That's because those 2 states use to have a ton of significance on the primary race. Imo they no longer do. Iowa use to winnow the field and NH springboarded winners or those who showed (like Clinton in 92) to success on Super Tuesday. Both states have been under major scrutiny this cycle because they don't reflect the democratic electorate in terms of diversity and as small states they unfairly have a disproportionate effect on the race. I think voters outside Iowa and NH won't care about the results in these states and will not rush to anoint anybody especially if they don't fit the profile of their states. What NH can do is give candidates who are struggling or on life support a 2nd look if they perform well. But nobody is wrapping the nomination quickly anymore with wins in Iowa or NH. Their time has come and past and good riddance.
Black voters will not defect to Bernie. He will get a couple of points up but he is the last option (from the top 5 or 6 top candidates) as far as the AA community is concerned. I mentioned yesterday, that Bloomberg, for all his faults, is being seriously considered by a lot of black women. African American are pragmatic, they want to win and they are not buying whatever unicorns Bernie is selling. Not to mention, they are totlally turned off by the Bernie bros.
Are we really sure Sanders can’t win? James Carville Who the hell knows? But here’s what I do know: Sanders might get 280 electoral votes and win the presidency and maybe we keep the House. But there’s no chance in hell we’ll ever win the Senate with Sanders at the top of the party defining it for the public. Eighteen percent of the country elects more than half of our senators. That’s the deal, fair or not. So long as McConnell runs the Senate, it’s game over. There’s no chance we’ll change the courts and nothing will happen, and he’ll just be sitting up there screaming in the microphone about the revolution. The purpose of a political party is to acquire power. Alright? Without power, nothing matters. this exchange is really worth your time https://t.co/ZiE0IavfH6— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) February 7, 2020
To wit: https://twitter.com/search?q=#PetesBillionaires&src=trend_click Calm the ******** down Bernie people. It's just one state.
This is one of the issues I mentioned earlier this week. M4A is not flying with unions. NEW: @Culinary226 hasn’t yet endorsed in the Democratic presidential race. But a union handout obliquely accuses @BernieSanders + @ewarren of wanting to take away union members’ health plans, warns electing either will lead to four more years of Trump. https://t.co/97l0kura8j— Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) February 7, 2020 Shots are fired. "Trump and his Republicans are actively trying to destroy healthcare for working families, but presidential candidates suggesting forcing millions of hard working people to give up their healthcare creates unnecessary division between workers, and will give us four more years of Trump,” the flyer says. "
This election is fundamentally about whose side you are on. #PetesBillionaires pic.twitter.com/hZi3uzCmvJ— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 7, 2020 BREAKING:@BernieSanders ABSOLUTELY DISMANTLES @PeteButtigieg. pic.twitter.com/RHb68JHxtv— Isiah (@forevertawl) February 7, 2020
I’m not sure how big his homosexuality is? People are pretty comfortable with homosexuals at this point. Particularly one that isn't flamboyantly gay. It will hurt among older evangelicals, but no Dem is going to make a dent there. I actually think they are more likely to question his sexuality and whether or not he is faking it due to how late in life he came out.
I have so many questions on why we think some govt bureaucrat turning down your care is better than a corporate bureaucrat turning down your care. Everyone - public & private - denies claims and care. the goal is universal heath care. That’s not M4A
You keep saying this, yet are completely ignoring the evidence that Iowa is already having an impact on the race. Seriously, the reason why the states are under attack is because they tend to produce candidates that aren't reflective of the electorate's overall desires. As noted, neither Buttigieg and Sanders poll particularly well with minorities, yet, here we are with both of them at the top of the race and getting the bump from IA and, most likely, getting the bump from NH, while the candidates that are popular among minorities are getting trashed for doing poorly.
Hmm. Why isn't M4A flying with unions? It seems to provide on par, or better, healthcare insurance than what one can expect from pretty much every private insurance provided and at a lower price.
The assertion, I think, is that the unions had to fight hard for their paltry gains and wouldn't want everyone to catch up to them. Seems like a load of bullpucky to me.
I have have no idea what this particular union chapter has negotiated with the local hotels and casinos, but a number of unions have negotiated some healthcare packages with employers that are quite a bit better than most private health insurance plans that other employees get. This was actually something that has kind of flown under the radar since 2010 when the ACA was being formulated. There's a 40% "Cadillac tax" in the ACA on the most generous health plans. It has yet to be implemented in the decade since due in part to pushback from unions who have negotiated health plans that would be affected.
???? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements Labor organizations National APWU - American Postal Workers Union, representing 200,000[298][299] [*]NNU – National Nurses United, representing 150,000[300] [*]NUHW – National Union of Healthcare Workers, representing 15,000[301] (co-endorsement with Elizabeth Warren) [*]UE – United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, representing 35,900[302][303] State, regional, and local divisions UNITE HERE: Local 11 (AZ, CA), representing 30,000 [304] (co-endorsement with Elizabeth Warren), Local 23 (TX) [305] AFT - American Federation of Teachers: Vermont (VT), representing 5,000 [306] BIDG – The Boston Independent Drivers Guild (MA)[307] CCEA – Clark County Educational Association, representing 19,000 (NV)[308] CWA – Communications Workers of America: Local 9119 (CA), representing 17,000[309] IBEW – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Local 1634 (IA)[310] IBT – International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (PA)[311] OEA & UTR - Oakland Education Association & United Teachers of Richmond joint endorsement (5,500 members combined) [312] SEIU – Service Employees International Union: Local 1984, representing 10,000 (NH)[313] UFCW – United Food and Commercial Workers International Union: Local 230 (IA)[314] and Local 21 (WA), representing 46,000[315] UTLA – United Teachers Los Angeles, representing 35,000 (CA)[316] UURWAW – United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers: Local 36 (CA)[311]
You can read the article and see what sort of plans the Unions have fought for. It is a very solid plan. Why they should agree to lose it for some unicorn M4A they have no idea how it works and what it covers.
It is also worth noting that the reason why unions can negotiate these health benefits with employers is that there are more tax advantages for businesses to pay a certain amount of money for health benefits for their employees than to pay the equivalent amount in wages.
As a large and the most organized portion of the Democrats electorate, unions can be assured that they will have a lot of input into what M4A looks like. This argument doesn't really fly with me...
And not to get all conspiracy theory, but having the ability to negotiate better health insurance for their members is a strong selling point for people to vote in and to join unions.
Dude, M4A has been a point of contention with Unions for well known reasons. That has been well covered. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ated-health-plans-afl-cio-chief-idUSKCN1VJ268 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ated-health-plans-afl-cio-chief-idUSKCN1VJ268
I understand that it is an issue. I'm just saying that since unions can be assured that they will have an outsized voice in anything that comes out of Congress, they shouldn't be worried about it.
I don’t think that saying “Organized labor negotiates better pay and benefits for their members” is any sort of conspiracy at all. It’s written right there on the package.
The same reason some unions opposed the "Cadillac" tax that paid for some of the medicaid expansion. https://teamster.org/blog/2017/11/bipartisan-opposition-grows-against-cadillac-tax Some unions get better healthcare from their companies than they think would get under Medicare for all. As @ElJefe said, it is a bit of I got mine, don't ask me to give up something for you to get yours.
The conspiracy theory is that their opposition to M4A isn't because they think they can negotiate better plans for their members, but because it would eliminate it as a selling point to unionize. Particularly given that both Sanders and Warren are strong union supporters. The unions are going to find them to be much more open to providing favorable insurance than they are from corporations.