Make the US Politics Thread Great Again


How daft of me - of course!

I actually don’t mind him contesting for Prez as he’ll dilute the centrist/moderate vote in the DNC. Personally I think he should have another crack at Cruz in 2020.


Is he up against Cruz or the other Texan senator?


I’m assuming it’s Cruz but I’m not so sure now,


John Cornyn



@FromOutside50 you will love this one.

TBH reading this and seeing Beto has no substance, “I want to start a comversation”, for every issue. Put a pen through that name, America needs more than that.


Absolutely winning back the Senate is important, arguably more important than the presidency, which is why Beto should be gunning for the Texas Senate seat that will be up for grabs in 2020. Whilst some of his voting record in the House is concerningly pro-WallStreet and he voted with Republicans more than 150 times over 6 years, he would be undoubtedly better than whichever Republican the good state ofTexas decides to dish up.


Cruz won his race at the midterms so he won’t be up for another election for 6 years, or is it 8?

He’d be running against Cornyn, who keeps his head pretty low most of the time.


I’d imagine some of the DC Dems wouldn’t be overly happy with him running tbh, he’ll take more votes from establishment candidates than he will from progressives and he’d likely stand the best chance of winning a Senate seat of any Dem contender.


I shouldn’t laugh (look at Trump on Beto below) but lol :laughing:

In all seriousness (in response to your post), that’s Beto to a tee…all platitudes and no substance. Most of what he says can be summarised with “I’m for good things and against bad things”


Highly recommend the 538 podcast in general about American politics. Recent one breaks down Beto’s strengths and weaknesses. Seems to me a pretty nothing candidate, but one that has charisma in spades.


But Americans are also overwhelmingly against having their current employer health plans removed. Which Sanders has said he’d do. He’d be massacred on that issue in the general.

Virtually every Dem nominee is for a version of Medicare for All, but most of them are far smarter approaches. Have a look at how quickly Harris switched from impacting the employer insurance to not touching it.


And you’ve still got to get republicans to pass these progressive laws in the Senate.


Some could be done with reconciliation if you get 50 senate seats. But if you don’t have that, you’re stuffed, and if you need a filibuster proof majority to get something through you may as well give up on it.

Anyone who promises something that needs 60 votes is lying as badly as the Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum (or Trump).


I’ve got to say, I watched him do the coffee shop “Town Hall” thing last night, and my next thought immediately after White Obama, was, Jeezuz, he could tone down the hand/arm movement thing,… it’s off the charts.

I just agreed with Drumpf,… I’m guessing the Planet just shifted on its axis a little bit…


The staffers from Obama’s campaign have jumped on board as they can see the same charismatic magic that Obama had. The quality of staffing has a big impact on national campaigns, so this is a pretty important sign.


Excuse me? Care to give me a link to some sort of poll on that? I think you’ll find it’s completely the opposite. Americans HATE their health insurance. Deductibles have risen so high in the past few years that an individual might as well not even have insurance.

That’s because Harris is an establishment/Corporate Dem who only pays lip service to the idea of Medicare 4 All and doesn’t want to offend party donors. It’s not because of some fear of angering the Dem base :laughing:


Medicare for all goes one and only one way.

Assuming Republicans keep the senate. 2 years of negotiations in which the mother of all scare campaigns is run funded by the health industry. Followed by a big mid term loss loosing the house in the process.

So much political pain for no gain.


Yanks are funny critters when it comes to Health Care insurance.

In San Francisco, employer subsidised health insurance is part of most employment packages and used to attract employees. Seems to me from briefing we were given when I was there, that typically employers subsidise about 30 to 50 % depending if it is cover for just employee or also includes family. Family cover averages about $800 a month, but "deductibles " or excess as we would call it can add another $5000 a year if you need it.

For the high flyers in San Francisco this is not a massive part of their pay, but for lower paid workers it is totally unaffordable.

The irony for me is that virtually no-one I talked with believe in Medicare for all, and that it is not a Government job to be involved.


I assume their workers comp is 100% adversarial as well?