US Elections 2020

[broncofan]

I have argued before that the Democrats are too soft to implement real changes be it in health care or education, and I doubt Biden and Harris can do it. If they win in 2020 it is a step back, albeit a step back from the edge if a cliff.

Biden's policies are soft, particularly in the healthcare arena but what will matter most is whether Democrats win the Senate. Republicans will likely have completed their court-packing exercise by the time the election is over with and a genuine extremist in Amy Coney Barrett will have been nominated to the court. The significance of this is that Republicans will be able to challenge any healthcare law that is passed and even if the grounds for the challenge are not strong, they have a chance to succeed in nullifying the law.

In the case of Biden I agree about the softness of his policy prescriptions but how much of the lack of change you'd like to see just reflect the reality of U.S. culture and our political system?

I also disagree with the above post by IwuvFBBs arguing that Democrats also would have messed up covid response. Do I think any Democrat would have been prescient and handled this disaster as well as countries with experience? No, but I do think there are Democrats who could have done an average job, which would have resulted in about 160,000 fewer deaths. The current Republican mania about masks and public health efforts and other insanity would have been less potent as the opposition than is the current case.

[broncofan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/u...ots-trump.html

It's not time to hit the panic button yet but this is definitely a reason for concern. Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots that people have requested in Ohio and Pennsylvania are at least 10 days late in reaching voters. The majority of mail-in ballots have been requested by Democrats and if they don't receive their ballots they would have to fill out a provisional ballot at the polls on election day.

The company outsourced to handle the mail in ballots has been flying a Trump flag at their headquarters. It's too early to say whether this is a case of negligence or if it's intentional. At this point I'd assume it's not intentional but even if they try to rectify this they are likely to suppress some votes.

I received my ballot and already delivered it to my election office. It even shows up electronically that my ballot has been received. Of course, I requested a mail in ballot on September 8 and did not receive it until September 28. If people who requested their ballots in early October have not received them yet, what kind of glut will there be for those who request mail in ballots all the way up until the deadline of October 27? I personally know six people who requested their ballots more than two weeks ago and have not received them. Watch this space because if this problem is not fixed it will have an impact.

[Stavros]

Bronco fan, re your two posts-

- I have said it before but the implication of what has been reported so far is that election management ought to be taken away from the State and provided by an Independent Electoral Commission. There are too many suspicions that votes are not being counted, or lost, or rejected for flimsy reasons. It beggars belief that the US in 2020 should have such basic problems.

- re the previous topic, I wonder what Republicans think is the difference between a leftist and an ultra-leftist or indeed those two and a socialist, as if electing Biden and Harris is going to mean the state ownership of business, a one party state, the abolition of fhe Constitution and so on, with the weird reality that the State is now intervening in the economy to the tune of billions of dollars a year, so that if anyone is practising ‘State control’ it is the Republican Party. If the State withdrew and insisted on letting the market deal with COVID-19 the economy of the US would collapse in a week. That billions are spent compensating for tariffs further illustrates the fact that if you want financial (mis-) management, elect a Republican not a Democrat.

As for the Democrats obsession with the Middle Class and safety first, suppose the Middle Class want radical change? Why do we assume the suburbs are populated by people resistant to change, when they voted for some version of it in 2016?

[blackchubby38]

Bronco fan, re your two posts-


As for the Democrats obsession with the Middle Class and safety first, suppose the Middle Class want radical change? Why do we assume the suburbs are populated by people resistant to change, when they voted for some version of it in 2016?

I think it depends on the type of radical change that you're talking about. Because if a person worked a good portion of their adult lives to make a better life for themselves and their family and they moved to the suburbs, they may feel like radical change isn't what's needed to solve all of the country's problems.

[filghy2]

I think it depends on the type of radical change that you're talking about. Because if a person worked a good portion of their adult lives to make a better life for themselves and their family and they moved to the suburbs, they may feel like radical change isn't what's needed to solve all of the country's problems.

I'm wondering what it would take to convince you that your system is broken and that some fundamental changes are needed. I'm not sure 'radical' is the right word because in most cases we are talking about things that have been the norm in other developed countries for a long time. American exceptionalism these days means that the US is generally an example for other countries of what not to do.

Consider these facts:
- real wages for the bottom 90% of US workers have barely risen over the last 40 years; ie virtually all of the income gains have gone to those at the top
- not only is inequality greater in the US than in other developed countries, but inter-generational mobility is also lower (ie your lot in life is more likely to be determined by the family you were born into)
- the US spends nearly twice as much on health care as other developed countries but health outcomes (eg life expectancy) are worse
- life expectancy for non-college educated white Americans is falling, which is virtually unprecedented for a developed country
- the murder rate in the US is way higher than any other developed country and (not coincidentally) so is the rate of gun ownership

And if recent events haven't convinced you that your political and electoral system requires fundamental changes then I give up.

[Stavros]

I think it depends on the type of radical change that you're talking about. Because if a person worked a good portion of their adult lives to make a better life for themselves and their family and they moved to the suburbs, they may feel like radical change isn't what's needed to solve all of the country's problems.

I raised a point and you quite rightly ask what I mean by it, and of course I don’t know enough about suburban America to answer it. That said, and to embellish some of filghy2’s remarks above, let me put it like this.

Raising alarm by claiming Democrats are now led by radical leftists or whatever alarming term that works, begs these questions:

-do Middle Class Americans want more gun control or less, if not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, then at least a ban on the sale and ownership of classes of firearms intended for the battlefield? Reform is possible, it is desirable- but is it what most people want?

- do most Americans want the kind of health care we have in European countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Sweden? Polls in the UK have shown people are willing to pay higher rates of tax for improved public services, is the US so remote from such ideas? Do Middle Class Americans regard Sweden as a socialist hell? So I wonder if, when the argument is made properly, if Americans want more than even the Affordable Care Act provides were they to be asked? Or, to put it another way, do they think health care needs change, be it with words like ‘sweeping,’ or ‘radical’?

- education is a difficult one, because I am not sure Middle Class Americans would accept my view that education apartheid is a barrier to achievement. I doubt, given their stagnant incomes, that most Americans can afford a private education for their children, but does expensive and private mean excellence? A socialist education service equalises opportunity, even if it does not create equality, yet I wonder why Americans seem to think, if they do, there is some organising principle akin to witchcraft that nevertheless produces outstanding engineers, chemists, doctors nurses and dentists, musicians, lawyers, poets and even politicians, all originating in a state systems funded from taxation. Our education system in the UK has suffered from the education apartheid created by Tory and Labour (Blair in particular) Governments, but it doesn’t need to be like this, and I would rather our models be Sweden and Finland.

What is it that Americans fear? Taxes? State control? For all your freedoms and liberty, the State, be it Federal or Local has a lot of power and control, and I don’t see much libertarian progress in dismantling the state taking place in the last four years.

Thus, again, I see Biden and Harris as being too tame to effect real change, but wonder if they are missing a tide of opinion, notably among first time voters, that could bring the change to America Obama extolled on that memorable night in Chicago in 2008. It might not be as important as the Second American revolution of 1867, so it won’t be a third revolution or ‘founding’, but have not the last four years not laid the foundations of something new? For what is politics for? And what is there to fear in Municipal Socialism? But as history shows, real change in America is profoundly challenging.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/19/why-the-second-american-revolution-deserves-as-much-attention-as-the-first/

[blackchubby38]

I'm wondering what it would take to convince you that your system is broken and that some fundamental changes are needed. I'm not sure 'radical' is the right word because in most cases we are talking about things that have been the norm in other developed countries for a long time. American exceptionalism these days means that the US is generally an example for other countries of what not to do.

Consider these facts:
- real wages for the bottom 90% of US workers have barely risen over the last 40 years; ie virtually all of the income gains have gone to those at the top
- not only is inequality greater in the US than in other developed countries, but inter-generational mobility is also lower (ie your lot in life is more likely to be determined by the family you were born into)
- the US spends nearly twice as much on health care as other developed countries but health outcomes (eg life expectancy) are worse
- life expectancy for non-college educated white Americans is falling, which is virtually unprecedented for a developed country
- the murder rate in the US is way higher than any other developed country and (not coincidentally) so is the rate of gun ownership

And if recent events haven't convinced you that your political and electoral system requires fundamental changes then I give up.

I have never said that this country's political and electoral system doesn't require some fundamental changes. I think the disagreement lies in how we should achieve those changes, what those changes should be, and how far those changes should go.

While I might not talk about how other developed countries do things, I actually respect how they do it and I can see how under the right circumstances some of those policies could be implemented here.

But I think since its clear that we have to come to an impasse as to how to enact change in this country, I'm going to give up too.

[blackchubby38]

I raised a point and you quite rightly ask what I mean by it, and of course I don’t know enough about suburban America to answer it. That said, and to embellish some of filghy2’s remarks above, let me put it like this.

Raising alarm by claiming Democrats are now led by radical leftists or whatever alarming term that works, begs these questions:

-do Middle Class Americans want more gun control or less, if not a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, then at least a ban on the sale and ownership of classes of firearms intended for the battlefield? Reform is possible, it is desirable- but is it what most people want?

- do most Americans want the kind of health care we have in European countries such as the UK, Germany, France and Sweden? Polls in the UK have shown people are willing to pay higher rates of tax for improved public services, is the US so remote from such ideas? Do Middle Class Americans regard Sweden as a socialist hell? So I wonder if, when the argument is made properly, if Americans want more than even the Affordable Care Act provides were they to be asked? Or, to put it another way, do they think health care needs change, be it with words like ‘sweeping,’ or ‘radical’?

- education is a difficult one, because I am not sure Middle Class Americans would accept my view that education apartheid is a barrier to achievement. I doubt, given their stagnant incomes, that most Americans can afford a private education for their children, but does expensive and private mean excellence? A socialist education service equalises opportunity, even if it does not create equality, yet I wonder why Americans seem to think, if they do, there is some organising principle akin to witchcraft that nevertheless produces outstanding engineers, chemists, doctors nurses and dentists, musicians, lawyers, poets and even politicians, all originating in a state systems funded from taxation. Our education system in the UK has suffered from the education apartheid created by Tory and Labour (Blair in particular) Governments, but it doesn’t need to be like this, and I would rather our models be Sweden and Finland.

What is it that Americans fear? Taxes? State control? For all your freedoms and liberty, the State, be it Federal or Local has a lot of power and control, and I don’t see much libertarian progress in dismantling the state taking place in the last four years.

Thus, again, I see Biden and Harris as being too tame to effect real change, but wonder if they are missing a tide of opinion, notably among first time voters, that could bring the change to America Obama extolled on that memorable night in Chicago in 2008. It might not be as important as the Second American revolution of 1867, so it won’t be a third revolution or ‘founding’, but have not the last four years not laid the foundations of something new? For what is politics for? And what is there to fear in Municipal Socialism? But as history shows, real change in America is profoundly challenging.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/19/why-the-second-american-revolution-deserves-as-much-attention-as-the-first/

To answer your first question, I think most middle class Americans do want gun control. But they don't want the 2nd amendment repealed.

When it comes to healthcare, I'm not sure how most Americans feel about that. So I can only speak for myself as someone who at one time in my life was on Medicaid/Medicare because I was on disability. But now through my current job has one of the best employee health plans there is.

I believe there should be something similar to the UK's national health service for those who can't afford healthcare and/or those who want it. But there should still be a place for private health insurance in this country.

Education is a bit tricky because I think college is not for everyone. Therefore I think we should be focusing are energies on finding other ways to make sure a person gets the necessary skills to find a decent paying job/career.

[Stavros]

To answer your first question, I think most middle class Americans do want gun control. But they don't want the 2nd amendment repealed.

When it comes to healthcare, I'm not sure how most Americans feel about that. So I can only speak for myself as someone who at one time in my life was on Medicaid/Medicare because I was on disability. But now through my current job has one of the best employee health plans there is.

I believe there should be something similar to the UK's national health service for those who can't afford healthcare and/or those who want it. But there should still be a place for private health insurance in this country.

Education is a bit tricky because I think college is not for everyone. Therefore I think we should be focusing are energies on finding other ways to make sure a person gets the necessary skills to find a decent paying job/career.

You offer a mature perspective on policy, but one that to me illustrates the cultural gap that exists between the US and Europe. There are plenty of gun owners in Europe, albeit not at the same volume per person. But is it the case the 2nd Amendment ought not to be repealed, or a resigned belief among Americans like you that it cannot be, that the best you can hope for is a fiddling around with the details?

This seems to me to avoid asking what guns are for. You have armed forces that operate on land, on sea, in the air, and in intelligence terms everywhere else. You have a National Guard, and armed law enforcement in every community- what purpose can the 2nd Amendment serve given the changes that have taken place since the Constitution was written, and taking into consideration the various amendments that have refined what it means to be a citizen?

Moreover, as the armed militias prove, their existence stands in opposition to the Rights of citizens under the very same Constitution that created those Rights, and until you resolve this contradiction your politics will enable the privatisation of violence that threatens the integrity of the Union, indeed, of every State and County. For what is basic to a Liberal Democracy is that a degree of personal liberty is surrendered to the State by the citizen in return for public safety and that the concept of political obligation is rooted in the view that the a State - not private citizens- must guarantee that safety.

Throw in the perennial problem of Race and you can see how toxic the contradictions have become, and how easy it is to see that the US could collapse in an orgy of violence. I think you are too nice a guy to admit that you need to tackle gun law with a radical fist, and either repeal it, or refine the details to the extent that armed militias are viewed as what in fact they are: terrorists.

You have great health care, millions of Americans have nothing close. Why not create a sense of community that emerges from all your differences, recognising that a shared need for the security of universal health care creates a bond between people more reasonable than some appeal to the intellectual emptiness known as Patriotism?

I agree not everyone is suited to a college education, but can you guarantee that a basic education, with vocational options included, is offered to every citizen? Too many people fall into gaps created by unequal funding (we have this problem in the UK), so that education too often becomes an aspiration rather than an expression of the so-called Nation.

Unless, and until you have politicians with the real courage to implement major changes to policy then divisions in American society will persist, but in some cases may fester and cause more problems than you need. Or maybe I fail to appreciate the political culture which resists the kinds of changes I think you need. In which case, the 46th President may not be so different from the 45th, even if he, or she has the common decency not to swear in public and use the Office of the Presidency for financial gain.

But as history shows you can change, if infrequently, why not now? You might not get another chance.

[filghy2]

I believe there should be something similar to the UK's national health service for those who can't afford healthcare and/or those who want it. But there should still be a place for private health insurance in this country.

Education is a bit tricky because I think college is not for everyone. Therefore I think we should be focusing are energies on finding other ways to make sure a person gets the necessary skills to find a decent paying job/career.

You may prefer something more like the Australian system, which is less 'socialistic' than the UK's (eg most doctors here are in private practice). Private health insurance and private hospitals exist in parallel with the public system. Essentially the government provides a good basic level of health cover, but if you want more you can take out private insurance.

I think employer-provided health insurance is a bit of a red herring. It only exists in the US because of generous tax concessions, so much of it is already being paid for by the taxpayer. Also, it's part of your employment package, so the employer cost is really coming out of wages you would otherwise have received. As I noted, it's not a good value for money deal because the overall cost of health care is much higher in the US.

The Australian system for funding higher education may also be of interest. Universities are mostly public and the government covers a certain percentage of tuition fees. The rest is covered by income-contingent loans, where repayments only start once your income exceeds a certain level.