Displaying 1 - 10 of 71 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Oct 15, 2019 11:33 AM
    Last: 1d
    173

    Senator Warren has been steadily rising in the polls and the 4th Democratic Debate will be the first time she'll meet all the other candidates on the same stage since pulling neck and neck with former Vice President Joe Biden in most national polls. What's interesting is that Biden hasn't necessarily dropped in the polls, but he has stayed stagnant while Warren has shot up into a virtual tie in the average of polls.

    Both Warren and Biden have a lot to gain (and lose) in the 4th Democratic Debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, but I think it can be a make or break debate for Senator Warren. For starters, I think Biden's base of support is capped at around 40 percent. He's the "safe" choice for a lot of people, but he isn't necessarily a lot of people's favorite candidate. If Warren can convince some of the "on the fence" supporters of Biden that she can beat Trump then you may start to see Biden drop by a few percentage points.

    Secondly, I think that many Sanders supporters will shift over to Warren if she has a great debate performance. I think it's all but inevitable that Sanders will be bowing out sooner or later. His candidacy has been having a hard time gaining any momentum before his heart attack and I just can't help but feel that was the nail in his candidacy's coffin. If she has a strong performance, I think you'll see a number of Sanders-Warren movement in the polls.

    We still have a long way to go to the 2020 Convention, but I think we're starting to see what the likely head-to-head match-up will be when the rubber starts hitting the road. I won't offer a guess as to who will eventually reign supreme and there's a million different things that can happen between now and the convention, but it's starting to look like a race between Biden and Warren. And that will surely be interesting.

  • Aug 29, 2019 03:18 PM
    Last: 14d
    892

    I'm really interested to see if Warren and Sanders team up and have a coordinated "attack" (for lack of a better word) against Biden or if they spend more time going after each other.

    My guess is that Warren will probably do a little bit of both. She will want to distinguish herself from Bernie, but also show that she's willing to directly take on Biden, as well.

    Should be a really interesting night.

  • May 14, 2019 11:48 AM
    Last: 2mo
    1.8k

    The Democratic Presidential primary field for the 2020 election is the largest in modern political history and it's not even fully set. When all is said and done, there will be a minimum of 23 major candidates vying for the opportunity to represent the Democratic Party in the national election against incumbent Donald Trump. Some of them have an inherent advantage due to their history and experience while others hope to use their youthfulness and experience outside of the beltway to their advantage. One thing is for certain though - no Democrat will be able to complain they don't have enough options to choose from this election cycle.

    After the election of Donald Trump, the conventional wisdom that experience trumps (no pun intended) all else is thrown out the window. That is good news for the less experienced candidates, but I'd also take that with a grain of salt considering that Donald Trump was a household name long before the 2016 election.

    With that in mind, I think it'd be fun to predict which candidates will make it deep into the primary and which ones won't. Due to the sheer number of candidates, I'm just going to put down the 5 candidates (in no particular order) that I think will make it the furthest in the primary.

    1) Joe Biden
    2) Bernie Sanders
    3) Kamala Harris
    4) Cory Booker
    5) Elizabeth Warren

    As you can see, I am someone who tends to think that 2016 was an anomaly and that Democrats will select a well known (and tested) politician over taking a risk with a largely unknown and untested candidate. I may well be proven wrong (I sure was in 2016), so take my predictions with a grain of salt!

  • Dec 23, 2018 02:56 PM
    Last: 7mo
    19k
    It was certainly easier to file my taxes this year since the standard deduction made it so I didn't have to worry about itemizing everything. However, it didn't seem to make much of a difference at all in the end. Wound up paying roughly the same as previous years when all was said and done.
  • Dec 26, 2018 06:54 PM
    Last: 8mo
    4.8k

    Medicare for all is certainly a possibility, but the devil is in the details.

    The current tax rate for Medicare is 1.45% for an individual and 1.45% for an employer, or 2.9% total (and for private contractors). If we were to move to a single-payer system that provides all the services that Medicare does then that percent would need to be drastically increased.

    I'm strongly in favor of single-payer healthcare, but I also believe that advocates of it are woefully underestimating the cost of providing quality care for 330 million people. Medicare already consumes 15% of the Federal budget and it only provides coverage for Americans 65 and older. If we were to enact a program for the entire population then we better be prepared to pay drastically more in taxes in order to get it.

    Now, that tax increase will correlate nicely with no longer having to pay monthly premiums for your employer based insurance, but not everyone is going to come out ahead in this scenario. Wealthy individuals with top of the line health insurance will certainly fight tooth and nail to keep things just the way they are. As will "low information voters" who think they have great health coverage right now, but would actually benefit from a single-payer system.

    It would be a monumental task to pass a well functioning single-payer bill into law and it won't be happening anytime soon considering the current makeup of Congress and the Presidency. However, it is an interesting thought experiment to explore the pro's and con's of instituting Medicare for all.

  • Jan 07, 2019 04:19 PM
    Last: 9mo
    2.8k

    Three weeks is an eternity in shutdown days. While it is certainly a possibility that millions of Americans SNAP assistance could freeze up overnight on Feb. 1, I have a hard time believing that it will become a reality.

    My guess is that President Trump is going to declare a national emergency and attempt to build his big, beautiful wall without Congressional approval. Republicans will capitulate because then they will be able to get themselves out of the jam they've found themselves in and reopen the government while still saving face about Trump's long promised wall. House Democrats will immediately file a lawsuit against the Administration in a "friendly" district court (both sides do it all the time) and will likely be able to get a Federal Judge to freeze any wall construction pending litigation. The litigation could drag on for months or years until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling or until one side blinks.

    In the meantime, the government will reopen, we will move on to the next manufactured crises, and the fight over the border wall will fade into the background for awhile.

    I should stress that this is simply my guess as to what will happen in the coming days. Anything can happen and nothing surprises me anymore, but I think this is the most likely scenario.

  • Nov 07, 2018 12:27 PM
    Last: 10mo
    1.6k

    The next two years will certainly be interesting. I can't imagine much of anything other than the bare minimum getting done legislatively, but the Democrats newfound power in the House will enable them to conduct the oversight of the Trump Administration that the Republican majorities didn't necessarily do.

    I'm no prophet, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Democrats uncover some pretty damning things on Trump. How Senate Republicans respond to whatever their compatriots in the House find will determine Trump's fate more than anything else.

  • Nov 05, 2018 01:41 PM
    Last: 1yr
    1k
    I tend to be someone who enjoys more balanced, less sensational coverage and enjoy watching PBS or one of the "big three." Online, I tend to gravitate towards FiveThirtyEight because it's just the numbers.
  • Nov 06, 2018 02:29 PM
    Last: 1yr
    800

    If there's one thing nearly everyone can agree on this midterm election, it's that this election is a referendum on Donald Trump. He may not be on the ballot, but it's a certainty that he's on the minds of everybody who casts a ballot in this election.

    In normal times, Donald Trump and the Republicans would be riding the booming economy across the finish line to victory, but these are not normal times and Donald Trump is not a normal President. Because of that, this election is in uncharted territory.

    Trump and the Republicans have chosen to make this election a "get out the base" effort instead of one where they try to attract swing voters. They appeared to have made the (most likely correct) calculation that the number of swing voters in these fractured times is minimal at best and the best strategy is to appeal to the base and hammer on red meat topics like immigration and crime.

    Democrats, remarkably, have run a uncharacteristically on-message campaign that focused on local and state specific issues, along with promising to be a check on the Trump Administration.

    Which strategy prevails is up to the voters, but one thing is for sure - Donald Trump looms large over this election.

  • Mar 07, 2017 01:57 PM
    Last: 2yr
    7.1k
    Senate Leader Mitch McConnell pulled the Senates healthcare bill repealing and replacing Obamacare from the floor after realizing that he didn't have enough votes to pass it. He vowed to make some changes to the bill during the July 4 recess and bring it back up for a vote later this month, but that may prove to be much easier said than done.