The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Campaign

During the Industrial Revolution it was feared that automation would put millions of people out of work. While its true that automating made a human assembly line obsolete, it didn't take away a job without creating others in their place. If automation is done too quickly, I would surmise that there could potentially be a problem that former presidential candidate Andrew Yang spoke of. But his message failed to recognize that while some jobs become obsolete, so many others have been created as a result of technological advancements.How many IT related jobs were there during the Industrial Revolution? Zero. How many are there today? Millions.... Tens of millions actually. And in fact, it is still an underserved market. They can't find people fast enough to meet the demand, especially with the advent of Artificial Intelligence. This is something dumbass Trump doesn't understand. He wants more Americans doing more computer science. Well, so do I, but even with millions more of Americans getting into fields like computer science it still would not meet the demand, thus still requiring outsourcing or encouraging immigrants to come to America on work visas. Those people are going to work for someone in that field, so I'd rather it be in America, Canada, Australia, the UK, etc versus China or Russia. Don't turn away good talent, embrace them as your own.The reality is that some jobs will become obsolete... and something else will take its place. But, if as Andrew Yang suggests, that overnight truckers would be replaced by self-driving trucks, it would be fairly catastrophic. But there is no sign that it would happen overnight. Self-driving cars have been tested for about a decade and they are still not online en masse. There will be jobs in 10 years that we've never even considered possible.If we can understand evolution in biological terms it should come as no surprise that the labor market operates in a similar way.Did the invention of the telephone make telegraph operators obsolete? Yup, no dispute. Did it just create new jobs in the telephone industry? Sure did and in fact created way more jobs than it replaced. Evolution is inevitable. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Remember only one job is of any significance.And history shows humans are piss poor at preparing for anything beyond the next quarter.

Here is the most recent data:

quote:

---

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68000 lives and 173 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

---

source So I guess the current system requires us, not only to kill 68,000 per year, but also to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the privilege of murdering the innocent.This is one of the several reasons I support Sanders. Also, I do not think fear of the word "socialism" is worth 68,000 lives.Clearly others disagree.

I agree with your observation. I was likely thinking more of WalMart or Amazon than Google or Facebook (which I despise for other reasons).Thanks for pointing this out.

My concerns about negative views of socialism were reemphasized again today in Bernie Sanders is not just a garden-variety social democrat. Short excerpt:

quote:

---

The term has obvious applications to modern politics. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) looks increasingly likely to win the Democratic nomination, left-of-center people are anxious to downgrade Sanders’s self-described socialism into something more politically palatable like Great Society liberalism, or perhaps, at maximum, a Nordic-style welfare state.

---

Despite his own self-labeling, Sanders is not a democratic socialist, not according to actual definitions. I think the term "Great Society liberalism" suggested above is probably the most accurate, but it has two problems. "Great Society" is an antiquated (but legitimate and well respected) term from history, and Bernie should avoid a term that in a modern political campaign sounds old and tired. And "liberalism" is not the way to win independents, though "liberalism" is a definite improvement over "socialism." Combining "Great Society" with "liberalism" is probably an improvement over "socialism," but I don't think by much.So what label should Sanders use? How about no label? He should acknowledge that (as much as he obviously loves the term) he is not a democratic socialist. He should say this election is not about labels. He should say that he's for government that works for all and not just for the few at the top.But if Bernie really believes he needs a label then the right one is social democrat. Click the link. It's a much better description of what Bernie is actually advocating:

quote:

---

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy.

---

It uses "social" as a modifier, like Social Security, and Bernie could still advocate for those changes he'd like to see in our capitalist system.But will representatives of the DNC be able to talk sense into Bernie? Not likely.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity.

Sanders beats Trump in RealClear average of polls from Feb 5 to 18 by 4.6 percent. Bloomberg is also up 4.6 while Biden was up 4.8. Biden has an advantage in the states that the Wall Street Journal calls swing states in its battleground tracker.Sanders is clearly electable so let us talk about actual issues CNN and MSNBC.Chuck Todd of Meet The Press had a SANDERS CEILING label for a segment and he placed it at 26 percent. But polls have Sanders at 41 percent for first or second choice in primary.Let us talk about the right to a job for all.Let us talk about the right to healthcare.Let us talk about a climate change plan that actually provides the required funding to change the energy landscape.The media wants to put a 60 trillion dollars cost on the Sanders proposals but that is misleading. 40 trillion dollars is from the healthcare proposal and that money is already going to be spent by United States government and consumers.That leaves 20 trillion dollars over 10 years for the rest of the Sanders proposals. 2 trillion a year it sounds like.I doubt the other proposals cost anywhere near that much. But everything should be taken on an issue by issue basis. Something that won't be done by the U. S. mainstream media. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

The American people will understand that there are Socialist parties in other countries and the party members have diverse views. Like all parties, Socialists have right and left wing members. Look at the Socialist party in France.

In terms of the upcoming election, I think this discussion is all moot. The Trump campaign and the Republican party are going to label the Democratic nominee as a socialist, no matter if that is Bernie or Klobuchar or whoever. The specific language may change, but not the emphasis or frequency. So avoiding the self-labeled "democratic socialist" isn't going to buy you anything on that front. Possibly - although I think unlikely - Bernie's owning of the label may allow him to perform some useful ju-jitsu whereas Amy or someone else could only deny, deny, deny.

Survey USA had a massive 2400 voter poll and Sanders wins by 5 in North Carolina. Bloomberg was up 6 over Trump.This means that Sanders is doing as well in NC as he did in the national general election poll the same polling outfit just took.Sanders outperformed most of the moderates in NC and also in a new Florida poll where he is 48 to 48 with Trump. But Bloomberg wins 50 to 44 and Biden 49 to 48. Buttigieg and Klobuchar loose 48 to 44.Sounds like a good chunk of the south likes socialism so far. Polls are not helping the bull crap pushers but are actually showing Sanders is very electable so bring on the issues discussion. Here is one. Why do the moderates not feel all should have a right to health care. Sanders feels we should pay for it and get it already. Just get it done and take care of the problem. Finally.

According to all the polls Donald Trump did not win the 2016 election.And Dewey won.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

And nearly every major poll predicted that Clinton would wipe her ass with Trump in 2016... But we see how that turned out. Polling is a lot like betting... odds matter, but if you lose was any of it helpful in determining the actual result?Political polling is total bullshit for a number reasons. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

The 2016 polls were accurate. Not just the national polls but also the state polls.I believe the 1960 race was the only time polls were fairly wrong. JFK was up by 5 in the polls but the race was a tie.1948 had an upset but I never researched the relevance of polls in that race. I have not seen any upsets in recent times.The 2000 race had Bush up over Gore by about 5 points just days before the election but the DUI breaking late is explained as the reason for the drop.But I noticed before that my point is being missed. The race will be close and electability should cease to be discussed. Sanders got screwed in 2016 over the electability issue and the crazy thing is that it was not even the issue of just the question about being unable to win the GENERAL election BUT the presumed inability to win the necessary delegates FOR THE PRIMARY was used to successfully get Democratic voters to reject him in the primary. Voters were brainwashed in the Democratic primary and it seemed like an exceptional case unlike typical brainwashing that always happens.It just seemed unique but people can say similar stuff always happens in one form or another.I have never seen or heard of anything quite like the 2016 Democratic primary for President of the United States.

They are saying that he did not want the elected or PLEDGED delegates to decide the election in 2016. It is repeated endlessly today. I lost count.Do I really need to explain what a load of crap that is.His push to run until the convention vote is really being used to twist a lie or just plain lie.

I just showed you how they were inaccurate. There was supposed to be a landslide victory for Clinton that did not happen. Even why some states who usually vote blue voted red that election. Sanders was plenty electable then and he is plenty electable now. Its a little weird that you went into that much detail without talking about the elephant in the room which was Debbie Wasserman and the DNC hit job against Bernie. The powers that be saw to it that no one will stand in the way of Clinton. She did not want what happened to her when Obama unexpectedly beat her to happen to her again under a Sanders ticket. So the political machine that is the DNC went to work undermining Bernie. And it wouldn't surprise me if their pick is Biden or Warren this go around. Just like Ron Paul had huge grassroots support, the RNC wasn't about to let him ruin their run. That is how I see Bernie... A massive grassroots support that is quietly undermined by people at the top. Because the US continues to think that electronic voting is not susceptible to hacking... meanwhile the DNC conspires against Bernie and Russia conspires against the DNC.But back to my point.... polling is harmful to the electoral process, as it acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider this: the media is biased as all get out. Certain organizations have their pick just like anyone else. Some are unscrupulous enough to use their position to not cover news but to manufacture it. They may mislead their viewers into believing that so-and-so candidate is unelectable and will treat them like the 13th floor.It happened big time to Ron Paul, who was very popular and threatening to the Bush dynasty, it then happened to Bernie in 2016 and it has since happened to Tulsi Gabbard who has been effectively silenced. After she wiped her ass with Kamala Harris she was not invited back to the next debate even though she was the most viewed candidate at that time. Gee, that's odd...Polling is a useless practice. It forces people into choosing the lesser of evils instead of voting on principles. And at this point we don't have an actual democracy anymore, we just have the illusion of it. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Voted in the Texas Primary this morning. Light but constant turn out even in what goes as WINTER down here, temps in the 40s and 20MPH wind with drizzle. There was almost no waiting and the poll I went to had about a dozen machines with pretty much regular turn over; as one person finished another was led in. 44 items on this ballot and only a very few uncontested candidates. Lots of women candidates and even a few Anglos.