Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[Incandenza]

Latest selected odds on next US President via Oddschecker:
Trump 2/1
Kamala Harris 7/1
Beto O'Rourke 15/2
Biden 12/1
Elizabeth Warren 20/1
Sanders 25/1
Bloomberg 33/1
Pence 40/1
Hillary Clinton 50/1
Michelle Obama 66/1
Eric Garcetti 80/1
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson 80/1
Shawn Carter (Jay-Z) 100/1
Sarah Huckabee Sanders 125/1
Marshall Mathers (Eminem) 125/1
Chelsea Clinton 200/1
Ivanka Trump 400/1
Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) 500/1
Kanye West 500/1

Lots of other stupid celebrity/sports names on the list, but neither of the Trump boys, which is a surprise. Usual caveats apply, these odds reflect where money has been wagered and do not indicate actual likelihood. Having said that, Trump will likely be shorter than 2/1 if he runs so get your money down now.

The Rock should have shorter odds than Garcetti.

Bernie at 25/1 is a steal.

[Lurgee]

The electability thing means different things to different people, of course. But I get pretty animated when people try and fight the last election, and try and fight it on the Republicans' terms. When the sole focus becomes finding ways to win white, working class, non-college educated people in 4 rust-belt states who moved from Democrat to Republican in 2016. The idea that we have to find a candidate that appeals to this group of perhaps a million people at the expense of everyone else is an idea that drives me nuts.

So when I see Ojeda's name out there purely because he's a rust-belt populist who came close-ish in a West Virginia house election, it bothers me. Fortunately, Ojeda's going nowhere. The same for Buttegieg. Sherrod Brown's hypothetical candidacy (and he's on a tour of New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, so it's not really that hypothetical) is based on exactly that metric, too: "He talks about workers, and he won in a rusty-belt state".

Case of "The generals are always ready to fight the last war" versus "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

I, for one, like Ojeda because he looks like a bit of a nutter.

Wonder what your opinion of a certain senator from Chicago back in 2007?

Ojeda is also a good name to chant. "O-JED-AH!! O-JED-AH!! O-JED-AH!!" Try it. You know you want to.

Althose numbskulls who have mastered yelling "LOCK HER UP!!" will catch on.

[Gerontophile]

Bernie at 25/1 is a steal.

Under no circumstances, throw your money away on Bernie. I am surprised he is as short as 25's TBH.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/1087335505577021441

[anton pulisov]

Under no circumstances, throw your money away on Bernie. I am surprised he is as short as 25's TBH.

I'm sure they'll try again to paint Bernie, somebody who was locked up during the Civil Rights movement, as an out of touch old, white, racist man.

This time around they might not succeed.

[San Bernardhinault]

South Bend mayor Pete Buttegieg is now running. I've heard him interviewed a fair amount over the last year as he's tried to push himself into the public eye. Despite that, I still don't really know why he's running.

Current list of people who are officially in the race (formed "exploratory committees" or actually filed to run):

Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Julian Castro
Kristin Gillibrand
Tulsi Gabbard
Pete Buttegieg
Richard Ojeda
Andrew Yang
John Delaney

[NHH]

Is 'forming an exploratory committee' a rhetorical device to say 'going to try and raise some cash, but if I don't, will say that we explored it and decided not to' or are there actually members of these committees who do actually explore it?

[San Bernardhinault]

I actually don't know the answer, but I think you have it right. As I understand it, it's a way of starting raising cash but without actually filing to run with the FEC. I don't know if it's a purely rhetorical device so you don't have the shame of having dropped out if your campaign was an early disaster, or whether it's just easier and involves less bureaucracy than going to the whole hog and properly putting yourself on the ballot.

[ursus arctos]

This is a good summary

The exploratory committee has been around for decades, and technically it creates a legal shell for a candidate who expects to spend more than $5,000 while contemplating an actual run. Under the rules, exploratory money may be raised without the full disclosure of sources required of true candidates. Only when the candidate drops the exploratory label does the full responsibility of transparency apply.

Candidates use an exploratory committee as not only a transitional phase for their bookkeeping but as an extra claim on media attention. Some of the most skillful handlers like to leak word that their candidate is testing the waters, then leak word that he or she is thinking about forming an exploratory committee. Additional "news" can be made when the same candidate actually forms such a committee and registers with the Federal Election Commission. Yet a fourth round of attention may be generated when the word exploratory gets dropped from the committee filing.

[San Bernardhinault]

Given that Universal Health Care seems to have become a key component of a lot of Democrat campaigns (and explaining why they are in favour of it but not actually doing it is part of the rest of them), can someone explain to me why nobody uses plain English and talks about Universal Health Care? Instead, the traditional phrase is "Single Payer", and I've no idea why it's called that or what it means. So, can someone say why it's called Single Payer?

The other term is "Medicare For All" which isn't particularly descriptive and seems pretty vague, but is surely more descriptive than Single Payer.

[Amor de Cosmos]

All terms that don't mention money sound overly socialist?

[ursus arctos]

It's a good question, and I think the best answer is that the historical "debate" here has been so dominated by money (first from the AMA, then insurance companies, pharma, and wingnut think tanks) that every "reasonable" term has been co-opted by those who will tell it you it means something very different than what you thought.

For example, there are plenty of people in this country who will tell you that we already have the best "universal health care" in the world because virtually everything is available if one can afford it.

"Single payer" is the result of the wars within the Democratic Party over the last couple of decades, and was created to differentiate a rest of the world style "universal" system from the alternatives being proposed by the "moderates" that retained for-profit insurance companies and hospitals as essential elements of the system.

"Medicare for All" is a more recent construction designed to take advantage the massive popular support Medicare has in this country, including among those who consider "socialized medicine" and "Obamacare" to be Communist plots that will destroy the Republic.

[San Bernardhinault]

Who is the "single payer" in this context though? And who are they paying?

I can see why you'd shift from Single Payer to Medicare For All, because the latter isn't branding itself on who is paying.

[ursus arctos]

The Single Payer is the Federal Government.

Exactly what they are paying can differ according to the plan (especially the extent to which it retains for profit hospitals, etc.).

It's worth noting that "Single Payer" was never intended for the general public; it came out of debates within the Democratic Party and was intended for use in that context.

[Gerontophile]

Quite like this Sherrod Brown chap (From Seth Meyers' interview, just then). Possibly a bit too sensible, and definitely too unknown, and a smidge too supplicant with his body language. But, I could work with that.

*Michaela Cole is on now, and she is fucking stunning. Physically, too.

[Gerontophile]

OK, I've decided. If I can suggest a compromise?

Kamala Harris/Danny Trejo

[Gerontophile]

Nah, fuck it: Kamala Harris/Vin Diesel

(Danny, whilst fucking amazing, uses machetes, so the NRA would vote against him. Foreign Secretary,* or however you Americans say it. "Closed" at the moment.)

*Sorry, this is the job that Senor Trejo would have in the perfect government, should it ever be open.

**Also, I have been typing for about 3 hours. But, fortunately for you lot, self-censoring.

[Incandenza]

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1088507658208989184

(for Gero):

SCOOP: @SenWarren is proposing a "wealth tax" on those with more than $50 million, in an attempt to combat soaring wealth inequality The tax would hit those above $50M w/ a 2% wealth tax, & those above $1B w/ 3% wealth tax. Would raise $2.75T/10 years

To which I say:

[Gerontophile]

Nope.

Warren can't win.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

At the risk (nay, the certainty) of falling into what Malcolm Gladwell (possibly not originally) described as "Warren Harding syndrome", I have to say that Kamala Harris really looks the part.

[Nefertiti2]

really?

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Her (stunningly attractive) looks and her eloquent and charismatic charm seem to me to suggest a successful liberal politician from central casting.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Is the US ready for a left(ish) leaning female President though? They're not exactly thick on the ground in other OECD countries and (I think) pretty much unknown at the G7 level where only right-wing ladies seemingly need apply. I mean if Hillary can't pull it off who can?

[anton pulisov]

Does she have any actual policy positions?

[Satchmo Distel]

She seems to have more charisma than Hillary but substance remains to be seen. She could be another Rubio.