4x that of his counterparts. Even during the 1993 time where he was his least popular he had way more cross appeal than any modern president. He passed a ban on assault weapons, he should have been enemy number one. Imagine trying to do that today. His impeachment should have tanked his support from the right, but it did the opposite. Why?

Well, that's a complex question but here you go.

_Clinton managed to remake the image and operations of the Democratic Party in ways that effectively undermined the so-called Reagan Revolution. His "New Democrat" Party co-opted the Reagan appeal to law and order, individualism, and welfare reform, and made the party more attractive to white middle-class Americans. At the same time, the reborn party retained traditional Democratic commitments to providing for the disadvantaged, regulating the excesses of the private marketplace, supporting minorities and women, and using government to stimulate economic growth. Moreover, Clinton capitalized on growing dissatisfaction with far right-wing extremism within the Republican Party. _

https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/impact-and-legacy

The internet was unstoppable, but Clinton fostered it and then knew how to capitalize on that. Clinton also knew that a good economy that was more than just Wall St. is how you make people happy, so he delivered on that. He knew that making people happy meant not seeing government eat other's young, so he delivered on that. Guess what? When the government attacked him his approval went to all time highs. Not a coincidence.

He turned out to be a shitty person, but he was a brilliant president. He made mistakes, but the numbers don't lie. Clinton brought Americans together better than any president since Kennedy.

People want the non-partisan, non-child eating, non-bullshit leaders. And they're more open about assault weapons bans, and other extreme policy because they feel that you're doing your job when CNN, Fox, and MSNBC aren't constantly tripping over themselves to tell you how fucked up the government is. If extreme policy equals more fighting then fuck extreme policy. That's the calculus used by the majority of Americans.

I know you're a father, and a good one. I know that because from what I know about you it's obvious. Just like our current government I would bet your life was quite chaotic when your first child came home. That's expected, but when your child is screaming to be fed at 3am when they're 15 there's a problem. That's how most Americans see the government over the last 20 years. Even when Obama was at peak popularity the turmoil was constant. Then the Tea Party happened and fuck them. They disrupted and pushed asymmetric polarization to a new level. We're in the middle of our Tea Party, it just looks different from the inside. The way people feel about Bernie, AOC, and Warren is how the Tea Party felt about those bunch of idiots. Moral equivalence and competency don't matter because their disruptive equivalence is the same. Obviously Bernie and Warren are better in every way, but again it doesn't matter because they can't unite us.

So, how do we change the calculus? We have stop rewarding people who support extreme candidates who don't know how to be extreme candidates effectively. We have to, for a lack of a better word, educate the supporters of these people. We need more Clinton (the president not the man) qualities and less of all this shit we have now. No more with the constant hate of the GOP as if they're one person, and explaining that AOC isn't hurting republicans she's hurting democrats. We have to crack down on candidates using Twitter as a shotgun of partisan nonsense, because they're impeding our party because they can't introduce legislation for fear of civil war and purity testing.

People have to know that it's fine to have policy that's "extreme," but if they don't understand how to make it happen they're the wrong people. Donations are a good example. If you don't trust that a candidate for President of the United States can take a large donation from Google and still advocate for you, then that is not the right person to support. If people support someone that constantly blames republicans or engages in purity tests, they are the wrong people. Governing doesn't happen on Twitter. It happens in meetings, and Twitter can make those meetings impossible for both parties. In the end I guess it's actually not that difficult.

We must not be afraid to call out popular members of the party. We must be reasonable. We must act like adults. We must not blame the GOP for every problem. We must not promote division. We must be smart. Country over party.

@John Brooks - It's the vibe that I get from Tulsi. I have been wrong and it's usually not in my favor when I am. Pete actually does seem relatively genuine, yes. However, he's not for Medicare For All. So, I cannot support him.

I think I mentioned this somewhere here, but, IMO, Elizabeth slipped a couple of notches in the fourth debate. Her biggest failure was how she responded to the tax question as far as paying for Medicare For All. Even Bernie said that taxes would go up on the middle class, but overall costs would go down. Had Elizabeth said the same thing when she was jabbed by both Biden and Pete, she would have been much better off. She would have come across as more genuine. However, she avoided saying it like the plague. I know taxes will go up on the middle class to cover Medicare For All. I'm fine with that because I'll never have to worry about another hospital bill and, right now, hospital bills are causing me serious financial woes. And, yes, I've negotiated payment plans.

Regarding, Bernie, we are going to have to disagree. I truly believe that he would get things done because of the movement (concept) that I described above. That movement would change the entire dynamic of Congress regardless of which party has the majority. Why? Because their constituents will be fired up if they don't make good on Bernie's plans. Also, Bernie does have a good history of being able to work with both sides of the aisle. Thus, between the two, he'll be fine.

@DavïÐ Låzårµ§ you're 100% right about Warren. That's why she can't beat Trump. She is horrible at live unscripted nationally televised appearances, and Trump is great at those.

Bernie can motivate a good number of voters, but Congress doesn't care about movements. They are career politicians that have been through those before. In truth they don't care about much outside polls and raising money. You're right that certain parts of the democratic caucus would be fired up. The republicans would be too, but in the other direction. There's no politician that will sweepingly unite the parties. Bernie will inspire everyone slightly left of center and many independants (which is great), but everyone near the center or right of them hates Bernie. Sadly socialism is a bad word in most of American homes today.

I will say this, though. Currently 1 in 5 republicans want a candidate other than Trump, but you'll never get a republican to vote for, or support Bernie. That's not his biggest issue, though. I would take Bernie over Warren all day long, but she's hurting him in a bad way in Iowa. Bullock is eating into Bernie's delegates too.

I've been saying since 2017 that if people meet Steve Bullock he could pull an Obama and rise from seemingly nowhere, and it's happening. His momentum at 4% is nothing to ignore. He was at 0% on Wednesday and he's doing effective grassroots right now. He's a guaranteed win against Trump, has a progressive policy, and he's the most popular governor in a state Trump won by 20%. NRA can't touch him, or his push for assault weapons bans, he's expanded medicaid, did it all as a democrat in Montana.

Warren has also overtaken Sanders among voters under the age of 50. 21% of those under 50 support Warren followed by Sanders at 18%. Biden continues to lead with those over 50 – receiving 33% support from this cohort, followed by Warren at 24%.

_Warren also now leads Sanders among those who supported the Vermont Senator in the 2016 caucus; Warren has 26% among this group, followed by Sanders at 19%, and Buttigieg at 16%. Among those who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 caucus, Biden captures 42%, followed by Warren at 22% and Buttigieg at 13%. _

That's bad news for everyone but Bullock and Pete. Iowa is huge, so if Bernie is going to have a shot he needs to get his poll numbers up. Therein lies the problem. The people he needs don't like his policy (most don't understand it). But, Bernie polls well head to head against Trump there, and that's really good.

I wouldn't be mad if Bernie won, but I also know it means very little for domestic legislation. Don't forget we don't have a strong Speaker for the next president. Without republican support and no infighting whoever is elected will struggle. Nancy passed nearly all of Obama's policy (it should have been called Pelosicare if you ask anyone that was there). But he would still have Executive power and he would be great for foreign policy.

If Bernie lit a fire under democrats, which it's possible, republicans hate his guts more than Obama. They just don't care if he's right or inspiring. That's how they feel about almost all the candidates (except Tulsi). Like I said, he's got bigger challenges right now. I really hope he overtakes Warren again. I like Bernie, and I hate knowing he's not the best choice, but Warren is so much worse.

Excellent points as always, @John Brooks. I cannot find a way to disagree with you. And yet instead of giving me hope, I fear your reasoning may give me reason for additional despair.

… but when your child is screaming to be fed at 3am when they’re 15 there’s a problem. That’s how most Americans see the government over the last 20 years.

An excellent analogy, and an extremely important point. I think you’re right that most Americans are sick of extremists, or more accurately, of government that can’t work together.

We’re in the middle of our Tea Party, it just looks different from the inside. The way people feel about Bernie, AOC, and Warren is how the Tea Party felt about those bunch of idiots.

I’ll bet you’re right. I can see how AOC is tea-party-like in her unwillingness to compromise. But do you think Warren would be so extreme? Or is she just doing the politician thing and speaking in extreme terms for the purposes of campaigning?

We must not be afraid to call out popular members of the party. We must be reasonable. We must act like adults. We must not blame the GOP for every problem. We must not promote division. We must be smart. Country over party.

I agree with that. But it also sounds an awful lot like what Obama tried to do, especially in the first half of his first term. The GOP didn’t cooperate back. Instead, they took his cooperation as a sign of weakness.

This is not to say that your approach is wrong. I think you’re right that it’s the right approach. But it needs to be conducted in a way that is somehow bilateral. It’s no good if only one side is willing to compromise. (There is a case to be made that democrats in general, not just Obama, have fallen victim to this tendency: A kind of naive “Can’t we all just work together?”)

I’m not saying I disagree with you. I think the kind of cooperation you describe is the only way we can get ourselves out of this mess. But I’m not sure we can ever get the “other side” to play along. And if we can’t, then what?

I fear the answer to the following is implied, if not directly stated, in what you said before, but: Am I right in my belief that Clinton didn't have to contend with the Tea Party? Or at least not very much? If this is true, then that may suggest that his strategy would likely be less effective now.

You certainly asked all the questions that we have to answer, John. Most of all this.

But it needs to be conducted in a way that is somehow bilateral. It’s no good if only one side is willing to compromise.

That's were the president comes in. He can't legislate, but a strong party leader can shut down the partisan rhetoric. Unfortunately we're going to have be the "bigger person" for progress to be made.

That feeds into Obama appearing weak. He didn't appear weak, he was weak for the first term. We don't need an Oliver Twist with their hand out to republicans saying "please just work with us," and Obama did that at first. He was desperate to pass his big ideas and he tried being that person. Like you said nobody will respect that person, and he toughened up a bit. He a pressure that no president has ever had, and will ever have again. He was the first black president in a country founded by slave owners that were freed only 160 years ago. I can't imagine the pressure of that legacy, especially in the midst of a racist uprising.

As to Warren, you're right it's just her really foolish attempt to be everything to everyone. Bernie is without a doubt the better of the two. He's not chasing the young crowd, they chase him. He's honest, he's smart, he's passionate, and he's just what I wish we were ready for. Warren doesn't a hold a candle to him, but his age and health have crushed him politically. He can't catch up in the polls to save his life, he's lost a lot of ground in Iowa to Pete, Warren, and now Bullock is starting to rise (he will continue to rise).

This is where the approach comes in. We need a candidate capable of strength, soft spoken authority (Clinton was a master at that), and someone republicans don't have to hate by proxy because they constantly blame for everything. They don't have to like them, they just have to respect them.

I keep going back to Bullock because he's the best example. In a state Trump won by 20 points Bullock got reflected and won by 4 against a popular intelligent republican. Majority of the State Houses are republican, but he passed progressive legislation like expansion of Medicare... Actually here's a comprehensive look, but it's long. Sorry.

Bullock, 53, touts that up to 30 percent of Montanans who voted for Trump last election also voted for Bullock. He’s also proud of pushing Medicaid expansion through a Republican legislature.

But while a majority of Montana voters approve of the governor, a Morning Consult poll showed 56 percent of respondents nationwide had never heard of Bullock.

Bullock has long stressed his experience fighting “dark money,” or undisclosed funds in elections. He’s even featured as a protagonist in the 2018 feature-length documentary entitled “Dark Money.”

In June 2018, Bullock signed an executive order that required many companies submitting bids for government projects to disclose their campaign contributions — even to nonprofits that aren’t otherwise required to disclose their donors.

As Montana’s attorney general, Bullock defended a century-old Montana state law that banned corporate spending in elections. That challenged Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations, unions and certain nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. While the Montana Supreme Court upheld the corporate political spending ban, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Montana’s law, saying it conflicted with the Citizens United ruling and First Amendment rights of corporations.

In 2015, Bullock also helped push Montana’s Disclose Act, which demanded more transparency in state elections. The law since has been challenged and is still intact, but in February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

Bullock sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department in July. Why? To protect a rule requiring political nonprofits to disclose their donors to the government, after the Treasury Department said it would no longer enforce that rule. The case is pending.

He did all that in one of the most Trumpiest of Trump places and 30% of the people that voted for Trump voted for him. How?

Almost positive he's magical. Can you say that Sanders, Warren, or any other candidate could possibly do that in Montana? Hell, I'm not sure Lincoln could have done something similar. His big secret is that he talked to the republicans. Face to face and they worked it out.

I wish I had a better answer, but I'm sure how he does it, but we need him to do it as president, and I believe he can.

As for the approach criticism of popular candidates, it's impossible. At least I think so. Sadly it's like talking Trump supporter, and I lose patience fast. You're probably a good person to explain how to break cognitive dissonance.

You're the Tea Party and Clinton. That would have been a difficult path. In some ways he spawned the modern age of partisan politics with popularity. Die hards hated that he was popular, and Bush was their savior.

@DavïÐ Låzårµ§ poll averages are ok for a general overview. They're a good way to see what's going quickly. I would be careful, though. RCP isn't known for their accuracy. When it's dem vs dem it's mostly alright, but they are a right leaning source. That's just as bad as a left leaning source.

For example, that FRA poll from Sept. is total garbage. It has Sanders a 9 points, which you know is crazy because look at the Iowa poll above it. The DMRegister/CNN poll is shit too, but normally they are good. They had a terrible questions that were hyper complex.

Overall RCP is fine for the primary or any election there's no republican vs. dem. I use daily polls because I subscribe to a feed of all the pollsters and in primary season everything changes a lot. I also have a ton of time because I temporarily closed my company until the election is over, so they help me to get a snapshot of the day to day. The key is using only B+ rated pollsters. Here is the industry report cards. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

The ABC poll on that list is very interesting. @John Hummel, this is related to our conversation.




They are telling us what they want in very clear language.



People don't care nearly as much about Trump's impeachment as many believe.




Another telling story. You notice how people aren't all-in on the constant impeachment talk. Their support drops significantly, even for a candidate they really like.




This has always been the obstacle. When given the option beyond impeach or don't impeach they will choose not to impeach. The only reason support is so high is because of how they ask the question.




That's very telling, and it's why Biden is still in the race. Right now he's seen as the "most sensible" by people who also said they want sensible. This is also where Bernie has always struggled. People love his ideas, but they also don't believe they're realistic.




This is one I hate, but it's a real issue. I do want to know who the 1% are that said Bernie was "too young." Those are optimistic people. I'm also curious how Biden got such a pass. I think a lot of people don't know how old he is.




This is where Bernie will never be beaten by anyone. This is what makes him able to be a candidate after a heart attack. It's impressive.

In closing a fun fact of the day. Fox News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Co. Research polls are among the most reliable polling in the world. Go figure.

@DavïÐ Låzårµ§ their does show bias, but only when it's a republican vs. dem, and it's about 1.7-2.1%. For the primaries they are fine. They also list all the polls so it's easy to look at them individually anyway.

You shouldn't change your mind. If you like Bernie you should vote for him. I hate people that vote shame, it's stupid. It's like people who get mad that people voted for Jill Stein. No candidate is owed a person's vote. It's up to the candidate to earn their vote, and Hillary ran a terrible campaign. She was the best option to win the electoral math, but that just means we need better options.

I employ 39 people, but I gave them a year off paid. I definitely didn't put people out of work so I could run around the country for a year. I'm able to do it because I've done well enough financially that I don't have to worry about the cost, and this election is very important to me. In my industry we work on a contractual basis, so I just didn't take any new jobs.

The goal is to finance the best candidate for the job with the opportunity to win in Iowa. Bullock is doing well there, but I don't think he will win. The current momentum is Pete Buttigieg, and while he suffers from an age problem he's compelling. I saw him talk a few days ago at a small fundraising dinner and it's impossible to ignore how captivating he is. He raises a lot of money, but like Bernie it doesn't translate proportionately into support yet. He's gained a lot of ground, but a lot of money without a sustained uptick means that support is strong but shallow. It will take a week to really know.

By Thursday we should know how well all dems are doing. I would think Bernie should jump a couple points, Pete as well, and Biden will drop while Warren stays the same.

That's thing about campaign contributions, David. It says a lot about Bernie Sanders that so many people give to his campaign. It doesn't matter how much, it's that so many people give regularly.

I'll tell you what is standing in Bernie's way more than anything, and I've heard this so much at fundraising events the last three weeks. It's his unwillingness to take large corporate donations. So many people are not giving Bernie support because they can't donate, thus they know winning will be almost impossible. It's not his age or his policies that are currently keeping him in 3rd, it's that people know he can win without cash.

Can you honestly say that if Bernie Sanders took corporate money because he had to that he all of sudden wouldn't be the same person? There's no chance of that. Pete gained in the polls because he's pragmatic.

Pete is very much like Obama on policy. He's the vanilla Obama, but that's why he's doing so well. He knows backing MFA is policy loser because it won't happen, and he knows he gets more votes talking about the stupid government option (you're right it's garbage). Pete is a smart political operative, and he knows the center wins elections.

One of main reasons I can't support Bernie is that I, too, know he can't win without money. I also know that he can't pass his policies, but that doesn't mean he would be a bad president. But if won't do what's needed to win it feels pointless.

Bernie supporters have to drop the purity tests and tell him to take money because he needs it to win. He would be polling in the low 20s if he wasn't being stubborn.

Bernie wouldn't be obligated to answer to them, because he's better than that (and he takes their money already). Believe it or not there's not a lot of large liberal donors trying to off candidates. Oil companies, logging, mining, and other generally horrible environmentally destructive industries give to republicans because that's where the industry works. Those areas are republican because that's who they think keeps their jobs going.

Comcast, Verizon, Disney, and other media conglomerates donate to both sides, but their bread and butter is still the right. People overestimate the power of corporate donations in politics. Here's why I can say that definitively.

I went back to school at the youthful age of 49 to take a few political science courses at UCLA, Berkeley. I learned things that went against everything I had assumed about contributions. As I'm sure you know @John Hummel is a highly intelligent person with great analytical skills. I require a lot more data to come to the same conclusions because I don't connect the dots as well without the addition info. That leaves me vulnerable to a lot of assumptions if I don't do the work. It turns out money is not influential in policy, not corporate money at least.

Do you remember Trump and Keystone? The energy sector gave Trump over $1 million in 2016, so naturally Trump is paying them back. That's actually not true. Haritz Garro and University of Chicago political scientist Anthony Fowler tested the quid-pro-quo theory, and corporate money does nothing significant to influence policy.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e981/58bbc9f3bac640a370b88870c166caf7a855.pdf

That doesn't there's zero influence with contributions, but corporate money isn't really where the problem is, that uses dark money from individuals (and some companies).

Look at NextGen Climate Action Committee, a 501(c)(4), that was founded in 2013 by Tom Steyer. They were funded by Fahr LLC, and guess who else Fahr LLC gives money to? Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sanders (who got the most with $900).

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067344&cycle=2020

Then there's this.




Over his career those are his top donors. Alphabet, Amazon, IBM, and AT&T, among others. You still support him, and you should because he can take corporate money and not be a slave. It's private dollars and private donors that really have an influence, but even then a good person won't be owned by contributions.

The biggest things corporations do is limit options of politicians. Pete would be vulnerable to this. You take money from a pro-net neutrality company and now any pro-net neutrality support looks paid for. The truth is most companies don't give that much money to one person (average is $3,750) They spread it around to a bunch of candidates. In some cases a company will spend a lot on one person, but it's not common.

There are about 46 companies that spend over $10 million during a presidential election year, and Fahr LLC was the number one donor for 2016. They donated to Bernie, but Bernie is still awesome. It's safe to let him take more money from corporate donors. The whole "no PAC money" is misleading anyway. As you see he takes plenty from them already, which is fine.