As a NY resident, I've been keeping my eye on this as well as sports betting, both because I have an interest in both becoming legal, as well as an understanding of how much tax dollars our state would receive from both of them passing.
This poll asked voters to create their perfect candidate. Democrats picked an older white guy By Janet Hook Jun 19, 2019 | 5:00 AM | Washington A strong majority of Democratic primary voters believe a white male presidential candidate, like former Vice President Joe Biden, is the most likely to beat President Trump in 2020, a new national poll finds. (Alex Wong / Getty Images) Diversity is taking a back seat to Democrats’ desire to dump Trump. The 2020 presidential candidate field is well stocked with women, people of color and millennials, but a majority of voters who said they expected to cast ballots in a Democratic primary thought that candidates who were white, middle-aged and male would be the party’s best bet for defeating President Trump. Spoiler That finding from the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national poll illustrates the hurdles that female, black and Latino presidential candidates still face despite Democrats’ celebration of diversity in their ranks. The poll also illustrates the wariness — bordering on pessimism — that many Democratic voters continue to show in the aftermath of Trump’s upset victory in 2016. Asked to describe the ideal candidate to beat Trump, two-thirds of Democratic primary voters said a white candidate had the best chance of winning in 2020; 7 in 10 said a man would have the best shot; and about three-quarters said the strongest candidate against Trump would be age 41-65. A small majority favored a moderate over a more liberal or progressive candidate. Combined, 56% said they thought their best bet would be a white male candidate, with just over one-third opting for a white male moderate. Such calculations about “electability” have become a prominent — and controversial — part of the 2020 campaign. The belief on the part of many voters that a white male candidate has the best shot against Trump has buoyed the candidacy of Vice President Joe Biden, who has led in polls this spring. Other candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, have criticized the focus on who is most electable. “I remember when people said Barack Obama couldn’t be elected,” Warren said at a recent MSNBC town hall. “I remember when people said Donald Trump couldn’t be elected. And here we are.” Warren, like other candidates lagging behind Biden in polls, has been urging voters to focus on candidates’ leadership qualities and policies, rather than trying to gauge their electability because guessing who can win an election a year away is all but impossible. California Democratic 2020 presidential primary is a wide-open race, poll finds » Although voters preferred a middle-age nominee in the abstract, when they were asked about specific candidates, majorities chose the two oldest candidates — Biden, 76, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 77 — as the ones mostly likely to beat Trump. More than 8 in 10 said Biden would definitely (39%) or probably (47%) win in November; 60% said that about Sanders, although only 17% said they thought he would definitely win. Democratic voters were less optimistic about six other candidates the survey asked about. A majority said Trump probably or definitely would beat Warren, Harris or Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, as well as former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Ind. (Chris Keller/The Los Angeles Times) Even as Warren has been gaining ground in recent polls, the USC poll found that 55% of Democratic primary voters said Trump would probably (42%) or definitely (13%) beat her. Harris and O’Rourke were given roughly the same odds. Booker, Buttigieg and Klobuchar were judged less likely to win. Other data in the poll pointed to weaknesses in Trump’s standing that might give any Democratic nominee a good shot at beating him. Asked to choose between the president and an unnamed Democrat, eligible voters chose the Democrat by 51% to 37%. That’s in line with the weakness Trump has shown in other polls nationally and in key states, such as Pennsylvania, including some done by his own campaign. Much can change, of course, in the nearly 17 months between now and the 2020 election. Among Republican primary voters, 54% said they would definitely vote for Trump no matter who else was on the GOP primary ballot. The other 46% said they were open to voting for another Republican if a good candidate was on the ballot. That suggests an opening could exist for a primary challenge to Trump, although no well-funded, strong candidate has emerged. The biggest obstacle to mounting a challenge to Trump may be the strength of the U.S. economy. More than 8 in 10 Republicans said they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy. Underscoring the leftward tilt of the Democratic primary electorate, the poll found that just 27% of Democratic voters said they identified with the conservative or moderate wings of the party; 40% said they were liberal or progressive; and 10% called themselves democratic socialists. Roughly 1 in 5 said they didn’t think of themselves in such terms. But as Democratic voters have begun sizing up the 23-candidate field, ideology has seemed less important than the ill-defined concept of a candidate’s electability. Many polls have found that a majority of Democrats say candidates’ policy views matter less than their ability to beat Trump. “Democrats are terrified by Trump and traumatized by 2016,” said Robert M. Shrum, co-director of the Center for the Political Future at USC, which sponsored the poll. “They are choosing the profile of what appears to be the safest nominee.” Trump’s big, early lead in Facebook ads deeply worries Democratic strategists » Analysis of the USC poll’s findings suggests an “element of identity politics is at work” in how voters judge who is electable, said Jill Darling, who directed the survey. White voters were overwhelmingly more likely to see white candidates as strongest; women were more likely than men to see female candidates as able to beat Trump; a majority of black voters think a black candidate would be best. Voters who belong to a particular group are more likely to have “a perception that a candidate who is similar to them in race and gender could have a good chance against Trump,” Darling said. Still, majorities of both genders tended to predict that a white man would be more likely to beat Trump. That’s a reflection of how little attitudes seem to have changed in the years since Obama was elected the first black president of the U.S. and Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win a majority party nomination. The prediction may also reflect the wariness among Democrats that changed attitudes are not enough to beat Trump. The poll also found that Democratic primary voters had little taste for nominating a political outsider or novice, which could be good news for an old hand like Biden and bad news for a newcomer like Buttigieg. Seven in 10 primary voters said an experienced Washington insider would have the best chance of winning the 2020 election against Trump. This USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted May 15 to June 15 among 5,108 eligible voters, including 2,222 Democratic primary voters and 1,973 Republican primary voters. Respondents were drawn from a probability-based panel maintained by USC Dornsife’s Center for Economic and Social Research for its Understanding America Study. The poll was conducted in partnership with the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future. Responses were weighted to accurately reflect known demographics of the U.S. population. The margin of error is 2 percentage points in either direction for all eligible voters, and 3 percentage points for Democratic and Republican primary voters. A full description of the methodology, poll questions and data, and additional information about the poll are posted on the USC website.
Polls are weird to me because I dont know anyone who has ever taken part of a political poll, then again, most people I know dont have house phones. The lede here should be old white people choose old white guy.
There is a lot to unpack here, but I appreciate that you didn't dismiss my posts out of hand like some of the others. I think it is interesting topic that helps us look at other issues through the analysis of this one, which is why I brought it here. I have always found that one of the best ways to examine any issue like abortion is to look at something that has nothing to do with it and follow the logic for solving it. It opens up your brain to removing biases that you have attached to those issues. No one is required to have any medical treatment. For example, sex reassignment surgery, abortions, or something that may be more mainstream in terms of medical acceptance. That doesn't mean you should be deprived of it because of some reason that has no medical relevance. I think this is what we are fighting for when we talk about access to healthcare. Accutane is a drug that prevents acne. Birth control is a drug that prevents pregnancy. The patient is looking for an acne cure. I would be interested to understand what you are referring to as adverse outcomes? Pregnancy is not an adverse outcome of taking an acne drug. The adverse outcome of getting pregnant and the baby developing birth defects is such a low probability that it probably wouldn't show up when you consider the risks of this individual patient. Nobody is advocating for abortion. That is as silly as conservatives saying that liberals believe in killing babies. I am merely suggesting that in the insanely small chance that over the next 4 months of my daughters lifetime she were to get pregnant, we are not out of options. She still has a right to choose. As I mentioned, doctors do not believe that birth control helps to cure the underlying ailment and many do not like the protocol. They are being asked to give it to prevent the drug companies from getting sued if something were to happen. I don't think the pain medication analogy is a great one. That would be akin to requiring her to take a pregnancy test, which they do. It would not be akin to forcing her to take some other medication that has other side effects, and some of them are negative. Pain medication abuse is also a national epidemic and the examples that you site all involve choices made that can have very negative health issues for the patient and can also effect society if accidents result from the drug abuse. I contend that in the situation of accutane and birth control, it is all about the woman, unless you are now saying that society has a responsibility over a woman's sexual reproduction. As I mentioned, my wife has breast cancer that is ER/PR + which means that the cancer was fed by hormones. The same hormones that you find in birth control pills. I think this is a legitimate concern, with family history involved. I recognize that it is a choice we have, but one that is not medically required for her to receive the outcomes that accutane promises. That is why I referenced the Missouri example presented on maddow. The Surgeon General (or similar position) in Missouri recently required that abortion doctors must conduct a second pelvic exam that doctors do not believe is medically relevant in order to get an abortion. Granted, it is for much more nefarious reasons, but the point is that requiring birth control it is not medically relevant. Again, I am not as uncomfortable with requiring pregnancy tests, like you site with the drug test examples for narcotics. I want to focus on this sentence of yours... "Again, this isn’t so much about abortion/choice/women’s reproductive rights as it is about taking a dangerous medication with significant health implications and mandating a protocol to eliminate adverse patient outcomes, promote patient safety, and obviously prevent litigation." How does mandating the use of birth control promote patient safety and prevent adverse patient outcomes for acne patients when there is no fetus and the chance of one occurring is super small? Take it a step further, and I realize this is super sensitive topic, but is it the physicians responsibility to treat a patient that doesn't exist and is a fetus a patient? I do believe it is their responsibility to inform, and for the patient or guardians to consent to not getting pregnant. This is how it was done previously. I do not think physicians or the drug companies should be responsible if these steps are taken. Every time i go to the pharmacy, I consent when I pick up medications. I also consent to being spoken to or not by the pharmacist. I just feel this is more appropriate.
I'm not being a wise ass. Why is it a physician's responsibility to do anything more than educate the patient and get the patients consent? This is the standard for medical practice in most cases. A male who takes accutane can impregnate a woman and it can result in the same birth defects. He can also donate blood and cause similar results. How is this being protected? Should men/boys be subject to requiring them to take male birth control? In the case of males they only have to consent. Pee in a cup and make sure someone is not pregnant before or during the treatment seems like a much more acceptable standard if this requires an abundance of caution.
Because you are engaging in treatments that have a known potential negative outcome to a developing fetus in a woman that doesn’t know she is pregnant. She can’t give informed consent about how she wishes to proceed until she knows she is pregnant.
One thing you’re entirely missing is the power dynamic at play. Do you really expect all 14 year old girls to be able to truthfully answer a question about their sexual activity either in front of their parents or in a way that their parents become necessarily aware of their child’s answer, if that answer is “yes”? And then how does a physician decide which parent/child combinations can be trusted to answer truthfully?
Right so pee in a cup before and during treatment. I am ok with that. Don't require her to go on birth control.
If she becomes pregnant while taking the medication, the harm to the developing fetus is already (potentially) done. It’s a different problem. It’s a different consent and it’s predictable and avoidable.
is that any different than boys? I'm not sure how "there is a chance, because she may not be telling the truth" changes the conversation. We consent for our children on a daily basis at school where they could be lying and there could be serious implications. At some point if we sign off, it is OUR responsibility and not the drug company or the physician. Again, using abortion as a parallel. How do we know she is telling the truth about being raped? How do we know she had a miscarriage and didn't abort?
Again, in the ridiculously small percentage chance that this occurs over the 4 month window of any 14 year old's life let alone this one, we have an option to abort or make a decision. There is no guaranteed birth defect by the way.
There are other drugs that are proven to cause birth defects. Is the same standard used for these? ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors angiotensin II antagonist alcohol cocaine high doses of vitamin A lithium male hormones some antibiotics some anticonvulsant medications some cancer-fighting medications some drugs that treat certain rheumatic conditions some thyroid medications thalidomide the blood-thinning drug warfarin the hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES).
either have her go on birth control as mandated for the treatment or don't get the accutane why is this still being discussed
It’s different because the products of a 14 year old boy’s sexual activity aren’t affected by whether or not he is taking accutane.
Huh? I have no idea what this means. if he impregnates a girl the fetus has the same risk as if she took the drug.
Yes but if his 14 year old is getting prescribed cocaine a pregnancy test is the least of his worries
.2 in 1000 chance of getting pregnant for any girl younger than 14, let alone this one who has a lower risk than some.
Again, you’re applying your personal circumstances and demanding that they be turned into general rule that negatively affects those not in your circumstances. “Well the 14 year old can just have an abortion” is never a circumstance a physician should put their patient in, and it seems to me to particularly apply when the physician is prescribing a course of action to treat a cosmetic issue.
At what point do we welcome the Pete Fan Club back to open forum to drown out whatever this conversation is?
Serious question though. Have I made a case for something to think about and does looking at a situation like this make you look at other issues and examine the why? I know I have a tendency to use my own anecdotes here and a lot of people don't like that, but I do think this is an interesting discussion that I never would have thought of if it didn't happen to my daughter. You guys can get on with your days. I won't bore you with it if you don't want to talk about it.
.2 in 1000. Be curious to know the overlap of that statistic with people taking accutane. I'm guessing insanely low. There are different protocols for prescriptions by age. It is not unheard of.
You should make a thread where you discuss this topic and how you disagree with the medical professionals giving advice
I'm done, but it is not medical professional advice. As I mentioned her doctor thinks it is wrong. That is how it came to my attention. If that is what you got out of this it shows you are just being obtuse.
How is it sexist? I’d take Warren over everyone in this field. To me she is literally Before Anyone Else. She is unquestionably the best most qualified individual running and if this country was just and not so fucking stupid she’d easily win and be the next POTUS and actually make this country what it claims to be. If believing that makes me sexist so be it
wow, if this was an issue that treaded on rights that you cared about or spent time thinking about the conversation would be very different. The hypocrisy by some posters and groupthink in this thread some time is insane.
most kids on accutane have too undergo blood testing to check their liver function for their safety - how would you feel if someone objected to that? nobody makes anybody take the medicine but if you do decide to take it, there are responsibilities required of you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that's not groupthink