Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Bob Buckhorn remembers sitting at home in Florida last month watching the first Democratic presidential debate -- and openly worrying about what he was seeing. The former centrist Democratic mayor of Tampa said the candidates were lurching much too far to the left on key policy issues, damaging the party's chances of defeating President Donald Trump during next year's election.

"I don't think most Americans are comfortable with some of what they heard last debate," Buckhorn said. "And I think it's unfortunate."

Buckhorn's view is a common one among moderate Democrats. In interviews, many of them expressed deep concern that this week's debate in Detroit will feature another inevitable shift to the left, one that will alienate moderate swing voters in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin that the Democrats desperately need to win to beat President Trump.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

While I think that a discussion of these issues is worthwhile, I tend to agree with Mayor Buckhorn.

If a moderate candidate like Biden or Buttigeig panders to the far left during the primary you know that Cheetolini's Machine will be using clips of those statements constantly during the GE to frighten Middle America.

#1 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-07-30 04:13 PM | Reply

Maybe a moderate can beat Trump. Maybe not.

My question.. Are moderate policies going to fix the biggest problems America and the World face? I don't think so.

#2 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-07-30 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Last night's debate is exactly why I posted this article, it is clear that the Moderate wing of the Party is coming out swinging against the far left's "Free Everything" posturing. To appeal to the Obama voters that went to Trump in '16, the eventual nominee is going to need to be practical, not radical.

Obviously, to appeal to the Coasts (which are a lock for the Democrats), the exact opposite occurs.

#3 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-07-31 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Time for moderates to find their own party and stop expecting the Democratic Party to move further right to accommodate the Republican Party becoming bat shht crazy extremists.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-31 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To appeal to the Obama voters that went to Trump in '16, the eventual nominee is going to need to be practical, not radical.

Your theory is Hillary was too "radical" in 2016? Causing her to lose Obama voters to Trump?

So 2020 needs someone more practical than she was?

You really should abandon this username and stick to posting as RoC.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-31 11:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

-Your theory is Hillary was too "radical" in 2016?

Not to me....rather, she was just so disliked.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-07-31 11:55 AM | Reply

Time for extremists to grow up and realize moderates are necessary to defeat republicans in national elections.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2019-07-31 11:58 AM | Reply

Time for extremists to

Wanting to adopt a system used in every other modern country on the planet, isn't extremism.

Perhaps you should analyze your worldview and ask yourself why you have been convinced having a healthcare and education system which is available in countries like England, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc, etc... is considered "extremist" here in America.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-31 12:09 PM | Reply

Your theory is Hillary was too "radical" in 2016? Causing her to lose Obama voters to Trump?

Not at all, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we are going to need to win the voters that switched to Trump (for whatever reason) in 2020 to kick him out of office. Numerous studies have shown that most of those voters are in Middle America and the South, which tend to be more practical and centrist.

Since in your mind Righto and I are the same person, my guess is that he agrees with me.

#9 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-07-31 12:19 PM | Reply

8

LOL. Poor soul.

Advocacy for that doesn't make anyone an extremist.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2019-07-31 12:39 PM | Reply

Advocacy for that doesn't make anyone an extremist.
#10 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Those are the platforms being used to paint Democrats as extremists.

Perhaps you're an extremist and never knew.

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-31 12:58 PM | Reply

Numerous studies have shown that most of those voters are in Middle America and the South, which tend to be more practical and centrist.

Democrats will never win the south. It was this failed strategy that cost them the election in 2016.

Worrying too much about the south, instead of the north.

Since ... Righto and I are the same person, my guess is that he agrees with me.

You should know.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-07-31 01:01 PM | Reply

LCL and I are One!!!

Actually, I don't agree that the Obama Cross-over voters are "centrist", I think that they are just looking for someone, anyone, to make their lives better. That may be practical, but I think it is more personal than anything else. If, as Clown points out, that personal decision embraces something like M4A, then that is the way they will go. I agree with Eberly that voters not on the coasts intensely disliked Hillary, which along with a terrible campaign led to Trump.

I think it is too early for the Overton Window to encompass a "radical" idea like M4A, but it is certainly shifting in that direction for it to be an acceptable idea.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-31 01:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Perhaps you should analyze your worldview and ask yourself why you have been convinced having a healthcare and education system which is available in countries like England, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc, etc... is considered "extremist" here in America."

Technically, the MFA plans being promoted by Sanders (and Warren too, iirc) are extreme by any measure, as they would eliminate private healthcare. The only country that has come close to doing that is Canada, and of the countries you mentioned, they healthcare system rates pretty low.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 02:02 PM | Reply

"...of the countries you mentioned, they healthcare system rates pretty low"

According to whom?!?

Link to proof, please.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 02:06 PM | Reply

Perhaps you should analyze your worldview regardless, MadBomber.

You don't seem to be able to believe that there are systems which are better than ours.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 02:09 PM | Reply

Madbomber's mind is made up.
It's mostly made up of debunked talking points, but it's made up nonetheless.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 02:30 PM | Reply

Here's a reasonably current ranking.

"www.internationalinsurance.com"

The report also includes what is probably the most famous ranking, completed by the WHO in 2000. It pissed off many, many people. So many that the organization decided to never do it again. So it is a little dated.

Methodologies differ as well. For instance, 65% of the criteria reviewed in the WHO study was based on egalitarian measures. How much did it cost, was it equally available to all citizens. The US scored poorly in those categories, but very highly in areas relating to quality and timeliness of care.

There is no good or bad healthcare systems. What they're referencing here are health outcomes. A bicycle may provide a better outcome when it comes to transportation, due to being lower cost and more widely available, but it would still be inaccurate to say that a bicycle is better than a car when it comes to moving people from place to place.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 02:48 PM | Reply

"There is no good or bad healthcare systems."

Yes there are.

"What they're referencing here are health outcomes."

The outcomes are the product of the system.
You've never done QA work?
???

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 02:51 PM | Reply

"Here's a reasonably current ranking."

So your claim was a total fabrication.

"There is no good or bad healthcare systems."

You're nuts if you actually believe that.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 02:51 PM | Reply

"Perhaps you should analyze your worldview regardless, MadBomber."

It's interesting you say that. I have spent the last several years working with coalition partners, and have close friends and colleagues from the UK, Australia, and Canada. All of them say the same things to me (mostly). The US is awesome because of the availability of guns, but we are crazy for not adopting some other method of providing healthcare.

People aren't stupid. If a person can maintain or increase the quality of care they have access to right now at a lower or comparable cost, they're going to do so. But what's being articulated the most loudly is a plan where everyone has exactly the same healthcare, whether they pay for it or not, and regardless of how great or ------ it may be. And oh, by the way, other options are prohibited by law. So you'll take what the government gives you.

My suggestion would be to look at France or Netherlands as a model. Maybe even the UK. Doctors in the UK make a huge percentage of their income treating patients with supplemental care who effectively get to jump to the front of the line...because they're willing to pay for it.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 02:55 PM | Reply

"So your claim was a total fabrication."

Uhhh...what?

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 02:57 PM | Reply

"You're nuts if you actually believe that."

OK.

So what provides a better transportation outcome? Automobiles or bicycles?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 02:57 PM | Reply

"Uhhh...what?"

"and of the countries you mentioned, they healthcare system rates pretty low."

Uhhh...that.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 02:58 PM | Reply

"So what provides a better transportation outcome? Automobiles or bicycles?"

Which one is our health care system, and which one is Japan's?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 03:00 PM | Reply

"So what provides a better transportation outcome? Automobiles or bicycles?"

You're comparing apples and atom bombs.

A more pertinent question to the actual issue would be are all bicycles the same when it comes to effective transportation?

No, they are not.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 03:00 PM | Reply

" what's being articulated the most loudly is a plan where everyone has exactly the same healthcare,"

Not going to happen. Private insurance is going nowhere. Nor are folks who get 90th percentile coverage going to willingly pay more to get less.

The Dems should offer a public option, period.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 03:03 PM | Reply

"Nor are folks who get 90th percentile coverage going to willingly pay more to get less."

It's a bad idea to try to push that.
We should allow people to pay more for extra.
Like, if you don't want to share your hospital room with a registered sex offender, you can pay extra for a single.
Like, if you don't want dentures, you can get implants, provided you can afford them.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 03:09 PM | Reply

"So what provides a better fishing outcome? Fishing rod, or dynamite?"

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 03:11 PM | Reply

"So what provides a better fishing outcome?"

BICYCLES!
~MB

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 03:15 PM | Reply

Actually, I don't agree that the Obama Cross-over voters are "centrist", I think that they are just looking for someone, anyone, to make their lives better. That may be practical, but I think it is more personal than anything else. If, as Clown points out, that personal decision embraces something like M4A, then that is the way they will go. I agree with Eberly that voters not on the coasts intensely disliked Hillary, which along with a terrible campaign led to Trump.
I think it is too early for the Overton Window to encompass a "radical" idea like M4A, but it is certainly shifting in that direction for it to be an acceptable idea.
#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

We don't agree often (only impeachment comes to mind), but this is a great assessment.

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-07-31 03:17 PM | Reply

"it is certainly shifting in that direction for it to be an acceptable idea."

Good.

Time for a public option. That will at least get the market forces rolling.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 03:19 PM | Reply

"Uhhh...that."

What is "that" exactly?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 03:50 PM | Reply

"What is "that" exactly?"

You compared the US system with others you called "pretty low", and then posted a link showing the US had the lowest rating of all 11.

Good God, man, you're approaching Goatman levels of purposeful stupidity.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 03:56 PM | Reply

"You're comparing apples and atom bombs."

Not all all.

"A more pertinent question to the actual issue would be are all bicycles the same when it comes to effective transportation? No, they are not."

Really?

How so?

If I buy a Dyncraft over a Trek, is it going to get me to where I want to be quicker? Will it provide me with more horsepower with each revolution?

Probably not...but I'm willing to let you explain how it would.

In case you're not a bike guy. Dyncraft bikes are low cost, readily available all over the world. Treks cost quite a bit more.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:01 PM | Reply

"You compared the US system with others you called "pretty low", and then posted a link showing the US had the lowest rating of all 11."

and Canada was 10. In the WHO study, Canada was 30, the US 37.

The difference between Canada and all the other countries mentioned by Clownshack in #8 is that Canada is the only country to have ever come close to outlawing private healthcare, and even they didn't do it, they just passed legislation preventing doctors from servicing both private and public systems.

Which, to me, begs they question why you would want to emulate Canada when you have 29 other countries with models that have been judged superior?

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:06 PM | Reply

If you have an answer as to why an extremist Canadian version would be preferable to one resembling the French or Dutch systems, I'm willing to listen.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:07 PM | Reply

"If I buy a Dyncraft over a Trek"

I'm talking Treks over something you'd get a Toys R Us.

"Is it going to get me to where I want to be quicker?"

Sure: the Trek will have multiple gears.

"Will it provide me with more horsepower with each revolution?"

More bang for the effort, certainly. In hospital terms, for example, less re-admissions, greater life expectancy. better measurable outcomes, etc.

Thanks for playing along. You can now stop pretending there are no good or bad health systems.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 04:10 PM | Reply

"Canada is the only country to have ever come close to outlawing private healthcare"

And it won't happen here in the US.

Does your entire argument now hinge on the end of private healthcare insurance in America?!?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 04:12 PM | Reply

"A more pertinent question to the actual issue would be are all bicycles the same when it comes to effective transportation? No, they are not."
Really?
How so?

^
Maybe we need an analogy he can't play dumb over:

"A more pertinent question to the actual issue would be are all airplanes the same when it comes to flying into the WTC? No, they are not."

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 04:13 PM | Reply

There is no good or bad healthcare systems. What they're referencing here are health outcomes.

#18 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's not entirely about the health outcomes either. Many people are interested in changing the system because NOBODY should end up financially bankrupt by healthcare, regardless of the outcome.

#41 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-07-31 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm talking Treks over something you'd get a Toys R Us."

Like a Dyncraft.

"Sure: the Trek will have multiple gears."

So does a Dyncraft.

"More bang for the effort, certainly.

No...not really. A Trek does not provide more bang for the effort. I've ridden both. The trek is far, far more comfortable. But at the end of the say, it's still a bike. It will never be able to compete with a car in getting a person from A to B when evaluated under relevant criteria.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:38 PM | Reply

"And it won't happen here in the US."

Hopefully.

But that is, undeniably, what Sanders is attempting to invoke.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:40 PM | Reply

"Many people are interested in changing the system because NOBODY should end up financially bankrupt by healthcare, regardless of the outcome."

Nobody?

A low income earner who leads an unhealthy life leading to an unhealthy outcome should be subsidized by those who made good decisions?

Good luck with that.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-07-31 04:42 PM | Reply

"A low income earner who leads an unhealthy life leading to an unhealthy outcome should be subsidized by those who made good decisions?"

Because of how economics works, it's cheaper that way.

And, even if you don't believe that it's simply cheaper to insure everyone than have a zillion for-profit insurance bureaucracies, there's another reason it's cheaper that way.

Because they're gonna get "subsidized" one way or the other. Maybe they'll end up jail, for example, where they have a Constitutional right to health care.

Or, more likely, they'll make it to age 65, and end up eligible to live in a nursing home, where they'll eventually become dual-eligible Medicare/Medicaid patients.

So, despite the fact that your morality says a low-income earner should not be subsidized by the fat cats, that's not the world we live in, and you can't pay for reality by saying the bill is immoral.

It costs a lot to keep someone in a nursing home.

Far more than it costs to provide health insurance to tomorrow's low income earner. With health insurance, we can have some of those unhealthy choices ameliorated by access to medical care, so we don't end up in a nursing home as soon, or for as long, or just maybe, if we're so lucky, we can die in our own bed in our own home and save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's called health economics. I wouldn't expect you to have heard of it.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-07-31 05:06 PM | Reply

"The trek is far, far more comfortable."

It sounds like more comfortable is better.

"But at the end of the (day), it's still a bike. It will never be able to compete with a car"

We're not asking it to compete with a car; that's your silly construct. But a Trek and a Dyncraft are both bikes; however, one is markedly better, and will get you on the same journey more comfortably, as well as safer, since the balance and braking systems are better as well.

And do you really believe a Trek is not better engineered to harness human effort?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-07-31 05:28 PM | Reply

A low income earner who leads an unhealthy life leading to an unhealthy outcome should be subsidized by those who made good decisions?
Good luck with that.

#44 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's often not those who make bad decisions. Often it's just the way life has gone.

But you've expressed your general view that low wage earners are simply a throw-away commodity before. I'm sure, in your mind, the feeble without means will simply dispose of themselves quicker if they aren't provided with healthcare. And, if you own the right stock, you'll reap the benefits as they spend the rest of their money to survive.

#47 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-07-31 05:35 PM | Reply

>communists alienate voters in a free society
wew, what a revelation

#48 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-08-01 12:36 AM | Reply

Rightostupid fake conservative Dem account wants Dems to move more right LOL

#49 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-08-01 02:15 AM | Reply

"We're not asking it to compete with a car; that's your silly construct. But a Trek and a Dyncraft are both bikes; however, one is markedly better, and will get you on the same journey more comfortably, as well as safer, since the balance and braking systems are better as well."

Let me put it to you this way. If I ride my bike from my home to my work, the time it takes from initiation to outcome is about ten times the time it takes for me to reach the same outcome if use a vehicle. I could buy the most expensive bike out there...it's not going to change the difference in "wait" time.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 04:48 AM | Reply

"Because of how economics works, it's cheaper that way."

That's actually not the cheaper way. The cheaper way would be to prohibit recipients from engaging in unhealthy behaviors or drop their coverage.

That's what the DoD does with it's healthcare recipients. If I don't follow certain guidelines and I end up requiring care because of it, I pay out of pocket.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 05:54 AM | Reply

"Because they're gonna get "subsidized" one way or the other. Maybe they'll end up jail, for example, where they have a Constitutional right to health care."

Really,

The constitution provides language ensuring that prisoners have a "right" to healthcare?

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 05:55 AM | Reply

"Far more than it costs to provide health insurance to tomorrow's low income earner."

You're presupposing that these people are entitled to healthcare by the virtue of the fact that they draw breath. I think that be your first problem.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 05:56 AM | Reply

#53 You are presupposing that you are not paying for their healthcare when they get so ill they have to go to the ER for treatment.

That is your second problem.

Your first problem is that you are so self centered that you would rather allow humans, families and children die rather than allow them to have health care like every other developed nation does.

The 1% want another yacht AND they want their manna for the war industry AND they want to skim 15% off the top of every level of the illness management industry so we "cannot" afford universal coverage.

#54 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-01 08:07 AM | Reply

The GOP is constantly moving to the right. They are just left of Ghengis Khan now.

Yet the "moderate" analysts fret that Democratic candidates are giving people what they overwhelmingly want.

Americans want:

Universal health care 51%
Lower drug costs. 79%
$15 minimum wage. 62%
The wealthy taxed more. 61%
Free college tuition. 60%
The end of private money in the election cycle. 77%

But the corporate owned media networks will consistently gin up the big bad socialism spectre to keep the status quo that is slowly strangling the middle class. They will use these "moderates" to scare the independents into keeping the policies in place that are making enormous profits for the 1% that own the media.

#55 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-01 08:59 AM | Reply

So leave. Bye

#56 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-08-01 09:20 AM | Reply

Americans want:
"Universal health care 51%
Lower drug costs. 79%
$15 minimum wage. 62%
The wealthy taxed more. 61%
Free college tuition. 60%
The end of private money in the election cycle. 77%"

Most of those things have been "wanted" by Americans for a long time.

Meaning that when polled, Americans say they want it.

But how much do they want it? Do Americans rate those things as being extremely important?

There is no -------- way Americans are getting all of that...regardless of who wins elections.

this is a primary....enjoy the notion of those things.....but they are a mirage.

Some of those items are possible in increments with moderates on both sides of the aisle agreeing to it.....but it will be painfully slow.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2019-08-01 09:29 AM | Reply

Study finds that cancer forces 42% of patients to exhaust life savings in 2 years.

Were all of these people 'low income earners who lead unhealthy lives, leading to unhealthy outcomes'?

I stand by this: NOBODY should end up financially bankrupt by healthcare, regardless of the outcome..

..or income.

#58 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-08-01 11:38 AM | Reply

"Your first problem is that you are so self centered that you would rather allow humans, families and children die rather than allow them to have health care like every other developed nation does."

And it is your right to give up your disposable income to humans, families and children to ensure they don't die?

How much do you donate each month to the cause?

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 12:08 PM | Reply

"Yet the "moderate" analysts fret that Democratic candidates are giving people what they overwhelmingly want."

Wanting it and being willing to pay for it are two very different things.

"I stand by this: NOBODY should end up financially bankrupt by healthcare, regardless of the outcome..."

My step mother chose to die of cancer rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend her life a little longer. And that was her money.

I don't think she would have been more willing to spend her money extending someone else's life for a few months...

...But it would be easy to do if you're spending someone else's money. A cool million for six more months of treatment? Who cares if you're not the one footing the bill.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The pollsters should ask if the American people would be willing to accept an 18%+ VAT tax on goods sold in order to fund:

Universal health care 51%
Lower drug costs. 79%
$15 minimum wage. 62%
Free college tuition. 60%

...I'm guessing most would not.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 12:13 PM | Reply

#61 | Posted by madbomber

I would easily spring 18% for all of those things. But we could get lower drug prices with just a one sentence bill in Congress: "You can't charge more for a med here in America than you charge in any other country".

Of course, they would simply stop selling to other countries....

Drug prices here are five times higher on average than in Mexico, four times than in Canada.

One company raised prices of a drug 97,000% as soon as it was medicare approved.

#62 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-01 12:21 PM | Reply

I stand by this: NOBODY should end up financially bankrupt by healthcare, regardless of the outcome..
..or income.
#58 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

You stand by it because it makes you feel good about yourself.

But it is impractical ....

Define "healthcare"?

You don't mean "healthcare" you mean "sickcare" ... and the question of how sick, and how much ..

Even Canada has medical bankruptcies.

I'm guessing most would not.
#61 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

They never mention SITG, then the equation changes .... But the RICH will pay for it!!!!

#63 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-01 12:22 PM | Reply

"They never mention SITG, then the equation changes .... But the RICH will pay for it!!!!"

I live in Germany. The VAT is 19% on almost everything.

Bernie and Liz would be dead in the water if they proposed funding their initiatives with a similar tax in the US. And we all know it.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-01 01:43 PM | Reply

That's what happens when you move right for 40 years to maintain your "centrist" position; rational people become relatively more left.

#65 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-08-01 03:11 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort