2020 Democratic Nominee

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Bloomberg is out.

 

 

All that money gonna go to Joe.

 

Im gonna post this everywhere...

 

[Bateshorn 9927]

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This doesn't get talked about at all on this board, but there are ways in which a Biden presidency could be even more damaging than four more years of Trump.  Trump can't cut social security and other New Deal/Great Society programs unilaterally, but Biden could potentially do so as Obama tried to do but was stymied by Tea Party psychos who wanted even bigger cuts.  McConnell knows this and has already talked about it publicly.  For Bernie to have a chance at this thing he has to get voters to understand Biden's record and what he would likely do as President.  The media obviously isn't going to talk about the fact that Biden has worked his entire career to cut these programs it so it's all on him and his campaign to break through with that message.  

It’s 10:20 EST and we have our first Biden’s worse than Trump post.  Boom. 
 

on a more serious note:  can somebody legitimately see a Sanders path to the nomination with Bloomberg out?  Real Talk. 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

It’s 10:20 EST and we have our first Biden’s worse than Trump post.  Boom. 
 

on a more serious note:  can somebody legitimately see a Sanders path to the nomination with Bloomberg out?  Real Talk. 

I didn't say that, but since you can't debate anything I did say I guess it's better to just make shit up.  

[Bateshorn 9927]

I mean you literally said “there are ways in which a Biden presidency could be even more damaging than four more years of Trump” (sic) so I don’t know what to tell you.

Ive debated and discussed Social Security ad nauseam in this board. I started an entire thread on TOS, and specialized on it while working for a Member of Congress early in my career.  Your generalizations about the complexities of entitlement reform may make you feel better or rationalize your political decision making. I get it.  If your a Sanders supporter,  it’s gotta sting this morning.   

[Hank Kingsley 20936]

 

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean you literally said “there are ways in which a Biden presidency could be even more damaging than four more years of Trump” (sic) so I don’t know what to tell you.

Ive debated and discussed Social Security ad nauseam in this board. I started an entire thread on TOS, and specialized on it while working for a Member of Congress early in my career.  Your generalizations about the complexities of entitlement reform may make you feel better or rationalize your political decision making. I get it.  If your a Sanders supporter,  it’s gotta sting this morning.   

Which is different from saying "Biden's worse than Trump."  Also, I would love for you to extol upon why it is necessary that we take away people's social security.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean you literally said “there are ways in which a Biden presidency could be even more damaging than four more years of Trump” (sic) so I don’t know what to tell you.

Ive debated and discussed Social Security ad nauseam in this board. I started an entire thread on TOS, and specialized on it while working for a Member of Congress early in my career.  Your generalizations about the complexities of entitlement reform may make you feel better or rationalize your political decision making. I get it.  If your a Sanders supporter,  it’s gotta sting this morning.   

You didn't counter his argument. You just asserted vague superiority.

The point remains: SS is more untouchable under Donald than it is under Biden. Any Republican president's move to cut SS will be (rightfully) demagogued to hell and back by Democrats. Which is great. Democrats SHOULD fight tooth and nail and spill blood to protect what is left of our social welfare state.

However, as we see with voting patterns on Super Tuesday, the older Democratic base will just fall in line with what they're told. And because they'll do that, it's very important to consider what we tell them. If Joe makes a deal with Mitch to raise some taxes in exchange for cutting social welfare, the Grand Bargain he desperately sought under Obama, there will be little Republican resistance and little Democratic resistance. We raise taxes slightly and poor/old people suffer and die.

Since you're smarter than him and a much bigger expert, then I'm sure you can explain why this is not true and I look forward to being educated.

If the difference between accepting the Grand Bargain and not accepting it was so miniscule and pointless, why was the Obama administration terrified of an irrascible independent socialist potentially making it an issue in the 2012 primary?

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

That's because mass media journalists are basically just social media posters now. Our media is completely broken.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

It's a bad day for Bad_Teammate. Y'all give him some love.

[David Dennison 18860]

Fozzz going Anastasis early today.

[bad_teammate 13195]

There's a very "aggy wearing SEC gear after Alabama wins a title" vibe to the posting going on here in the last 24-36 hours from people who hate Bernie and/or his Bros but also didn't like Biden at all.

['stache 21815]

12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Who started putting the migrants in cages?

Who built the cages Donald immediately started using?

Holy shit, you're so butthurt over this you're willing to spew maga lies? I was no fan of Obamas immigration policies, but "ObAMa DId IT tOo" is a maga lie straight from the idiots tweets. Yes, Obama's policies were not good, but he did not have a fucking white nationalist running the program specifically to be cruel and inhuman, and he did not separate families in the way trump and miller were and probably are still doing. Want some links? Ok, here are the first 5 of dozens upon dozens that pop up immediately when you google "Obama Separation Policy."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/21/donald-trump/donald-trump-again-falsely-says-obama-had-family-s/

https://www.hispanicoutlook.com/articles/family-separation-policy

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/21/18700575/trump-family-separation-policy-obama-time-telemundo

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/fact-check-trump-family-separation.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/family-separation-spin-in-nevada/

I don't particularly care that you're an angry Bernie bro, you're schtick hasn't really bothered me as much as it seem to bother others here. But to adopt a maga lie is fucking deplorable. If that is really what the bros are doing, well fuck them too. If you really want the democratic socialist movement to adopt outright lies maga style then maybe I'm more fucking moderate than I thought. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by 'stache

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

OLD WHITE GUY 2020

[mdmost 43001]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There's a very "aggy wearing SEC gear after Alabama wins a title" vibe to the posting going on here in the last 24-36 hours from people who hate Bernie and/or his Bros but also didn't like Biden at all.

Well, in fairness, you've been aggy about every other Dem candidate that wasn't Bernie. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

That’s the most laughably sourced background I’ve ever seen on Social Security.  Good lord.  That’s Johnny Sack/Tahoe levels of stupid.

The “cuts” you keep railing about where a proposal by Obama to move to Chained CPI when calculating the annual COLA for Social Security.  Among policy experts on SSA,  it’s generally accepted as a more accurate way to calculate cost growth for Social Security beneficiaries than traditional CPI.  That’s the cut: slightly slower benefit growth. 

I’m unaware of any national Democrat that has ever proposed actual benefit cuts for retirees.  Chained CPI is seen as a way to slow the cost growth in SSA until the GOP is willing to come to the table to increase payroll taxes to help balance the cash flows of the system.  

In exchange, Obama was seeking major tax increases and the GOP wanted discretionary spending cuts to bring the deficit into some sempblance of balance as the Bush cuts had expired and we were facing a need to raise the debt ceiling. The deal fell apart for a myriad of reasons but most people inside the beltway will tell you it’s because Obama moved the goal posts at the last second. We got Sequestration and a $600 billion ish tax increase instead. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Skipper 6135]

53 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 For Bernie to have a chance at this thing..... 

It's over dude.  Time to let it go

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

That’s the most laughably sourced background I’ve ever seen on Social Security.  Good lord.  That’s Johnny Sack/Tahoe levels of stupid.

The “cuts” you keep railing about where a proposal by Obama to move to Chained CPI when calculating the annual COLA for Social Security.  Among policy experts on SSA,  it’s generally accepted as a more accurate way to calculate cost growth for Social Security beneficiaries than traditional CPI.  That’s the cut: slightly slower benefit growth. 

I’m unaware of any national Democrat that has ever proposed actual benefit cuts for retirees.  Chained CPI is seen as a way to slow the cost growth in SSA until the GOP is willing to come to the table to increase payroll taxes to help balance the cash flows of the system.  

In exchange, Obama was seeking major tax increases and the GOP wanted discretionary spending cuts to bring the deficit into some sempblance of balance as the Bush cuts had expired and we were facing a need to raise the debt ceiling. The deal fell apart for a myriad of reasons but most people inside the beltway will tell you it’s because Obama moved the goal posts at the last second. We got Sequestration instead. 

Fixing SS is simple. Just remove the ceiling of $137,700. Boom. Fixed.

[Rougarou 594]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fixing SS is simple. Just remove the ceiling of $137,700. Boom. Fixed.

That’s not cool!

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

24 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It's a bad day for Bad_Teammate. Y'all give him some love.

In this instance, a bad day for BT is a good day for America. The latter's all that matters to me. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fixing SS is simple. Just remove the ceiling of $137,700. Boom. Fixed.

Ish.  It gets you most of the way there.  You probably need to do chained CPI or something similar if you want to not have to talk about this issue again for 75 years.

Unless we vastly increase immigration, Social Security will occasionally go broke, because there just isn’t enough workers to beneficiaries demographically speaking. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

13 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Want some links? Ok, here are the first 5 of dozens upon dozens that pop up immediately when you google "Obama Separation Policy.

When did I say Obama started the family separation policy? You're lying about my argument and you're emotionally unhinged. I'm losing, so why am I calmer and more reasonable than you? It's weird.

I said Obama started caging people at the border, which is true.

Did Trump make it worse? Absolutely.
Is Trump worse than Obama? Absolutely.

But that's the problem when you help build up a powerful unitary executive and think, "Ah, this is fine, because I will be in power forever!" ... You're not going to be in power forever. Poor leadership and our frontrunner is running on, "Let's do it again!"

I don't like that.

Just now, mdmost said:

Well, in fairness, you've been aggy about every other Dem candidate that wasn't Bernie. 

The game isn't over.

I know y'all are very eager to spike the football, but a word of caution for you would be that we have 32 states left to vote, more than 50% of delegates outstanding, and months of Biden scrutiny as the frontrunner. There are debates to follow. At no point in this race has Biden done well in frontrunner status with the glare of the spotlight on him.

That might change!

He might be clear and rational and cogent and smart and really show himself to be an impressive statesman. He might ascend and become the mental image of what people think he should be. And on the strength of that he might just absolutely annihilate Bernie in the votes and win a clear majority and eliminate Bernie mathematically. That might happen.

Or he might collapse, embarrass himself constantly, and look weak and unsure in the debates. He might start losing states out of his Southern strongholds.

Or he might struggle along, he and Bernie trading shots but Biden keeping a ~100 lead but never really pulling away but also never fully falling down.

I know you guys still have boners from last night and the image of the Bros being owned, but take a step back and take a longer term view of how this plays out.

It's March 4th, not June 4th. 3 months is an eternity.

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The “cuts” you keep railing about where a proposal by Obama to move to Chained CPI when calculating the annual COLA for Social Security.  Among policy experts on SSA,  it’s generally accepted as a more accurate way to calculate cost growth for Social Security beneficiaries than traditional CPI.  That’s the cut: slightly slower benefit growth. 

And what does "slightly slower benefit growth" mean to the recipients of those benefits?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Ish.  It gets you most of the way there.

True, but what a nice bump it would be. Not sure why this idea is unpopular.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

20 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Looks like the stock market is pricing in a Biden surge and 4 more years of trump. Well done Dem, Inc. 

bump

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

38 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Twitter is not an accurate representation of the dem electorate. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

True, but what a nice bump it would be. Not sure why this idea is unpopular.

It’s kind of technical,  but it has to do with what the expected benefits will be via-a-vis lifetime payroll taxes as calculated by the actuaries. 
 

The idea is if you put balance into the system, payroll taxes will not be seen as confiscatory, and are unlikely to be targeted for cuts by future Administration/Congress, ensuring better system stability.

[Rougarou 594]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

True, but what a nice bump it would be. Not sure why this idea is unpopular.

If you are right at that cusp; it represents a ~$300 pay raise every paycheck after the $137k which a lot of people bank on, is why. Uh, commenting for a friend.

[Jhawk 1075]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

That’s the most laughably sourced background I’ve ever seen on Social Security.  Good lord.  That’s Johnny Sack/Tahoe levels of stupid.

The “cuts” you keep railing about where a proposal by Obama to move to Chained CPI when calculating the annual COLA for Social Security.  Among policy experts on SSA,  it’s generally accepted as a more accurate way to calculate cost growth for Social Security beneficiaries than traditional CPI.  That’s the cut: slightly slower benefit growth. 

I’m unaware of any national Democrat that has ever proposed actual benefit cuts for retirees.  Chained CPI is seen as a way to slow the cost growth in SSA until the GOP is willing to come to the table to increase payroll taxes to help balance the cash flows of the system.  

In exchange, Obama was seeking major tax increases and the GOP wanted discretionary spending cuts to bring the deficit into some sempblance of balance as the Bush cuts had expired and we were facing a need to raise the debt ceiling. The deal fell apart for a myriad of reasons but most people inside the beltway will tell you it’s because Obama moved the goal posts at the last second. We got Sequestration and a $600 billion ish tax increase instead. 

To be fair the general public has no idea what a “cut” is versus a slow in growth. Was at a council meeting once for a development project but they spent the whole time arguing about some other shit. Tax increase or budgets would be cut. Turns out the “cut” was going from a 5% budget increase to a 3.5% budget increase. Politicians and media are so fucking deceptive in how they describe things it’s unreal. Seems like half the reason we are always bitching about education is because the pols purposely keep that funding low because it keeps the sheep dumb enough not to ask the right questions. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

If you are right at that cusp; it represents a ~$300 pay raise every paycheck after the $137k which a lot of people bank on, is why. Uh, commenting for a friend.

This is an illustrative way to put it.  A lot of recent proposals have suggested a tax donut hole, which would stop the tax at the current limit, then start the tax again over say $500k or something.  Thereby making it so your doctor or boss doesn’t feel it,   But Jamie Dimon pays more. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Hank Kingsley 20936]

23 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So much this.

Here's a real issue--Bernie and his supporters are really bad at electoral politics.  That's because they're socialists.  And fundamentally, because they're socialists, they're sell-outs for even engaging in electoral politics.

The only way socialism comes into being is through class struggle and revolution.  That's the only way the workers can seize the means of production.  And when you have a class struggle and revolution, nobody cares about persuasion.

Bernie and his supporters are trying the class-struggle-and-revolution bit through electoral politics.  But that doesn't work, because persuasion is the key to electoral politics.  It's why Ramsay McDonald's first premiership was one of the shortest in British history; it's why Jeremy Corbyn can't hope to win a majority.  It's why the SDP has virtually never been the largest party in Germany and why the Socialists very rarely win anything in France.  The socialist fixation on revolutionary change is fundamentally at odds with the type of persuasion that is necessary to succeed in elections.

I just want to highlight this excellent post again. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

To be fair the general public has no idea

You could have stopped right there.

[bad_teammate 13195]

@Bateshorn

I hate to be a bother, but what does "slightly slower benefit growth" look like from the perspective of someone receiving and relying on those benefits?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This is an illustrative way to put it.  A lot of recent proposals have suggested a tax donut hole, which would stop the tax at the current limit, then start the tax again over say $500k or something.

[Rougarou 594]

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This is an illustrative way to put it.  A lot of recent proposals have suggested a tax donut hole, which would stop the tax at the current limit, then start the tax again over say $500k or something.  Thereby making it so your doctor or boss doesn’t feel it,   But Jamie Dimon pays more. 

That would be a winner for the 80%. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

3 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

To be fair the general public has no idea what a “cut” is versus a slow in growth. Was at a council meeting once for a development project but they spent the whole time arguing about some other shit. Tax increase or budgets would be cut. Turns out the “cut” was going from a 5% budget increase to a 3.5% budget increase. Politicians and media are so fucking deceptive in how they describe things it’s unreal. Seems like half the reason we are always bitching about education is because the pols purposely keep that funding low because it keeps the sheep dumb enough not to ask the right questions. 

This is very on point.  I see it all the time with Veterans benefits.  By relative measure vs. the general population, veterans have incredibly generous social benefits.  And they should. But anytime somebody discusses changes to benefit growth rates, usually due to an unsustainable imbalance in the system,  you’d think we were actually discussing forced euthanasia.

[Dbeasy 15051]

It’s 10:20 EST and we have our first Biden’s worse than Trump post.  Boom. 
 
on a more serious note:  can somebody legitimately see a Sanders path to the nomination with Bloomberg out?  Real Talk. 

Exactly! Which is why I will cast a vote for Trump instead of Biden to keep the Democrats from destroying Social Security!

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This is an illustrative way to put it.  A lot of recent proposals have suggested a tax donut hole, which would stop the tax at the current limit, then start the tax again over say $500k or something.  Thereby making it so your doctor or boss doesn’t feel it,   But Jamie Dimon pays more. 

Or somehow fix it so that if you are below 69 and x% of your income is from capital gains or business distributions, you gotta payroll tax some of that.

[Bateshorn 9927]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

@Bateshorn

I hate to be a bother, but what does "slightly slower benefit growth" look like from the perspective of someone receiving and relying on those benefits?

Short answer: chained CPI will likely mean your COLA is about a .25 lower. Give or take.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Biff Tannen 45683]

19 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Twitter is not an accurate representation of the dem electorate. 

QFT.  This needs to be understood.  Hell, the only reason I know anything about what's happening on twitter is because of Surly.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

Short answer: chained CPI will likely mean your COLA is about a .25 lower. Give or take.

So if you receive a benefit that's intended to cover a cost and that benefit does not keep up with the actual cost of the need it is supposed to cover... what's the practical effect of a "freeze" or a "growth slowdown" on you as a recipient vis-a-vis that need?

How is that practically any different from a cut for the vulnerable person relying on that benefit?

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

QFT.  This needs to be understood.  Hell, the only reason I know anything about what's happening on twitter is because of Surly.

I gave it up for Lent and it’s been transformative.  I’m probably not going back.

[Bateshorn 9927]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So if you receive a benefit that's intended to cover a cost and that benefit does not keep up with the actual cost of the need it is supposed to cover... what's the practical effect of a "freeze" or a "growth slowdown" on you as a recipient vis-a-vis that need?

How is that practically any different from a cut for the vulnerable person relying on that benefit?

If it doesn’t actually reflect the cost, then the benefit is overly generous and stresses the finances of the system.  Which would you prefer:  a system that can pay its full benefits or one that can’t and cuts benefits 30% when the bonds run out?

 

There need to be some real fucking talk about social security and it’s finances.  And raising the payroll tax broadly isn’t an option either politically, or policy wise since as a flat tax,  it’s horribly regressive.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Skipper 6135]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know y'all are very eager to spike the football, but a word of caution for you would be that we have 32 states left to vote, more than 50% of delegates outstanding, and months of Biden scrutiny as the frontrunner. There are debates to follow. At no point in this race has Biden done well in frontrunner status with the glare of the spotlight on him.

That might change!

I don't think you get it.   Biden will continue to do well because (i) he's an alternative to Trump and (ii) he's not Bernie.  Most Americans (and yes, even most Democrats) don't want Socialism or Bernie's revolution.  Full Stop.   The AOC's of the world and their base are loud on twitter but most Americans roll their eyes.  Biden was the least impressive candidate on the debate stage at times and that allowed others (Pete/Amy, etc.) to shine.  But at this point, particularly with Bloomberg out, the 'rational' vote is consolidated (including the vote from people that may not prefer Biden but objectively realize Bernie could NEVER beat Trump).  Biden still may not be able to beat Trump but he was always the best bet.

[Foosters 17856]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

This doesn't get talked about at all on this board, but there are ways in which a Biden presidency could be even more damaging than four more years of Trump.  Trump can't cut social security and other New Deal/Great Society programs unilaterally, but Biden could potentially do so as Obama tried to do but was stymied by Tea Party psychos who wanted even bigger cuts.  McConnell knows this and has already talked about it publicly.  For Bernie to have a chance at this thing he has to get voters to understand Biden's record and what he would likely do as President.  The media obviously isn't going to talk about the fact that Biden has worked his entire career to cut these programs it so it's all on him and his campaign to break through with that message.  

Whether its Trump or Biden, both would have to work with a GOP Senate to pass the cuts. Why you think Biden is more likely to work with a GOP Senate to cut programs than Trump, I have no idea.

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If it doesn’t actually reflect the cost, then the benefit is overly generous and stresses the finances of the system.

You're not answering the question.

Let's say, hypothetically, that rent rises 4% per year and that the trend has been to raise benefits 4% per year to match that.

What happens to someone who relies on that benefit when rent rises 4% and the benefit rises 0%?

Quote

Which would you prefer:  a system that can pay its full benefits or one that can’t and cuts benefits 30% when the bonds run out?

False choice fallacy.

I would prefer a system that covers the benefits necessary and uses wealth taken from the top 1% to ensure solvency.

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I don't think you get it.   Biden will continue to do well because (i) he's an alternative to Trump and (ii) he's not Bernie.  Most Americans (and yes, even most Democrats) don't want Socialism or Bernie's revolution.  Full Stop.   The AOC's of the world and their base are loud on twitter but most Americans roll their eyes.  Biden was the least impressive candidate on the debate stage at times and that allowed others (Pete/Amy, etc.) to shine.  But at this point, particularly with Bloomberg out, the 'rational' vote is consolidated (including the vote from people that may not prefer Biden but objectively realize Bernie could NEVER beat Trump).  Biden still may not be able to beat Trump but he was always the best bet.

Cool then I guess this will be pretty obvious going forward, won't it?

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Whether its Trump or Biden, both would have to work with a GOP Senate to pass the cuts. Why you think Biden is more likely to work with a GOP Senate to cut programs than Trump, I have no idea.

The GOP Senators will be more likely to work with Biden than Democratic Senators would be to work with Trump.

[Huckleberry 32859]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If it doesn’t actually reflect the cost, then the benefit is overly generous and stresses the finances of the system.  Which would you prefer:  a system that can pay its full benefits or one that can’t and cuts benefits 30% when the bonds run out?

 

There need to be some real fucking talk about social security and it’s finances.  And raising the payroll tax broadly isn’t an option either politically, or policy wise since as a flat tax,  it’s horribly regressive.

Haven't read up on it in a while, but the last time I did a good counterargument was that those receiving SSI disproportionately make medical care related purchases which are not accurately reflected in either CPI. So going to the more accurate overall chained CPI makes sense mathematically on a large scale, but not when you consider the people who are actually using SSI.

And your last part is unfortunately correct. There aren't enough people who are willing to continue supporting social welfare programs when their take home pay is affected. It's an unfortunate reality but it's not going to change.

[Foosters 17856]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I don't think you get it.   Biden will continue to do well because (i) he's an alternative to Trump and (ii) he's not Bernie.  Most Americans (and yes, even most Democrats) don't want Socialism or Bernie's revolution.  Full Stop.   The AOC's of the world and their base are loud on twitter but most Americans roll their eyes.  Biden was the least impressive candidate on the debate stage at times and that allowed others (Pete/Amy, etc.) to shine.  But at this point, particularly with Bloomberg out, the 'rational' vote is consolidated (including the vote from people that may not prefer Biden but objectively realize Bernie could NEVER beat Trump).  Biden still may not be able to beat Trump but he was always the best bet.

I think you are way overstating things.

A majority of Americans (not just democrats) support medicare for all.

A majority of Americans support free public college.

A majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy.

 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

Bernie’s biggest challenge 

[Foosters 17856]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The GOP Senators will be more likely to work with Biden than Democratic Senators would be to work with Trump.

Are there a number of Dem senators who have proposed cutting entitlements? Serious question.

[Biff Tannen 45683]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Bernie’s biggest challenge 

Bernie SUPPORTER'S biggest challenge.

[Hank Kingsley 20936]

Obviously it would be foolish to say Biden is a lock, considering the wild swings that have happened over the last couple of months (let alone the last couple of days). 

But what's happened with Biden's surge is not really about Joe Biden. It's about Dems rallying together and the comfort/relief/excitement that comes with it. Biden has a lot of issues, but they're mostly baked in. Verbal gaffes and votes he made 20-30 years ago are not going to move the needle against him. 

People just wanted a candidate that could bring the base together, and in the end Joe was the only one people were willing to settle on.