Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That Burlington College thing is going to be an issue moving forward. That's just politics.

Yep.  Bernie has had a free pass from the actual dirty pool players dating to pre-2016.  Quite the opposite, he's still getting boosted by the same entities that are patiently waiting and ready to drive him to a second heart attack.

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

facts...something something attack the messenger.

The narrative has quickly shifted from "A socialist will never be the nominee" to "He can't beat Trump because he isn't getting enough turnout" while he is rising in national polls. Almost like you all should get together behind a centrist to defeat him.

[bad_teammate 13303]

Bernie is going to get less of the vote while up against 5+ candidates than he did while up against 1 candidate. 

That's some giant brain shit right there lol

(Bernie got the minority vote BY FAR in Iowa and will again in NH.)

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie is going to get less of the vote while up against 5+ candidates than he did while up against 1 candidate. 

That's some giant brain shit right there lol

(Bernie got the minority vote BY FAR in Iowa and will again in NH.)

Reminder that those aren't the minorities that count, it's the minorities in the deep south in solid Red states that count.

[David Dennison 19121]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

The narrative has quickly shifted from "A socialist will never be the nominee" to "He can't beat Trump because he isn't getting enough turnout" while he is rising in national polls. Almost like you all should get together behind a centrist to defeat him.

The Democratic Party is going to try to destroy Bernie Sanders before the convention, no matter how well he does in the polls or the primaries.

[bad_teammate 13303]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democratic Party is going to try to destroy Bernie Sanders before the convention, no matter how well he does in the polls or the primaries.

[Zonahorn 8079]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

facts...something something attack the messenger.

You're the stupidest poster on the site.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

The narrative has quickly shifted from "A socialist will never be the nominee" to "He can't beat Trump because he isn't getting enough turnout" while he is rising in national polls. Almost like you all should get together behind a centrist to defeat him.

 I recall the narrative being " a socialist will never win the general election" and that hasn't really changed.

 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie is going to get less of the vote while up against 5+ candidates than he did while up against 1 candidate. 

That's some giant brain shit right there lol

(Bernie got the minority vote BY FAR in Iowa and will again in NH.)

Bernie also benefitted from Hillary the anti-candidate the same way Trump did.  And minority vote in places like South Carolina and other states substantially less white than IOWA will be informative.  We'll see how it goes.

[GSU&UT 1798]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Democratic Party is going to try to destroy Bernie Sanders before the convention, no matter how well he does in the polls or the primaries.

Cool man, you don't have to post that every day. We know that's your opinion. The DNC will then probably not recover for several election cycles if they clearly screw Bernie out of the nomination.

[David Dennison 19121]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Cool man, you don't have to post that every day. We know that's your opinion. The DNC will then probably not recover for several election cycles if they clearly screw Bernie out of the nomination.

Like in 2018?

Come on. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

 I recall the narrative being " a socialist will never win the general election" and that hasn't really changed.

 

Bernie also benefitted from Hillary the anti-candidate the same way Trump did.  And minority vote in places like South Carolina and other states substantially less white than IOWA will be informative.  We'll see how it goes.

And have you literally looked at any polling on this? Biden just shed a crap load of support that went to Bernie and Bloomberg. Bloomberg may start rising to become second in the polls but he has almost no real ground game, at least no where near the amount of volunteers that will show up and canvas for Bernie.

 

  

Just now, David Dennison said:

Like in 2018?

Come on. 

Bernie enters the the convention with the lead in delegates but not a majority. Someone else gets the nomination due to super-delegates on the second ballot. Young people literally have no reason to trust the Democratic party ever again and the GOP holds onto the presidency for several cycles.

Edited February 10, 2020 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13303]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Bernie also benefitted from Hillary the anti-candidate the same way Trump did.  And minority vote in places like South Carolina and other states substantially less white than IOWA will be informative.  We'll see how it goes.

I agree that it will be informative. Where my doubts lie is whether or not you're capable of being informed.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

You're the stupidest poster on the site.

You may call me stupid, that's fine, but I'm not going to just antagonize you back.  I get you.

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I agree that it will be informative. Where my doubts lie is whether or not you're capable of being informed.

tr

 

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

You may call me stupid, that's fine, but I'm not going to just antagonize you back.  I get you.

Cool. You have some fascinating information on Impeachment and Trump investigations. Would you mind letting Republicans know voting for Trump is futile?  

We got Bernie. Best not to keep repeating Trump Talking Points, no?

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

You may call me stupid, that's fine, but I'm not going to just antagonize you back.  I get you.

You've come in here several times to make the same point and we've provided data that disproves the trend you believe is happening. You're trying to extrapolate one result thus far in a super white state to say that Bernie has no chance while he just took the lead in the last national poll that dropped today, one where he gained support from black voters. If he gets destroyed on Super Tuesday then you have reason to gloat, it doesn't look to be the case now and I can tell you for a fact that there is no other candidate who has anywhere close to the number of canvassers that Bernie has.

[David Dennison 19121]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Bernie enters the the convention with the lead in delegates but not a majority. Someone else gets the nomination due to super-delegates on the second ballot. Young people literally have no reason to trust the Democratic party ever again and the GOP holds onto the presidency for several cycles.

Young people have no reason to trust the Democratic Party now. But the reality of party politics in America means they have to choose one or the other because that's how power works and nothing gets done in this country without power.

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Young people have no reason to trust the Democratic Party now. But the reality of party politics in America means they have to choose one or the other because that's how power works and nothing gets done in this country without power.

If Bernie loses the nomination because he doesn't have the plurality of candidates at the convention then some people may be angry and sit out, I would not do this and still vote. If Bernie is clearly leading in delegates and is not nominated then I have a LOT more reason to sit out. I think the DNC is smart enough to not tempt fate if the latter is the case.

Edited February 10, 2020 by GSU&UT

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

Parasite won best picture ever which means Bernie will win the presidency. That’s just basic math. 

[bad_teammate 13303]

Cool ending to Bernie's big rally.

Watching it live was funny, because as soon as Bernie was done and announced The Strokes, there were a lot of people who just got up and left. A bunch ran down to the floor, too, for the show. But if you're watching the concert you can just see the arena get emptier and emptier.

[GSU&UT 1798]

lmao, you love to see it

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Awesome. What is her Surly handle?

[David Dennison 19121]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

lmao, you love to see it

 

MSNBC's framing of Bernie losing support in Iowa from 2016 when he was going against one candidate versus multiple candidates this year has been shameful.

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

MSNBC's framing of Bernie losing support in Iowa from 2016 when he was going against one candidate versus multiple candidates this year has been shameful.

That's not your stereotypical "Bernie Bro" either, it's getting to be very apparent to people who don't have an allegiance to Bernie. That lady had some damn guts to not be afraid to call it out, i love her.

[tantric superman 4668]

I used to think the right wingers complaining about media bias were the biggest bitches in the world.

[David Dennison 19121]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I used to think the right wingers complaining about media bias were the biggest bitches in the world.

What MSNBC has been doing isn't bias, it's just straight up bullshit.

[bad_teammate 13303]

It ain't just MSNBC.

FACTS FIRST!

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I used to think the right wingers complaining about media bias were the biggest bitches in the world.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if multiple people are coming to this conclusion then it isn't the fault of the people complaining but rather the fault of the media companies themselves.

[tantric superman 4668]

No doubt.  Still insufferably bitchy.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Perhaps, just perhaps, if multiple people are coming to this conclusion then it isn't the fault of the people complaining but rather the fault of the media companies themselves.

[bad_teammate 13303]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No doubt.  Still insufferably bitchy.

Which is bitchier...

- Posting clips of mass media sucking

- Whining about people posting clips of mass media sucking

HMM?

[bad_teammate 13303]

Get his ass!!

[bad_teammate 13303]

David Sirota is the man

 

[washparkhorn 9939]

[washparkhorn 9939]

Reminder - Employer-Based healthcare is not popular with workers - union or otherwise:

https://newpol.org/issue_post/take-my-benefits-please/

Quote

The spectacle of national labor leaders defending a system that is the biggest cause of strikes, lockouts, and concession bargaining is mind-boggling. For an entire generation now, unions in the United States have traded wages and other benefits for shrinking coverage by employer-provided health insurance (or for the ever-increasing employer contributions required to maintain similarly shrinking benefits from union-sponsored health and welfare funds). 

Like it or not, employment-based health care is simply unsustainable. The Milliman Medical Index reports that the 2018 total health care costs for a family of four with decent employment-based coverage exceed $28,000 per year. That is $14 per hour worked for a full-time employee—almost twice the federal minimum wage. The employer pays $15,000 of that, and $13,000 is paid by the worker through co-insurance, out-of-pocket charges, co-pays, deductibles, and all of the other myriad ways that the medical industrial complex extracts money from our pockets. These amounts already exceed the average hourly wage in food services and retail occupations and are increasing two times faster than the rate of wage increases for all workers, putting them on track to exceed average wages in manufacturing and other core industries within the next decade. The percentage of total health care costs paid by the worker has gone up nearly every year since it was first tracked in the 1990s. Employment-based health care is coming up upon the limits of Stein’s Law, formulated by economist Herbert Stein in 1985: “If something can’t go on forever, it will stop.”

Employment-based health care is also a major driver of wage stagnation. Every worker trades wages for health care. A recent Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans would be willing to trade 10 percent of future wage increases for a guarantee that their health care costs would not go up for five years. This puts workers and their unions at a huge bargaining disadvantage and goes a long way toward explaining why wages continue to stagnate at a time of low unemployment and growing corporate profits. 

And even the best employment-based health care is not there when we need it the most: when we lose our jobs, change jobs, go on strike, or struggle with long-term illness.

What was once a source of pride in the “union advantage” has become an anchor around the necks of the U.S. working class. No union leader in their right mind can conjure a scenario where the system of employment-based health care could be stabilized in ways that could provide sustainable health care security for workers and their families. That is why unions representing a majority of organized workers now support HR 1384 – The Medicare for All Act of 2019 and why the AFL-CIO at its 2017 convention unanimously voted to support policies to “move expeditiously to a single-payer Medicare for All system.”

Medicare for All would take health care off the bargaining table and increase union bargaining leverage in nearly every negotiation. It would allow union-sponsored health and welfare funds the opportunity to reallocate revenues currently sunk into the world’s most expensive and inefficient health care system. Savings could be applied to new “union advantage” programs such as enhanced disability benefits, supplemental unemployment benefits, tuition and training programs, legal services, child- and eldercare, and others. Some revenues could also potentially be reallocated to shore up endangered pension plans. 

Medicare for All would also provide better coverage than any employment-based plan in existence today. Opponents of Medicare for All often conflate the constricted benefits offered under today’s Medicare program after more than 50 years of underfunding and privatization attempts with the greatly expanded and improved benefits proposed under Medicare for All. HR 1384—Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Bill with 119 cosponsors—proposes to cover the following benefits without a single co-pay, deductible, or other out-of-pocket cost: 

(1)Hospital services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital care, including 24-hour-a-day emergency services and inpatient prescription drugs.

(2) Ambulatory patient services.

(3) Primary and preventive services, including chronic disease management.

(4) Prescription drugs and medical devices, including outpatient prescription drugs, medical devices, and biological products.

(5) Mental health and substance abuse treatment services, including inpatient care.

(6) Laboratory and diagnostic services.

(7) Comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care.

(8) Pediatrics.

(9) Oral health, audiology, and vision services.

(10) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.

(11) Emergency services and transportation.

(12) Early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services, as described in sections 1902(a)(10)(A), 1902(a)(43), 1905(a)(4)(B), and 1905(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A); 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(a)(4)(B); 1396d(r)).

(13) Necessary transportation to receive health care services for persons with disabilities or low-income individuals (as determined by the Secretary).

(14) Long-term care services and support (as described in section 204). 

By comparison, the highly touted federal employees’ health benefit plan merely offers the choice of a number of fairly comprehensive private insurance products with the typical array of co-pays, deductibles, and narrow networks. For all of this, federal employees must kick in 28 percent of the weighted average premium for all plans. 

[Why not M4A?]

. . . However, the biggest factor by far that drives union opposition to Medicare for All is many union leaders’ fear of disrupting their political relationships. Unions are multi-issue organizations, and many of their bargaining and organizing goals are impacted by local and national political concerns. The ascendancy of a right-wing, anti-labor political regime is an existential threat to the institutional labor movement as well as to a wide range of working-class concerns. Unions routinely pull their punches in the interest of maintaining these relationships. For example, with a few notable exceptions, unions were nowhere to be seen in the 2016 Democratic Party platform fight around Medicare for All and other issues of central concern to the working class led by Bernie Sanders supporters. Enmeshed in the two-party system and with diminishing leverage, unions often see no alternative. Every election cycle is the most important one in the history of the nation, and, whatever the outcome, unions nearly always emerge weaker from each round.

This political practice engenders cynicism and apathy among union members and provides the space for right-wing populism to take root within some sections of the working class. The past decade has seen the reemergence of a refreshing political independence in some of the most dynamic sections of the labor movement. By challenging the status quo, they have inspired their members to take risks and have forced important concessions from the political establishment. Medicare for All, because it seeks to reclaim a public good on behalf of the entire working class, can be an important wedge issue in building out an independent working-class politics. 

A good read on the arguments raised by entrenched interests against M4A.

[JimmyJames 12271]

23 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What MSNBC has been doing isn't bias, it's just straight up bullshit.

They pulled the same crap in 2016 in favor of Hillary to the point where I couldn’t watch it. Maddow that year drove me nuts because those morons just couldn’t see that trump could possibly win. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

They pulled the same crap in 2016 in favor of Hillary to the point where I couldn’t watch it. Maddow that year drove me nuts because those morons just couldn’t see that trump could possibly win. 

Lee Fang at 47:47 has a good perspective on MSNBC/CNN's right wing tilt in this podcast - nutshell: theses are for-profit media companies and talking heads are representing their clients (who may be right wing). https://theintercept.com/2020/02/12/its-armageddon-time-for-the-democratic-party/

Carville has gone completely right for his corporate clients (51 minute mark). 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by washparkhorn

[bad_teammate 13303]

The braintrust grows.

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[bad_teammate 13303]

Me too, James, me too  uWu

 

 

[bad_teammate 13303]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13541]

A vote for Bernie is a vote for another 4 years of trump. Prove me wrong.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A vote for Bernie is a vote for another 4 years of trump. Prove me wrong.

Ok...Hear me out....

What if 60% of the people voted for Bernie and 40% voted for Trump.

Maybe he'd win.

Crazy. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13541]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Ok...Hear me out....

What if 60% of the people voted for Bernie and 40% voted for Trump.

Maybe he'd win.

Crazy. 

That could work. Bernie will need a large number of people to vote for him even though they disagree with his beliefs. Maybe the anti trump aspect can overcome that obstacle.

I agree with this opinion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-is-risk-we-cant-run-this-moment-national-peril/

Quote

I’m sending out an SOS — Save Our System! If a Democrat doesn’t win the White House in November, our democracy will be endangered. I will vote for any Democratic nominee — even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is now the front-runner after a narrow victory in New Hampshire. But I devoutly hope Democrats do not nominate Sanders. He is a risk we cannot run at this moment of peril.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Fuck the media. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Are you seriously linking Maximum Boot to back up your statement? Do you want to share any other neocon opinions?

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

Citing Max Boot to own the bros. lol

[bad_teammate 13303]

18 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Are you seriously linking Maximum Boot to back up your statement? Do you want to share any other neocon opinions?

uh, well... how about THIS

*posts Jennifer Rubin column*

Oh uh... hmm, how about THIS

*posts Jonathan Chait column*

Oh dear oh dear, well THIS one will get you at long last!

*posts David Frum column*

CURSE YOU BERNIE BROOOOOOOOS

[Nice Guy Eddie 13541]

Dems can win with Bernie but it's the most uphill battle and the biggest chance of losing.

But I realize that some Bernie supporters would prefer Trump over other Dem options. It allows them to shake their fist at the clouds.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Dems can win with Bernie but it's the most uphill battle and the biggest chance of losing.

[406W30th 1111]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Dems can win with Bernie but it's the most uphill battle and the biggest chance of losing.

But I realize that some Bernie supporters would prefer Trump over other Dem options. It allows them to shake their fist at the clouds.

I don't prefer Trump over (basically) anyone, but I also don't believe that a centrist can win, nor do I want to compromise my beliefs for a candidate that is being championed by a bunch of libs and #neverTrump'ers who were dead wrong about 2016.

The establishment needs to go. There will be no progress with candidates like Klobuchar (who believes nothing is achievable) and Buttigieg (who doesn't believe in anything). For every Republican who claims they'd happily vote for a moderate Dem there's an 18-year old who wants to vote for a brighter future.

I will concede that it's a risk nominating someone who wants real change, but I find it hard to believe that Bernie is somehow more of a risk than it was nominating a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.