Would like to add Sherrod Brown to the list.
Also, in case you didnt know, adding the icon for twitter or G+ (or facebook) triggers a whole lot of tracking. Please don't make me use blockers on this site also.
sidd
Didn't knowingly insert that, very annoying! How do I get rid of it?
BudM
How about Tulsi Gabbard?
I still think Bernie should run again.
(https://img0.etsystatic.com/169/1/13867578/il_340x270.1079820056_t84t.jpg)
I have voted straight Dem since 1988, but I would never cast a vote for Bernie Sanders.
As late as 7:00pm on election night, FiveThirtyEight, a trusted prognosticator of the election, gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning the presidency.
I have voted straight Dem since 1988, but I would never cast a vote for Bernie Sanders.
Why not ?
Since it's now been 2 days since anybody on the "Arctic Sea Ice Forum" had anything to say about "Arctic Sea Ice", I hope I can be forgiven for pointing out that I don't give a flying fuck about who is the democratic candidate in 2020?
For every 100 posts about US domestic politics here, surely the rest of the world is allowed one, occasionally, just to express regret that this forum, which was once an interesting source of information on an issue of international interest, in the present moment, and in the future, including 3 years hence - Arctic Sea Ice - is no longer covered here.
As for whether US domestic politics is covered well here.. Well, I personally prefer to rely on sites which have staffs with 600+ years of combined experience inside the beltway, multiple PhDs, lavish entertaiment budgets, and daily, hourly contacts with the major players.
Carry on, the rest of you, relying on Buddy's regular updates on why he cannot retune a television.
Meanwhile... IJIS. Severnaya I... (I forgot),j Chukchi, methane hydrate, wind off the ice thingy, has a name..., Does anybody reading this know whether ASI area today is low or high?
One day, a professional US political operator from, say, CAP, could visit this site. Is it useful to them to have to wade through 99 uninformed US political posts to reach the one actual factual scientific update
At present, AFAICT. this site has not reported any science WRT the Arctic Sea Ice for 48hours
All of these discussions take place in the Off-Topic category and The Rest sub-category. Besides, it's hibernation time, an there simply isn't all that much to say about Arctic sea ice that can't be said in the monthly PIOMAS updates on the ASIB.
And worse of all, the posts in these threads are repetitive. I doubt anyone has changed his mind based on all these varying points of view. I keep seeing the same people always posting the same opinions. Totally useless.
Peter Daou is a propagandist and none of his assertions are legitimate, none.
For example, the 1994 crime bill won his support because of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women provisions. Compare that with Daou's later assertions that Bernie was in the pocket of the NRA.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/
It is pathetic that this clown asserts himself to be a 'progressive' when he is clearly a neoliberal establishment hack.
and a vetI personally don't care for ex-military politicians. Too easy for them to fall back to 'military solutions' that justify huge defense budgets.
Here's an oddball:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/hickenlooper-colorado-2020-democrats-842596
sidd
I suggest Stormy Daniels for vice. What could go wrong ?
sidd
And an intimate understanding of vice.
I suggest Stormy Daniels for vice. What could go wrong ?
sidd
Well, she does have good positions.
;-)
Biden leads in Iowa, 37% of respondents, N=500 likely caucus attendees.I'm seeing no indication that the DNC, or the DCCC have learned a damn thing. The wrong candidates braying the wrong message, because it worked so well in the past?
If Biden is the nominee, it would reveal that the Democratic party has learned nothing from 2016. And a recipe for low turnout.
sidd
Biden leads in Iowa, 37% of respondents, N=500 likely caucus attendees.
"16 percent backed Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 12 percent supported Sen. Bernie Sanders, 10 percent picked Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker received support from 8 percent."
Sherrod Brown not on the list.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/poll-biden-leads-iowa-democrats-854872
Full poll results:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-30b4-d5d9-ab67-fef45d120000
If Biden is the nominee, it would reveal that the Democratic party has learned nothing from 2016. And a recipe for low turnout.
sidd
Gabbard in:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html)
sidd
Some fellow who pays for a wall between Ireland and GB ;D :D ;D
Well GB might sell Northern Ireland to Ireland but I guess this is not on the conservative agenda.Some fellow who pays for a wall between Ireland and GB ;D :D ;D
living as I do less than a mile from the Irish border in what was known as the murder triangle .. I prefer no walls at all at all ;)
...[he] slammed his daughter for stereotyping her heritage for political gain!
At least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016
(WASHINGTON) — Bernie Sanders’ campaign says he has raised more than $4 million in the 12 hours since announcing his 2020 presidential campaign.
The Vermont senator said Tuesday that nearly 150,000 individuals had contributed to his Democratic bid.
Previously, the biggest first-day fundraiser in the race had been California Sen. Kamala Harris, who raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours of her campaign.
Quotean international progressive movement to combat authoritarian leaders and kleptocrats
"Make America a Democracy Again!"
Well there ya go .... a nice find.
Can we find two?
Since she announced her candidacy, Gabbard has appeared regularly on television to cycle through her talking points, many of which sound strikingly familiar to those Trump offered up on the campaign trail in 2016.
There have been some who have promoted Tulsi Gabbard for president, since she is supposedly progressive and anti-war.
Yet neither of that is true.
Before you vote Tulsi Gabbard for president, you want to read this article :
https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1QuoteSince she announced her candidacy, Gabbard has appeared regularly on television to cycle through her talking points, many of which sound strikingly familiar to those Trump offered up on the campaign trail in 2016.
She also has the vote of David Duke :
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/02/david-duke-tulsi-gabbard/
And if you are willing to spend some time, here is a very long thread on Tulsi Gabbard's "progressive" (in reality, far right) beliefs, voting record, advocacy, and actions.
Worth your time to go through this. :
https://twitter.com/pplswar/status/830210812119744512
...
So, Gabbard is still number two for me if I could vote, after Sanders. She's better and more progressive than all the others on the list, with the exception perhaps of Warren (who toes the corrupt party line too much for my taste).
Why is that list important to you Rob to rely on?
Why is that list important to you Rob to rely on?
eg in the Lifetime Overall scores @ 174th is Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria
She's behind Gabbard, Tulsi at 152nd , 151 Schiff, Adam, as well as Pelosi at 102nd.
I don't think people will use it before they are walking into the polling booth to vote - at least I hope not.
Texas Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke has been removed from a pledge he signed to reject large donations from fossil fuel PACs and executives, following a recent Sludge investigation of federal campaign finance records.Link >> https://readsludge.com/2018/12/18/beto-orourke-removed-from-no-fossil-fuel-money-pledge-following-sludge-report/
Bernie Decimates Multiple Trump Lies In Epic Video
The root of Sanders’s appeal, as Hunt points out, is his performance during the 2016 primary. He won 23 primaries, receiving more votes from people under the age of 30 than Clinton and Donald Trump combined. Some have argued, convincingly, that he won by losing: He not only pushed the Clinton campaign to the left; he pushed the Democratic Party to the left.Link >> https://newrepublic.com/article/153462/bernie-sanders-frontrunner-obviously
The Truth About Pete Buttigieg 'Hype'Bernie stands no chance despite what you may believe, I would say sorry but I'm not, :(
"What are your policies?"
"What he is doing is reflect on you what you want to hear."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zDzngcAZdE
The Gravel campaign has put out a 29-page platform. It is radical, almost a “wish list” for the left. It includes cutting the military budget by 50 percent, closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the use of drones, vowing not to invade any sovereign nation in the absence of a first strike, closing all military bases abroad, and abolishing the Senate and the electoral college. It contains many ideas that no other Democratic candidate would ever dare to mention. Bernie Sanders, Oks and Williams say, is concerned with appearing electable, and so is careful not to become too “radical.” Mike Gravel, with no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination, can say as he pleases.https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/why-i-gave-a-buck-to-mike-gravel (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/why-i-gave-a-buck-to-mike-gravel)
So their goal is this: get the 65,000 individual donations necessary to qualify Mike Gravel for the Democratic debates. The donation amounts don’t matter for the purposes of qualifying—they can be as small as $1, which is what I donated. Mike Gravel can say things on stage that Bernie Sanders would never say. He can call for completely terminating U.S. military aid to Israel. He will talk about U.S. intervention in Venezuela. He will bring a radically pacifist voice onto the debate stage and discuss the reality of what war means and why we must prioritize global peace.
Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans.
Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans.
Joe Biden is a Republican, so no problems there. ;D
It's important that as many people that say the right things make it to the debate stage, whether they can win the presidency or not. It's good if Warren, Gabbard, Gravel, Yang, and perhaps some more, make it there and get to have a say, because it's high time the Overton Window gets shoved back a bit. You can't beat Trump with the worn-out neoliberal narratives that worked two-three decades ago. Sort of.
Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time
I had nothing to do with these wrongdoings (re: slavery). My family has never received reparations from Germany or Russia. So WTF are you talking about?Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time
Same reason why Germany pays reparations. Because it's the right thing to do.
You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, if you can't even admit wrongdoings and put your money where your mouth is.
So WTF are you talking about?
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPARATIONS. The Germans displaced my entire family and then the Russians did as well. You keep saying "reparations are great," so where are my reparations? My point is you are stupid and outside of identifiable survivors of genocide (i.e. the Holocaust, which has survivors that are literally enumerated and a cast of perpetrators that are easily identifiable) they are unfeasible, and turning back the clock to 1865 on a country that has multiplied several times over in population since then, which does NOT have any living victims or perpetrators re: slavery, is a recipe for disaster.So WTF are you talking about?
Well, what can i say to that? If you really don't know why and for what Germany is paying reparations, that's on you buddy. Entirely on you. Goto school.
I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPARATIONS.
Why don't you keep on generating more votes for Trump, you have done it with me already, lol!I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPARATIONS.
Why don't you tell me?
But did Germany pay any reparations? I mean, they did that after WWI and it turned out to be a huge mistake.I demand reparations from Neven!!!! #democratlogic #whytheyalwayslose
Blah blah blahI had nothing to do with these wrongdoings (re: slavery).Why should I pay for the damages caused by slavery when my ancestors were in Europe at the time
Same reason why Germany pays reparations. Because it's the right thing to do.
You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, if you can't even admit wrongdoings and put your money where your mouth is.
Not personally no.
But what you (and everyone else, including the last immigrant to arrive in the USA) are doing now is enjoying the capitalist fruits of and the privileges of today built upon the blood sweat and tears of the slavery, racism, murder, abuse, and the disenfranchise of slaves and their African-American descendants.
You are standing upon the backs of all America's ancestors, and that very much includes the excessive Profits made from white racist criminal pathologically sick Slave Holders that otherwise would never have occurred and helped to build the wealth of the nation in which you live today.
edit of B_ for better clarity ...
You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, by remaining a white racist denying the immorality of the past and it's serious impacts upon all the descendants of slaves in the present.
But did Germany pay any reparations? I mean, they did that after WWI and it turned out to be a huge mistake.
edit of B_ for better clarity ...
You will never get rid of the problem, in this case racism, by remaining a white racist denying the immorality of the past and it's serious impacts upon all the descendants of slaves in the present.
But did Germany pay any reparations? I mean, they did that after WWI and it turned out to be a huge mistake.
Yes, some historians do make the claim that the burden of WWI reparations on Weimar Germany caused Hitler to rise.
I would say WWI reparations were a non-problem like Trump's caravan was. Hitler made people believe it was a problem.
And yes, reparations after WWII is a thing. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_reparations#Recipients
But did Germany pay any reparations? I mean, they did that after WWI and it turned out to be a huge mistake.I demand reparations from Neven!!!! #democratlogic #whytheyalwayslose
Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans.
AOC is a brain-dead moron and embracing her politics will LITERALLY be the end of the Democrats.Hating on Democrats will elect Republicans.
You mean like Pelosi and others of the corporate dems doing everything possible to marginalize and sideline our young progressive AOC? Like the DNC demanding loyalty? Yeah, that's a great approach. Throw out everything Gen X, Y and millennials care about for more of the same (disaffection with the same was what got us Trump). This is what I criticize my party over--the inability to think about the challenges young people are facing. They are catastrophic and urgent, much more so than Trump's tax returns, Russian intervention and gun control which dominate the agenda. Unchecked climate change will cost billions every year and kill 10s to 100s of thousands. Yet when the Green New Deal is discussed, it's done in the light of ensuring it never sees the light of day to placate who? The money makers? Certainly not the progressives who would drive an agenda focused on a better life and future. It's fucking crumbs, Susan. That's the corporate dem policy. Placate them with crumbs. What ever happened to truth to power?
Agreed, we need 1000 AOCs. The more diverse the people with principles we have, the better. Everything is better than Corporate Democrats.AOC killed Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. She does not understand basic economics. Subsidies were to be given but the revenue generated from 40K new jobs at $100K avg salary a yr would have more than outpaced and given massive new revenue stream to LIC. It was a total disaster and it was largely her fault.
BTW, is there snow in your head, bbr, and has spring started early where you live?
AOC killed Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. She does not understand basic economics. Subsidies were to be given but the revenue generated from 40K new jobs at $100K avg salary a yr would have more than outpaced and given massive new revenue stream to LIC. It was a total disaster and it was largely her fault.
AOC killed Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. She does not understand basic economics.
Agreed, we need 1000 AOCs. The more diverse the people with principles we have, the better. Everything is better than Corporate Democrats.
Out of curiosity Bbr, for what reasons/issues would you support him?He is a moderate and appears uninterested in tax hikes or other schemes that would damage the economy. In fact his lack of specifics / overall moderate + status quo sensibilities are why I support him, as Sanders + Warren are full of pie in the sky nonsense that (IMO) would also be damaging to the US economy and civil cohesion.
Am i right that you would describe yourself as a right-leaning centrist, Bbr?Anything "free" is never "free", Warren's college debt forgiveness plan is an insult to the people who actually paid for college, as well as the people who have paid off their loans, as well as the people who didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. It is the most juvenile and divisive form of pandering I have seen yet this election cycle.
May i ask what the 'pie in the sky nonsense' is you are opposing so badly and why it wouldn't work for the US?
Not asking for an essay of you but a couple of concrete points perhaps.
Otherwise I am staunchly against "big government" as I find that government's main purpose is to perpetuate and expand its own existence rather than to benefit the people which it purportedly serves.
This is a deeply entrenched social meme in American culture. It's quite unique in the civilised world and has been for centuries. Because it is deeply believed in and accepted by such a large percentage of society it's generally accepted as such an obvious truth as to be undeniable to 'anyone with a brain'.
As such anyone who might quote a few facts or history or relevant comparisons will be subsequently dispatched as a moron without a brain. Thus it's persisted for centuries and has not changed.
The Americans learn this default "socially engrained meme" from the moment they are sitting on their mothers knee for it to be reconditioned into them at church, at school, at work, on the TV and it's reinforced throughout their life. Subsequently to poison their own children's minds and successfully dumb them down too.
It's a myth and it's a social, cultural lie a majority still believe is true. Many are still living in the 1770s where any moment now a Red Coat will be bursting through your homestead door looking for insurgency materials against the King.
It's one of the most amazing but fraudulent social constructs/beliefs in the whole world. It's as persistent a myth as young earth creationism, the denial of evolution, and the denial of climate science is in America ... being the global the capital of such beliefs btw.
And the people who believe in such tripe are not going away anytime soon. They are highly motivated voters too. Their whole world views and their personal IDENTITY depends on the truth of these myths, these lies.
I do indeed support healthcare for all
Except you do not.
Nor do you support any kind of Medicare for All / Universal coverage arrangement in America (as it exists in every other civilised nation be they wealthy or not).
This is abundantly clear and obvious. You're not alone either.
An initial consultation with a GP doctor will cost in the range of $100 – $200 in the USA.
OK, so how much will Medicare for All pay those Doctors for a 10-15 minute consultation?
$200? No. $150? No. $100? Probably no. Maybe more like $75 if they are lucky.
How many GP Doctors in the USA are going to accept $75 or less? How many clinics and hospitals will accept that fee payment?
The Medicare schedule in Australia NZ will pay the doctor about $39 = $30 USD
Where are all the details of the medical services price schedules that a Medicare for All system will pay out to Doctors, specialists, hospitals and drug companies?
How many have agreed to accept those fee payments for services? Oh that'd be none.
Apparently some democrats incl Bernie have said Private Health insurance will no longer be required. Really? How so. My Sinai Hospital suddenly going to become a Public Hospital is it? Charging public rates?
Let's say you broke your ankle really badly and show up at a US hospital late in the afternoon on a Friday. How will the new USA Medicare for All system handle that?
(How does the present system work even more interesting to answer that?)
In Australia this is what typically happens - turn up at a public hospital funded by Medicare and the State Govt, seen by a nurse within 3 minutes, seen by the admissions doctor within 15 minutes, admitted to hospital within 30 minutes in the emergency dept., paperwork and all, within 1 hour later all major medical tests done incl X-rays and safety checks for surgery, and seen by the anaesthetists on duty for planning purposes. Stay overnight, in surgery full anaesthetic by noon the next day, ankle fixed, recovery, with ongoing checks overnight. Leave hospital the next day after surgery with a pouch of medicine and out patient follow-up care all arranged.... and a doctors medical certificate for work purposes.
Total Cost to Patient = Zero.
Follow-up care including one's own local GP and Physcial Therapy costs = Zero. Zip Nada!
Personal cost to patient annually is their normal Taxes plus a 1.25% Medicare Levy of their Gross Income over and above $22,000 per annum.
Bernie, the rest of Democrats and the people calling for Medicare for All in the USA don't have a hope in hell.
None!
The track record of the government providing improved services at reduced costs is not encouraging.
There's nothing personal in the above. I know of one example story of a man in arkansas who broke his ankle. He had a car accident, totalled his car and had to walk / drag himself home. Had no health care plan and a several months later he died from his injuries. Died from a broken ankle. Ain't that sweet?
Rather than address such realities in a mature grown up rational and factual manner instead what comes for "discussions" about US lack of Health Care are vague generalities. Mythical (ie fake) generalities. Pseudo discussions about the efficacy of big bad "Government" even though in the USA they claim the Govt is of, for and BY the people. Yeah right. Sure it is when you're "dreaming".
People argue about lies. People argue about their false beliefs fed to them by politicians and the media and their parents and their dishonest biased and very often untrue history books. It's par for the course. Look what came from Clinton's great project in 93, fell flat on it's face, because both sides of US politics are a bunch of incompetents and fools.... except when it comes to serving their donor class of class, then they are brilliant actors.
It's par for the course of course. Be it military adventurism, regime change everywhere but inside the USA, manipulative geopolitics, corrupt bs trade deals, inaction on climate change, bailing out of the Paris agreement, oil and gas fracking that will ultimately destroy the land for generations.
Hey look over there we have to save those poor Venezuelans, it's a humanitarian disaster and they are run by a socialist dictator who is evil as sin. America is a joke and has been for decades!
There's no point in arguing with drunks, addicts, religious fanatics, or fools. Let them have it. Let them do what they want. And let them believe what they want and reap their just rewards, is what I say. I am not here to "save America" or help them see the light of reason and common sense, oh no, I am simply speak to alert those outside it to stop worrying about it or believing one day it might change.
No, you're on your own, your nation and the rest are on your own so you may as well start acting like it and trying to do whatever positive thing you can about AGW/CC (eg Extinction Rebellion) and juts forget about the USA entirely. You will never be able to satisfy their delusional beliefs about reality. Don't even try. Health Care is a lightening rod to see how crazy and disconnected from reality they truly are. :D
Ford at blackagendareport argues that Sanders will be stopped:
"it’s simply the job of corporate Democrats to defend corporate interests"
"the Democratic Party has become the ruling class’s most important political instrument"
"will thwart his campaign – by any means necessary."
https://blackagendareport.com/stop-sanders-year-corporate-long-knives
sidd
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke labeled climate change "the greatest threat we face" as he called for $5 trillion to be spent over the next decade with the goal of neutralizing carbon emissions in the U.S. by midcentury.
The former Texas congressman's plan is among the most detailed of the crowded Democratic 2020 field, but it does not define how it would achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its goal for getting the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 also aligns with the ambitious aims of the "Green New Deal," a lofty set of climate priorities advanced by activists and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
O'Rourke said he wanted the government and private sector to spend $5 trillion over 10 years on clean energy infrastructure, framing the investment as a way to limit significant future economic and health costs caused by climate change while addressing racial, generational and economic inequities.
Trump on Biden, Sanders: Biden not leftist enuf
"I think Biden would be easier "
"One thing I do have in common with Bernie is trade"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/02/donald-trump-joe-biden-not-radical-left-enough-win-democrats/
sidd
Unfortunately, I fear the Democratic powers that be would rather lose with Biden than win with Sanders.
Unfortunately, I fear the Democratic powers that be would rather lose with Biden than win with Sanders.
... because they are paid by the same people than the other party. The donors dictate politics, no matter which party is elected. Only a candidate not taking corporate money can break this system.
I disagree. I feel that the Democratic powers believe they can win with Biden, and not Sanders. Tying him to Obama will be a big plus in his campaign, and gives him a huge advantage over the other candidates. At this point, I feel that there will not be a brokered convention, and he will win the required number of delegates in advance. The 15% threshold for allocating delegates during the primary is likely to diminish the delegate count for the contenders.
It's time to end all subsidies for oil and gas companies.
These companies lied to the American people about the very existence of climate change. They committed one of the greatest frauds in our history.
When we are in White House we'll rapidly transition to renewable energy.
But party reforms have also led to the increased use of primaries in 2020. Specifically, the DNC delegate-selection rules now say that state parties should try to use government-run primaries if they are available. And if a state party doesn’t have that option, party-run events (including caucuses) are required to allow absentee or early voting and same-day voter registration, plus implement procedures for recounts. For a state such as Washington, which was by far the largest caucus state by population in 2016, it was much easier to meet these rule changes by using Washington’s government-run primary than by adapting its caucuses.
Of course, increased voter turnout could change which candidates benefit — or suffer — from that voting system. “The conventional wisdom is that caucuses favor more ideological candidates,” said Kamarck. Understandably, then, of the 2020 Democratic presidential field, Sanders is the candidate who’s often named as most likely to take a hit. In 2016, he won all 10 caucus states that are moving to some type of primary in 2020, though the field was far smaller in 2016, when most caucuses were head-to-head matchups between Sanders and Clinton. That said, Sanders probably owes some of his success in the caucuses to the fact that these low-turnout events tend to reward candidates who have strongly ideological and deeply committed supporters, and the move toward more primaries could erode that advantage.
Let's talk about the candidate who can beat Trump...
...
There is a big disconnect in Democratic politics right now. On the one hand, a majority of Democratic primary voters are backing Biden at this early date—not because he lines up with their policy preferences, but because they believe he’s the safest and most electable choice.
Meanwhile, we continue to see stories of Trump voters gravitating not toward centrist candidates like Biden, but toward more progressive politicians like Elizabeth Warren and even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Take this excerpt from Politico, for instance:
"It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president — some wearing MAGA stickers — nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren.
The sighting alone of a Democratic presidential candidate in this town of fewer than 400 people — in a county where more than four in five voters cast their ballot for Trump in 2016 — was unusual. Warren’s team was apprehensive about how she’d be received."
One hallmark of these types of voters is that they strongly distrust politicians and the political system in general, believing that all politicians tell people whatever they want to hear while actually doing the bidding of special interest groups. They believe, not entirely incorrectly, that the whole system is corrupt. They despise partisan bickering—not because they believe that Congress needs more “moderate” peacemakers, but because they believe the bickering is an artifact of corrupt interest groups setting their lackeys against one another. When they say they want less partisanship, that doesn’t mean they want politicians from both sides of the aisle to come together to enact moderate policies. Many of these voters, after all, are not that informed about policy nuances or where the parties stand: some don’t even know which political party is the stronger defender of Medicare! Rather, they want politicians who they view as authentically placing the interests of real people ahead of corrupt special interests. The policy specifics are secondary to that. One of the great ironies of the 2016 election is that the famously corrupt and probably financially compromised Donald Trump somehow convinced a large number of people that he was so rich that he couldn’t be bought, and knew where all the loopholes were.
This is where candidates like Warren and Ocasio-Cortez can make a serious dent in Trump’s base. By being authentically themselves and speaking in plain English about the problems facing Americans, by talking clearly about the ways the wealthy warp the political system and exposing their opponents as corrupted agents of special interest money, they have a better shot than most at peeling off what few persuadable cross-pressured voters remain in the electorate. They can also inspire non-voters who have given up on the political system to give it one more chance. They likely have a much better chance of doing so than nominating moderate politicians who carefully parse their words and speak only in the most carefully poll-tested language.
It may well be, in other words, that Democrats have been getting electability wrong for decades now, and that the biggest obstacle facing Democratic voters is their mistaken belief in a silent majority of voters more conservative than themselves. It may well be that the same candidates who appeal authentically to progressive emotional sensibilities will also appeal to the voters Democrats most need to persuade in the purple districts and states they need to win. At the same time, they might just be the ones to bring out people who otherwise wouldn’t vote at all.
It may well be, in other words, that Democrats have been getting electability wrong for decades now,
That's a good analysis, Rich.
Let me add, IMHO voter turnout will win or lose this election. When the Democratic candidate is Biden, young voters and progressives will not vote at all. American lefties are sick and tired of voting for the lesser evil. They want a reasonable candidate for once. One, they can burn for, or else they will just not bother to show up on election day.
Let's imagine this for a minute, where the world moves on, and orange Mussolini gets 4 more years of destroying the American economy, agro-sector, trade relationships, allies, etc. A world that has moved on to mostly renewable energy and the US still in the fossil world, how will America catch up? The county is no more competitive. This means a downward spiral from there on.
In this scenario Lurk, the time runs out for the US and i can't see that as a positive thing.
Let's imagine this for a minute, where the world moves on, and orange Mussolini gets 4 more years of destroying the American economy, agro-sector, trade relationships, allies, etc. A world that has moved on to mostly renewable energy and the US still in the fossil world, how will America catch up? The county is no more competitive. This means a downward spiral from there on.
In this scenario Lurk, the time runs out for the US and i can't see that as a positive thing.
Besdies my other comments which lay out a very possible (I'd say more likely) scenario to come,
the thing I didn't include was the #1 Problem all those who dream of a Progressive wave or Bernie totlaly ignore and have no answe to.
It is UN-Patriotic and UN-American to criticise or Vote out of Office a sitting U.S. President during War Time. It's never happened before and it won't happen in 2020 either.
Best Case Map for Bernie - Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump 2020 Map Prediction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EikX7HKjuoo
Sorry, i fail to see the point you are making Kat. Do you think, Bernie has to expect more votes than estimated in the video?
Kat, you are the one confronting people when they cherry-pick. Could it be you are cherry picking right now yourself?
The title of the video is 'best case' scenario, right? I'm not saying the video is 100% correct and he is making the right assumption for every state. But assumptions made are not unreasonable. There is a lot of time until the elections. A lot will happen.
So basically Biden’s campaign team hid him away for q0 days to limit his exposure and on his very first day back he does this:
In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
QuoteSo basically Biden’s campaign team hid him away for q0 days to limit his exposure and on his very first day back he does this:QuoteIn a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, “I’ll bet you’re as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greg06897/status/1133513917681098752
Note that the financial "bailout" was loans that, overall, were repaid with interest. The taxpayer made a net profit. And the world avoided a domino effect of bank failures that would have made the Great Recession look like a picnic.If all the banks needed were loans the Federal Reserve would have supplied the money and congress would not have been involved. That is what the Federal Reserve does is loan banks money. Banks made a lot of loans to people they knew couldn't afford them. They didn't care if people borrowed too much money because they bundled them up with good loans and sold them on the market as mortgage backed securities. They made more money in fees the more people borrowed. As long as the security didn't go below the original loan amount, its called breaking the buck, the financial institutions were fine. Once it did they were responsible for the difference. The banks knew this mess would hit them so they donated a record amount to politicians the previous election cycle. When it became obvious to wall street that these mortgage backed securities had too many bad loans in them the market turned down and Lehman brothers was the first institution to owe more money on these securities then the company was worth and they went bankrupt. Problem is these mortgage backed securities were repackaged with each repackaging the financial institutions made more money but also became liable if the security broke the buck. Once one firm went down all institutions that made these securities would go bankrupt. The next day congress gets a huge and complex bailout package to vote on that was clearly created long before the previous day. Before congress is allowed to look at the bill they are asked to vote on it without debate. The bailout basically had the banks identify the questionable loans and sell them to Fredie Mac. Fredie Mac is a quasi-government institution and congress footed the bill. That was the troubled asset relief program. While not all of those loans defaulted and some money was recovered by foreclosing.
It strikes me we need a 'economics in the context of climate change' thread Interstitial. ;)Well it was closer than ocean...
Taking the freedom to x-post this interesting post from Interstitial to give it it's designated home.
“As Democrats, if we don’t define a clear space between us and socialism, we run the risk of helping to reelect the worst president in American history,”
BOOOOOOO
Hickenlooper booed at #CADem19 for attacking socialism, which he surely expected
This is not the first time a Biden presidential campaign has been interrupted with a plagiarism scandal. In 1988, his bid for the presidency was sunk by accusations that he plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock.
Over the past eight months, climate change has shot up as a core Democratic issue in polls. Murray noted that while it certainly came up during the 2016 presidential primary and was discussed on the sidelines in 2018, this year marks a noticeable shift.
“If we look at 2016 and even 2018 among Democratic voters, there was a whole host of issues, and climate change was, ‘by the way, what do you think of that?’” Murray said. “It’s no longer an add-on, it’s become a core issue for many voters.”
The campaign of Democratic presidential contender Jay Inslee reports that the Democratic Party has also told him that if he participates in anyone else’s climate change debate, he will be barred from future debates.
Does Ocasio-Cortes' $10,000,000,000,000.00 price tag make her more or less likely to win, ASIFers?
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/447077-ocasio-cortez-10-trillion-needed-for-effective-climate-plan
ALSO: Elizabeth Warren's plan:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-green-manufacturing-plan-for-america-fc0ad53ab614
In this same scenario, respondents predict that cumulative private investment in U.S. renewable energy projects, as well as related investment in enabling grid technology, could hit $1 trillion between 2018 and 2030.
Policy Signals and Market Factors will Drive Investment
As with any investment class, renewable energy investors seek long-term policy certainty. The solar and wind industries already know existing tax credits remain on schedule to phase out after 2021, and federal policy signals will remain important to long-term investor confidence.
Investors say federal action to address climate externalities through carbon pricing and/or a technology-neutral tax credit for zero-carbon electricity generation could encourage growth, which is promising considering the increasing conservative support for a national carbon tax. However, state action is likely to also play a significant role in stimulating demand through ambitious renewable portfolio standards along with siting and permitting process reforms.
Also, AOC isn't running for President. She's only 29 so won't be eligible to serve as President (and thus won't be a candidate for Vice President either) until 2028. The US constitution requires people serving as President to be at least 35 years old.
She's one of the sponsors of the Green New Deal, so she's pushing the candidates to get more aggressive about their plans to address climate change.
A nationwide Fox News poll released Sunday shows President Donald Trump trailing Senator Bernie Sanders, 49% to 40% among all registered voters nationwide.
The Fox poll also showed Biden leading Trump by 49% to 39%. Also beating Trump in the poll were Senators Elizabeth Warren (43%-41%) and Kamala Harris (42%-41%), and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (41%-40%) of South Bend, Indiana.
Now, given the gerrymandering, voter purge, electoral college and all the other anti-democratic measures put in place to favour the Republicans, a Democratic nominee would need a 5-10 points lead over Trump to win the election.
Kat, who are you trying to kid??
Clinton had 3mio more votes in 2016. Don't tell me the electoral college is democratic.
The voter outcome is a function of money paid for campaigns in like 95% of the time. In the US, you are not elected, but you buy your office.
The US election system is inherently undemocratic and corrupt. It's a sham.
If you don't see that yourself, i can't help you, really! Listen to an expert. Chomsky for example.
I am not refusing your money allegation, but that was not part of your previous claim of undemocratic.
First: Nate Silver is an utter moron and knows about politics as much as the president knows about sea ice.
Second: Guess who had more votes than Trump. Perhaps the polls weren't so wrong? Perhaps the process is undemocratic?
It doesn’t matter how democratic it is or isn’t. You project the results based on the game you are playing.
Tom, you need to listen to the guy. I listened to his podcast quite a lot. I trust him when it comes to numbers and stats. But when he talks politics, you think you are listening to a 16yo.QuoteIt doesn’t matter how democratic it is or isn’t. You project the results based on the game you are playing.
Democracy is when everyone has a vote and all votes are equal. If one person has the equivalent of many votes, that ain't a democratic anymore. The game is called differently now.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
In the democracy you describe, if a majority of the citizens wish to kill everyone who speaks with a lisp, so be it.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Your fellow countryman tell me all the time the US is a democracy. What's correct now?
The US is an oligarchy. And yes, a republic can also be an oligarchy.QuoteIn the democracy you describe, if a majority of the citizens wish to kill everyone who speaks with a lisp, so be it.
No, not in the slightest. This statement so far off i don't even intend to answer it.
BREAKING: Moments ago, the Maine House joined the Maine Senate and PASSED President @SenTroyJackson’s bill to expand Ranked Choice Voting for presidential elections! @rcvmaine #RCV4POTUS #mepoliticsLink >> https://twitter.com/rcvmaine/status/1141372979701587969?s=19
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Your fellow countryman tell me all the time the US is a democracy. What's correct now?
The US is an oligarchy. And yes, a republic can also be an oligarchy.QuoteIn the democracy you describe, if a majority of the citizens wish to kill everyone who speaks with a lisp, so be it.
No, not in the slightest. This statement so far off i don't even intend to answer it.
As you (briefly) described it, that is a "democracy". Perhaps you could go into more detail on how people who thpeak with a lithp would be protected in your Utopia.
And by your standards, has there ever been a "democracy" (at least one that is not an oligarchy as well)?
A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule by people") is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting.
A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central federal government (federalism).
Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. The percentage of the population that actually participated in the government was 10% to 20% of the total number of inhabitants, but this varied from the fifth to the fourth century BC. This excluded a majority of the population: slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (foreigners resident in Athens). The women had limited rights and privileges, had restricted movement in public, and were very segregated from the men.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. In the democracy you describe, if a majority of the citizens wish to kill everyone who speaks with a lisp, so be it.
No system of government is perfect except a true Theocracy, and that won't be until the Parousia.
Given that we have two geriatric candidates leading the field for the dems (Bernie and Biden), and an obese geriatric incumbent, what are the odds that the next term's president might either have to step down due to illness or die in post?
OK, if not Athens, then who (if anyone)?
OK, if not Athens, then who (if anyone)?
The voters in Crimea, first in their vote to be independent of the Ukraine, then in their subsequent vote to join the Russian Federation.
The voters in The Boliverian Republic of Venezuela - after Chavez introduced constitutional changes (including the right of recall).
Possibly the Brexit voters who voted against the position held by most of their MPs.
Democracy isn't dead - They just don't always vote in the way we think that they should have. ::)
Terry
We don't always see eye to eye, but I agree with lumenkraft 110% on this.
Watch out, Big Oil. Jay Inslee’s back at it again with a greenhouse gas fee.
By Zoya Teirstein on Jun 24, 2019
Adding to his growing stack of policies aimed at averting the climate crisis, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, one of the 23 Democrats running for president, announced Monday the fourth part of his Climate Mission. No other candidate has released as many proposals centered on warming — but then again, no other candidate is trying to win the right to face Donald Trump on a platform solely centered on it.
Inslee’s Freedom from Fossil Fuels plan seeks to establish a new national energy strategy — and it provides a blueprint for kneecapping the fossil fuel industry. It’s comprised of 16 policy initiatives grouped under ambitious priorities like phasing out fossil fuel production, ending the $20 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, and beefing up corporate transparency. This is the most fleshed out candidate strategy for how the federal government can ease the United States off of fossil fuels and onto renewables.
But not all of the climate initiatives the governor has either offered or backed have been successful in Washington state. And one of them, a carbon price, has failed three times in various forms. Which is why the inclusion of a “climate pollution fee” in the Freedom from Fossil Fuels plan is curious. After all, it hearkens back to Inslee’s highest-profile failures in this arena.
Inslee’s perseverance might be a good thing. Some environmentalists, like OG climate hawk James Hansen, have argued that a carbon tax is essential. And a slew of oil companies, CEOs of major corporations, and Republican economists agree.
So let’s take a closer look at this “fee” as the governor likes to call it.
The Democrat says he would work with Congress to set the price, which would start low and rise “steadily and aggressively over time.” (For reference, the latest ballot initiative in Washington state, which failed to pass last year, began at $15 per ton of carbon.) The fee would only apply to certain economic sectors, though Inslee doesn’t say which sectors will get tapped. And it appears that the money generated by the fee would go towards things like transitioning to a green economy, supporting front-line and low-income communities struggling with the aftermath of climate disaster, and spurring economic development.
A new twist in Inslee’s plan is that carbon dioxide isn’t the only pollutant regulated by this proposal. Methane, F-gases (synthetic gases used as refrigerants, among other things, that can stay in the atmosphere for centuries) and other greenhouse gases will also get a fee, priced by the risks each gas poses. And lest we forget that American’s aren’t only consuming products produced by U.S. companies, Inslee’s plan also proposes a “carbon duty,” to be imposed on imports of products manufactured or grown in countries that don’t adhere to the new and beefed up Paris agreement his third policy rollout proposed.
Democrat candidates pushing old, poor climate policy:
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/06/2020-clean-power-plan/
The Obama rule could be reinstated by a new President on January 20, 2021 without needing new laws or comment periods.
So good to see you back Terry!Thanks Bruce
After watching the debates i see that Bernie has already won significant advance. Even Dem corporate lackeys now feel the need to at least pay lip service to left wing of Democrats.
sidd
Sjursen likes Gabbard:
"the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-tulsi-effect-forcing-war-onto-the-democratic-agenda/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-tulsi-effect-forcing-war-onto-the-democratic-agenda/)
sidd
My skeptics often accuse me of being boring, of hammering the same themes. They’re probably right. It's never made sense to me that a few people have incredible wealth and power while most have none.
Should we ever achieve justice, I promise I’ll write some new speeches.
I started this thread quite a while ago. I like Bernie, Harris, Warren and Biden. What is the best matchup with Trump? It's high time for the first woman in history to become President. However, the best candidate to go head to head against the Trumpster is Biden, IMO. Biden is a centrist, and I think he has the best shot at beating Trump.
Do I want student loan forgiveness? Yes! Do I want Medicare for all? Yes! Do I like AOC and the Squad? Absolutely! All that being said, the likelihood of both ideas coming to pass in the next four to eight years is pretty low.
It seems to me the further left the Democrats go, the further right the Republicans go. That's why i think a centrist Democrat like Biden has the best chance of winning in 2020. With one caveat! Biden is not a good campaigner and tends to shoot himself in the foot. Still, I think he's our best bet.
Would Biden be better than Trump when it comes to the environment?If the economy tanks by early 2020 and unemployment is rising strongly by summer.......
Would his surviving son help him in making these decisions?
Who would fund Biden's campaign?
How many will just stay home?
Terry
In a similar vein my preferred is suing Google!
https://tomluongo.me/2019/07/26/gabbard-google-censorship-election/ (https://tomluongo.me/2019/07/26/gabbard-google-censorship-election/)
Tulsi Gabbard claims they violated election code by:
1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and
2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.
This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.
Terry
Apparently Tulsi hit one out of the park in the last debate. Was that the impression here?
Terry
Apparently Tulsi hit one out of the park in the last debate. Was that the impression here?
Terry
I look for more than a one-hit-wonder.....
Missing sir Sidd!Ramen !!
Apparently Tulsi hit one out of the park in the last debate. Was that the impression here?
Terry
The difference is, Sanders means it.
The others are paying lip service.
At this point it's narrowing down to 3 candidates.
Biden, Bernie and Warren.
Harris is a formidable politician, but not enough cred. No one else has a chance.
If Warren manages to beat Bernie in IA and NH, Bernie will drop out and go balls to the wall in support of her. No way Biden beats the combined efforts of the two of them.
Would Warren do the same for Bernie? Not so sure.
AOC is going to jump on the train at the optimal moment.
Bernie is the right choice. He is the guy who will turn up the populist heat in the White House. He is the one who wants the bully pulpit and knows how to use it.
If Warren gets the nomination Trump is guaranteed a second term.
Kamala Harris is probably my favorite now, Biden is acceptable, Buttigieg is also fine. If Sanders or Warren get the nom, my decision will be easy.
BBR, so if Sanders or Warren get the Democratic nomination, you're going to vote for ? (Trump)???Probably
I am less disturbed by their rhetoric than what is coming out of the left
while Democrats are interested in taking from other people
I am less disturbed by their rhetoric than what is coming out of the left
WOW.
We have an openly racist president with the IQ of a 5yo and you are less disturbed by him than all this chant for MFA from the left.Quotewhile Democrats are interested in taking from other people
How dare they not giving all the taxes to the super-rich, eh?
You are ignoring that you will pay the bill. This deficit is also your deficit.
See, Bbr, this is why i can't take you seriously when it comes to politics. You just repeat the FoxNews bullshit you hear all day and don't use a single brain cell of yours to scrutinise the corporate propaganda. That's so pathetic.
I hope people reading this ^ know why Harris and Biden are his favourites.Because they are moderates...?
Both are talking to people like him, our political opponents.
Thanks, Bbr, for making this point so clear.
IDK what you are trying to prove or do
You are moderate, aren't you? Unaware this is the politics that destroy the planet, that kills people, that's racist and bigot.Are you aware that aerosols are the only thing keeping us from blowing past levels of warming that would be completely catastrophic...?QuoteIDK what you are trying to prove or do
I know you don't know. :)
The Dems don't bring up every detail of climate science on the debate stages and therefore you consider voting for the climate change denier. Sure, makes total sense......that is not what I said.... you think any of them know about the aerosol masking effect on warming? OK, you keep thinking that.
You are discrediting yourself so damn hard, Bbr, it's amazing.
...that is not what I said....
Three Minutes Of Joe Biden Getting Owned At The DebateThis is literally just cannon fodder for 2020... a long, drawn-out Democratic Primary is the worst thing possible for a D victory in 2020 and it is increasingly looking like that is exactly what we are going to see. There is no party unity, there is no sense of urgency about defeating Trump, the same mistakes in 2016 are being repeated in an even more egregious manner this campaign cycle.
Biden is getting told what he did in the past, and you can see him regretting it. Lovely to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd3r4IRyT0
You are missing my point: whether the Democrats acknowledge climate change or not, ignorance regarding the aerosol issues make any claims they are making, or possible solutions, equally as moot as Trump's denial of climate change altogether. It is like saying that a patient with cancer is better treated by a masseuse than a holistic practitioner. Neither solution is relevant or helpful......that is not what I said....
This is exactly what you said. You stated above you will probably vote for the climate change denier while smearing Dems for not knowing as much about climate science than you. That you don't see this cognitive dissonance is stunning to me.
Bbr, you have nothing to say about who the Democratic nominee for 2020 should be. Absolutely nothing. :)I said it should be Harris, Biden, or Buttigieg...
I'd say the Democrat would say it is awful and that EVERYONE need to reduce their consumption etc., both other people and themselves. While the republican would say he knows it exists, but he prefers to officially deny it while having other people unknowingly foot the bill. But I bow to your superior knowledge.Why does Al Gore have a 7K sqft mansion, why does Leo have a private jet, why does Bernie fly first class, etc? They say blah blah blah and they do whatever they do, they don't really have anything in common.
Wow, and all this time I thought fossil fuels were the type of consumption most environmentally destructive and that it's they that should be tariffed, including those extracted domestically. Of course, I now realize consumer electronics (only those from abroad, specifically from China) are the main culprit. Kudos to Trump.
Why does Oren drive a car, and still calls for very high taxes on gasoline? Hypocrite who wants only others to reduce consumption? Or someone who knows what the right (partial) solution is, even if it will hurt him as much as others.
BBR, so if Sanders or Warren get the Democratic nomination, you're going to vote for ? (Trump)???Probably
BBR, when I asked that question, I really didnt expect the answer you gave.
I'm sure you're aware that he doesnt believe in AGW?
I'm in Vegas at a small venue waiting for Bernie to show in ~ 1 hour.It's good to know you are as adept at wasting time in your day-to-day life as you are when posting on this forum. ;D ;D ;D
The event is meant to be focused on employment matters, but I'm planning to throw in a question on climate change if I get a chance.
Nice thing about being in NV is that it's an early state where the primary vote counts :)
In 2015, I was shopping from SF to Reno on weekends to canvas for Bernie.
I'm in Vegas at a small venue waiting for Bernie to show in ~ 1 hour.It's good to know you are as adept at wasting time in your day-to-day life as you are when posting on this forum. ;D ;D ;D
The event is meant to be focused on employment matters, but I'm planning to throw in a question on climate change if I get a chance.
Nice thing about being in NV is that it's an early state where the primary vote counts :)
In 2015, I was shopping from SF to Reno on weekends to canvas for Bernie.
Three Minutes Of Joe Biden Getting Owned At The DebateThis is literally just cannon fodder for 2020... a long, drawn-out Democratic Primary is the worst thing possible for a D victory in 2020 and it is increasingly looking like that is exactly what we are going to see. There is no party unity, there is no sense of urgency about defeating Trump, the same mistakes in 2016 are being repeated in an even more egregious manner this campaign cycle.
Biden is getting told what he did in the past, and you can see him regretting it. Lovely to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd3r4IRyT0
<snipped>
People also have found memories of Obama, which benefits Biden, and not many of the other candidates, who appeared to attack his policies in the most recent debates.
<snipped>
People also have found memories of Obama, which benefits Biden, and not many of the other candidates, who appeared to attack his policies in the most recent debates.
Do you find the bolded true in your state/ region?
Is this just Democrats, or the entire spectrum of voters?
Would any of the candidates benefit from an Obama endorsement? - How about a nod from 1 or both of the Clintons?
Thanks
Terry
Barack might fancy a spot on the Supreme Court.<snipped>
People also have found memories of Obama, which benefits Biden, and not many of the other candidates, who appeared to attack his policies in the most recent debates.
Do you find the bolded true in your state/ region?
Is this just Democrats, or the entire spectrum of voters?
Would any of the candidates benefit from an Obama endorsement? - How about a nod from 1 or both of the Clintons?
Thanks
Terry
<snipped>
People also have found memories of Obama, which benefits Biden, and not many of the other candidates, who appeared to attack his policies in the most recent debates.
Do you find the bolded true in your state/ region?
Is this just Democrats, or the entire spectrum of voters?
Would any of the candidates benefit from an Obama endorsement? - How about a nod from 1 or both of the Clintons?
Thanks
Terry
In an ideal world, Warren. Unfortunately, we live in the almost polar opposite of ideal. In the world in which we live, the first and only priority must be to defeat Trump. Therefore, Biden. He's too old and too old-school, but he'll be the most difficult for Trump to demonize (from the point of view of his white nationalist, sexist base), and therefore the most likely to win. Biden is good enough, and compared to Trump he's an angel. Or at least sane.
Latest Reuters poll, post 2nd debate. Sanders 18%, edging up on Biden at 22%. All others in single digits.
There were just enough voters who wanted to break the establishment to put Trump over Clinton and into the WH in 2016.
Trump broke all of the rules of decorum, but he played ball with McConnell and the transfer of wealth to the rich only accelerated with the tax bill.
Sanders is the guy who will go balls to the wall to break the cycle of inequality. The demand for an anti-establishment figure is still huge.
I can't imagine how a wooden campaigner like Biden is going to hold off Sanders for another 6 months, especially with Warren pounding a similar message. He's not offering anything exciting and visionary for the future.
Bernie's got a hell of a ground game building up and over 1M unique donors. I think he has a great shot at winning it all.
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-POLL/0100B05G09P/index.htmlp
Agree about Biden, he's gaffing himself to death! But don't forget about Kamala Harris.
Agree about Biden, he's gaffing himself to death! But don't forget about Kamala Harris.
or Tulsi Gabbard.
She's a fresh face on the circuit and she chooses her battles well.
If "Out with the Old" becomes the rallying cry of 2020 Democrats, she's someone to rally around.
If foreign policy becomes the battle ground she can go toe to toe with Trump (or Biden).
If Military experience should matter, she's been vetted.
Terry
I think if anyone over 70 is the nominee it will be bad for the party.
I think calling for a revolution (or the revolutionary candidate) is a losing position
Sanders sometimes, to me at least, appears as just an angry old man
Warren has the strongest message on policy/solutions (imo).
If Bernie is the nominee, and he fades due to age, and hands it to Trump... well that's a catastrophe.
Whomever is the nominee, I will be voting and pulling for them.
Perhaps wishful thinking, but I think Perhaps wishful thinking, but I think Biden fades due to his many flaws as a candidate.
Perhaps wishful thinking, but I think Perhaps wishful thinking, but I think Biden fades due to his many flaws as a candidate.
Biden will fade, that's a given.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Kat, you already disagreed when i said he will drop in the polls. Well, he dropped in the polls. 8)
I'd like to see a Warren / Gabbard ticket ! If Warren could get through 8 years and Gabbard another 8 we might have women deciding which wars we would walk into or which might be avoided. We might even have enough time to get the Senate back. I would think any Dem candidate would choose a military former member for Vice. Tutsi would send shudders through the pentagon but somebody is going to tell them the sad truth about endless growth, and endless war. Doesn't anyone remember 8 years of Bush 2 ?
It's like all the wars are over. Where are my damn rose colored glasses ?
I doubt she can beat Sanders in both, and may not top him in either. Sanders did well in Iowa in 2016, and, as you say, the biggest crowds, donors, etc. belong to Sanders.
She needs at least 2% in four polls by August 28, but she only has one so far. She did post 3 and 5 per cent in the last two New Hampshire polls, but neither were performed by qualifying organizations.
Where has sidd been hiding when we need his read of the Deplorables?
She needs at least 2% in four polls by August 28, but she only has one so far. She did post 3 and 5 per cent in the last two New Hampshire polls, but neither were performed by qualifying organizations.
Some nifty detail right there.
Only one of the many ways the DNC draws arbitrary lines in order to manipulate. With something like "qualifying organizations", you influence how the polls are conducted, where the polls are taking place and when, right?
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Yo media/society has brainwashed me to believe Bernie was a just radical old nuthead. This hour and seven minutes completely changed my mind. I cannot believe how much I resonated with what he was saying!
Mainstream media warped my views on this guy, I actually agree with most of his thoughts
It’s crazy how mainstream media twists the images of people. I was completely mistaken about Bernie, I love his ideas & how rational they are. Definitely supporting him
Never was a Bernie fan... I also never gave the time of day to listen to his message to this extent, I relied on mainstream media and headlines... My mind is now open.
Left or right we can all agree that alternative long-form discussions like this are far superior to the sound bite factories in the mainstream media
Was a pretty anti-Bernie conservative before this podcast, but I do agree a lot with some of the issues he’s talking about so imma do some more research on him
Tulsi appears unlikely to qualify for the next debate. She needs at least 2% in four polls by August 28, but she only has one so far.Tulsi Gabbard now has a pair of qualifying polls for the September & October debates, picking up 2% in the national CNN poll released today. The same poll also gave Julian Castro his fourth qualifying poll, meaning he has made the debate stage. Tom Steyer only received 1%, and still needs one more to qualify.
And these polls need to be accredited by - - - You knew it, the polls need to be accredited by the DNC!Tulsi appears unlikely to qualify for the next debate. She needs at least 2% in four polls by August 28, but she only has one so far.Tulsi Gabbard now has a pair of qualifying polls for the September & October debates, picking up 2% in the national CNN poll released today. The same poll also gave Julian Castro his fourth qualifying poll, meaning he has made the debate stage. Tom Steyer only received 1%, and still needs one more to qualify.
10 candidates have qualified as of now. It will be interesting to see if they decide to split the group up into two nights again.
And these polls need to be accredited by - - - You knew it, the polls need to be accredited by the DNC!
It's a big club, and Tulsi ain't in it.
With apologies to G. Carlin
Terry
A DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL Committee panel on Thursday denied a proposal for a presidential primary debate dedicated to climate change, angering environmental activists who have put pressure on the organization to tackle the issue.
The resolution failed in a 17-8 vote from the organization's resolutions committee in San Francisco.
Democratic National Committee Denies Climate Debate
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-08-22/democratic-national-committee-denies-2020-climate-change-debateQuoteA DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL Committee panel on Thursday denied a proposal for a presidential primary debate dedicated to climate change, angering environmental activists who have put pressure on the organization to tackle the issue.
The resolution failed in a 17-8 vote from the organization's resolutions committee in San Francisco.
Sanders and Warren each received 20%, just ahead of Biden's 19%.
In the national Monmouth poll released today, Sanders and Warren each received 20%, just ahead of Biden's 19%. Tulsi and Steyer didn't get any help qualifying for the next debate, both coming in under 2%. The deadline is Wednesday.Damn!
At its summer meeting in San Francisco this weekend, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) addressed two things at the top of many voters’ minds: climate change and Russian interference in the 2020 election. The decisions party leaders made on both points frustrated activists and fellow Democrats.
Members on Saturday rejected a proposal to allow presidential candidates to participate in third-party debates, effectively ending hopes for a debate focused solely on climate change. Activists and presidential candidates alike had long called for a debate on the issue, and one candidate — former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke — called the decision not to have one “baffling.”
For admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html)
The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.
To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified
My hope is that after Super Tuesday there will be one candidate remaining from each of the following three groups (with current sum of RCP polling averages):You're an optimist, & we need more optimists.
Progressive: Sanders/Warren/Gabbard/Yang (37.4%)
Centrist: Biden/Klobuchar (29.1%)
Establishment: Harris/Buttigieg/Booker/O'Rourke/Castro (19.2%)
Of course the candidates don't fit neatly into three categories, but I can see an eventual separation forming. A possible difference between 2020 and 2016 is that centrist and establishment voters may be split.
Yang commits to abandoning fossil fuels, meaning zero-emissions requirements for all new cars by 2030, a 100% emission-free electric grid by 2035, net-zero for all transportation sectors by 2040, 85% methane recapture by 2045, and a fully "green" economy by 2049.USA Today via Yahoo (https://news.yahoo.com/2020-white-house-race-democrat-020622699.html)
...
Yang also supports a “constitutional amendment requiring states and the federal government to protect, preserve, and improve the environment.”
How much would all of this cost? $4.87 trillion, according to his website. This would partially be funded by a carbon tax of $40 per ton, rising eventually to $100 per ton, which includes a fee on imports from countries that don’t impose a similar type of carbon fee or tax, the plan says.
Yang would additionally call for ending all federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, stopping all oil and gas development on public lands, and provide a $10 billion debt forgiveness fund for all “rural co-ops that are relying on non-renewable sources, and provide different financing options to these cooperatives to get them to move over to renewable sources.”
My hope is that after Super Tuesday there will be one candidate remaining from each of the following three groups (with current sum of RCP polling averages):
Progressive: Sanders/Warren/Gabbard/Yang (37.4%)
Centrist: Biden/Klobuchar (29.1%)
Establishment: Harris/Buttigieg/Booker/O'Rourke/Castro (19.2%)
Of course the candidates don't fit neatly into three categories, but I can see an eventual separation forming. A possible difference between 2020 and 2016 is that centrist and establishment voters may be split.
The entire establishment group may be gone, as they are each polling in the low to mid single digits (Buttigieg may opt to remain in name only until the Indiana primary in May).I can see Harris sticking around if she does well in California. She has led in 3 of the 6 polls there since July (Biden led two and Warren one). I think if there is separation between Sanders and Warren after Super Tuesday, whoever is trailing will drop out.
The first grouping (progressive) is the most interesting, as several candidates may hang around, especially if they can pick up support from other candidates when they drop.
My gut feeling is that it comes down to Biden, Sanders, and Warren. The longer Sanders and Warren both remain, the more likely that Biden will win the nomination.
If Biden gets the nod, might a Progressive run as an Independant?Doubtful. I think the only potential independent candidate at this point is Justin Amash, possibly joined by someone like Kasich.
If Biden gets the nod, might a Progressive run as an Independant?
Progressive: Sanders/Warren/Gabbard/Yang (37.4%)
Centrist: Biden/Klobuchar (29.1%)
Establishment: Harris/Buttigieg/Booker/O'Rourke/Castro (19.2%)
Wonder who they'll blame after the 2020 loss?
Wonder who they'll blame after the 2020 loss?
The voters, obviously. Who else? ;)
Nothing scientific, just my impressions. I could have gone without the labels and just listed candidate groups.Progressive: Sanders/Warren/Gabbard/Yang (37.4%)I don't understand, how do you distinguish centrist and establishment?
Centrist: Biden/Klobuchar (29.1%)
Establishment: Harris/Buttigieg/Booker/O'Rourke/Castro (19.2%)
I see centrists as promoting compromise with Republicans, while establishment candidates have standard liberal ideas and a lot of identity politics in their rhetoric. Healthcare could be a defining issue - Biden and Klobuchar do not support Medicare-for all (they favor a public option on an insurance market). The establishment does not support single payer.
I think Sanders is the only one who can possibly beat Trump. Biden is more "centric" but inspires no one. Sanders is a populist - the right kind. For the people. He could stand up to Trump and give some rhetoric in return.
Cloudbootchar dropped out! :)Do you mean Gillibrand?
“500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills.”
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Aug. 25, 2019
“500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills.”
— Sanders, in a tweet, Aug. 20, 2019
This claim from Sanders — that medical bills drive half a million people into bankruptcy every year — relies partly on research from former Harvard professor and now senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Sanders and Warren are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, both running on a platform that includes universal health care and lower costs for patients. Interestingly, though, Warren doesn’t appear to make the same claim about 500,000 medical bankruptcies per year.
The Sanders campaign told us he was citing a statistic from a public health journal. Critics say the study he’s citing casts too wide a net because it counts anyone who mentioned medical bills or illness among their reasons for declaring bankruptcy, not just those who said it was the main reason or a big piece.
The federal courts recorded 750,489 nonbusiness bankruptcy filings in the year that ended March 31, down 0.8 percent from the previous 12-month period, according to data from the federal judiciary.
Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March.
That study, led by David U. Himmelstein, took a sample of bankruptcy court filings from 2013 to 2016, identified 3,200 bankrupt debtors and mailed them a survey. The response rate was 29.4 percent, with 910 responses and 108 surveys returned as undeliverable.
Debtors were asked whether medical expenses, or loss of work related to illness, contributed to their bankruptcies. Of those who responded, 66.5 percent said at least one of those factors contributed “somewhat” or “very much.”
Sixty-six percent of 750,000 is 500,000, so Sanders’s math adds up at first glance.
“The majority (58.5%) ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ agreed that medical expenses contributed, and 44.3% cited illness-related work loss; 66.5% cited at least one of these two medical contributors—equivalent to about 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually,” the AJPH editorial says.
Craig Garthwaite, a health-care policy expert in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, said the study was flawed. “It’s basically saying that if you go bankrupt and you have medical debt, that’s the cause of your bankruptcy,” he said. “That’s not the way you can do this kind of analysis.”
He added: “Rather than looking at a sample of people who go bankrupt and see how many have medical debt, look at a sample of a bunch of people who have medical debt, and how many of them go bankrupt. And that gives you an idea of causality.”
A group of researchers tried that approach in a peer-reviewed study published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2018. Looking at a random sample of California hospital patients between 2003 and 2007, they found that medical bankruptcies represented 4 percent of all bankruptcies. The patients were between ages 25 and 64 and included only those admitted to a hospital for non-birth-related reasons.
“Based on our estimate of 4 percent of bankruptcy filings per year and the approximately 800,000 bankruptcy filings per year, our number would be much closer to something on the order of 30,000-50,000 bankruptcies caused by a hospitalization,” one of the co-authors of the NEJM study, economist Raymond Kluender of Harvard Business School, wrote in an email.
The Pinocchio Test
This is a classic case of cherry-picking a number from a scientific study and twisting it to make a political point.
Sanders’s statements — “500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills” and “500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills” — are unambiguous. He’s saying medical debts caused those 500,000 bankruptcies. However, correlation is not causation, and the study he’s citing doesn’t establish causation for all 500,000 bankruptcy cases.
One of the authors sent us rough estimates showing that Sanders might be on target, but those numbers deserve scientific scrutiny before they can be taken as fact.
In the meantime, the statistic Sanders’s campaign cited includes bankrupt debtors for whom medical expenses may have been a minor or relatively small contributing factor. A different, peer-reviewed study arrived at a much different conclusion, suggesting the medical bankruptcy rate is far lower, although it measured only hospital patients and not all types of medical debt.
The omissions and twists are significant enough to merit Three Pinocchios for Sanders.
Black voters—and Democrats—worry about the environment’s effect on their lives. All the more reason, Charles Ellison argues, the DNC should not have nixed a climate debate
Yeah, that's the kind of nitpicking that's helpful. Just distract from the message...
His focus is on the actual issue which is the production of oil and gas. And there is nothing wrong with this.
If you think his reasoning is not scientific enough i have news for you, Kat. None of the candidates is also a climate scientist.
Yeah, that's the kind of nitpicking that's helpful. Just distract from the message...
His focus is on the actual issue which is the production of oil and gas. And there is nothing wrong with this.
If you think his reasoning is not scientific enough i have news for you, Kat. None of the candidates is also a climate scientist.
I was actually referring to Sander’s bankruptcy claims. Sorry for the confusion.
Blumenkraft, what is that bird?
Castro's plan -- titled "People and Planet First Plan" -- aims to "direct $10 trillion in federal, state, local, and private investments" over the next 10 years. The Castro campaign estimates that the influx of investment will create 10 million jobs over a decade.https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/03/julian-castro-climate-change-1700257
But Castro's plan also focuses on the racial impacts of climate change, citing a series of studies that found those most directly impacted by issues like toxic waste, asthma and pollution are more likely to be people of color and more vulnerable communities.
Castro’s plan aims for the U.S. to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045, meaning any greenhouse gas pollution at that time would be offset by reforestation or other techniques. By 2030, his administration would aim for a 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Tuesday unveiled a $3 trillion plan to tackle climate change and invest heavily in cleaning up polluted sites around the country that disproportionately affect low-income and communities of color.
“As president, I will hold polluters accountable for the damage they inflict upon our environment and set us on a path to a 100 percent clean economy that creates millions of good-paying jobs,” Harris said in a statement. “This crisis demands urgency and boldness, and as president, I will act.”
Buttigieg calls for generating 100 percent of electricity in the U.S. by 2035 without producing carbon emissions, a goal that would leave room for continued use of nuclear energy and the potential for natural gas or coal plants that would capture their emissions. By 2040, the plan calls for net-zero emissions for all new heavy-duty vehicles, buses, rail, ships and aircraft. And it calls for net-zero emissions from all other industries — including steel, manufacturing and agriculture — by 2050.
Ahead of a major climate change Democratic forum on CNN, Democratic presidential candidate and former San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro has released his version of the Green New Deal, a climate change plan that closely aligns with his presidential bid. It is progressive, but not the most liberal of the climate proposals released so far, and focuses heavily on social justice and civil rights.
Castro bills his plan as “ambitious and achievable” — it calls for a $10 trillion investment over 10 years, putting him in the middle of the pack as far as cost is concerned. His rivals Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke fall at the low end, with proposals that cost about $2 trillion and $5 trillion, respectively; Bernie Sanders has called for a $16.3 trillion investment.
Klobuchar promises to “pass sweeping legislation” within her first 100 days in office that would put the U.S. on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050
Booker calls for the creation of a White House-coordinated Environmental Justice Fund, which would commit $50 billion a year to frontline communities
Warren nods to the gone-but-not-forgotten climate candidate Jay Inslee with a 10-year action plan to achieve 100 percent clean energy
Castro proposes legislation requiring all federal actions to be reviewed to see what sort of health and environmental impact they’d have on marginalized communities
Buttigieg plans to build “Regional Resilience Hubs,” with $5 billion in annual grants to invest in locally driven pre-disaster mitigation efforts
Harris would strengthen the EPA’s ability to legally enforce environmental policies and direct the Department of Justice to “address both cumulative and legacy pollution”
California Sen. Kamala Harris on Wednesday released her plan for addressing climate change, calling for $10 trillion in public and private funding to create a carbon-neutral economy and invoking her past as a prosecutor to target companies that are driving greenhouse gas emissions.
“As president, I will hold polluters accountable for the damage they inflict upon our environment and set us on a path to a 100 percent clean economy that creates millions of good-paying jobs,” Harris said in a statement. “This crisis demands urgency and boldness, and as president, I will act.”
CNN's 7-hour town hall on climate change with 2020 White House contenders finished last among the three cable news networks in terms of average total viewers, according to early numbers from Nielsen Media Research.
CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers from 5 p.m. to midnight, the hours devoted to back-to-back town halls by 10 Democratic contenders.
How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money
Link >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020.html
It's beyond me that people trust and support her...
We now see the whole democratic mainstream narrative shifting because Bernie relentlessly beating the same drums for the last 50 years but you see Warren as the hard worker?
Healthcare for all, Green New Deal, minimum wage, etc, that's what all the candidates talk about because Bernie shifted the Overton window. It's his contribution to the country already before even being president - but you see Warren as the reformer?
For supporters of Donald Trump now disillusioned with his actions an improbable figure is emerging on the Left. Andrew Yang, a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020, has received increasing support from disenfranchised working class voters in key “rust belt” states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
People who voted for Mr Trump in 2016 have increasingly been turning up at Mr Yang’s rallies, replacing their MAGA hats with ones that say ”MATH" - which stands for ”Make America Think Harder" - ”Yang Gang".
According to polls Mr Yang, along with Bernie Sanders, is the the only Democrat who more than 10 per cent of Trump supporters say they would consider voting for.
Sanders utopia and a Warren hell
I will gladly accept Sanders, Warren, Yang, or Gabbard over any of the other candidates, and certainly over Trump. You'd probably consider me to be an incrementalist, which is fair.
FWIW, my experience living in rust belt swing states that went red leads me to prefer Sanders and Yang.
This is pre-primaries and now we have the chance to debate. This is what's called the democratic process.Yes, which I am participating in by expressing my support for multiple candidates (a list much smaller than 'anyone but Trump'). I trust each of them to enact meaningful reform, as much as possible with a conservative Senate and Supreme Court.
(BTW, Yang is a right-winger according to his policies, but he stands no chance anyway.)Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
You point out how Bernie is the candidate who achieved that goal already, but you don't end your post with 'and therefore Bernie is the real deal'?
You see how rare such a chance is, and then you dismiss it instead of grabbing it?
We now see the whole democratic mainstream narrative shifting because Bernie relentlessly beating the same drums for the last 50 years but you see Warren as the hard worker?
Healthcare for all, Green New Deal, minimum wage, etc, that's what all the candidates talk about because Bernie shifted the Overton window. It's his contribution to the country already before even being president - but you see Warren as the reformer?
She can get things done.
I don't believe he can be elected. If elected, I don't believe he can get any of his agenda through Congress.If he's nominated, "electability" becomes moot and the establishment should fall in line. He has plenty of cross-party/independent appeal to win the election. Once in office he should get just as much congressional support as any other progressive. His record as a senator would have little bearing on how much influence he would have as president.
Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) 9/10/19, 5:39 PM
I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message.
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1171538730621915136QuoteCNBC (@CNBC)9/10/19, 3:09 PMhttps://twitter.com/cnbc/status/1171500839686590464
Wall Street executives are fearful of an Elizabeth Warren presidency, according to @MadMoneyOnCNBC's @jimcramer.
cnb.cx/2UOpK4n
3-minute video clip of CNBC analysts at the link.
Play the radio, make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have a record player on at night, make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school, or a very poor background, will hear four fewer words spoken by the time they get there.
Exclusive: Bernie Sanders Talks About His Debate Performance | Useful Idiots
Part of the difficulty of picking winners and losers in a debate is that each voter brings a different rubric to the task. For example, a Democrat whose top priority is enacting stricter gun control may be looking for different things in a candidate’s performance than a voter whose sole objective is to get President Trump out of office. So to get a more nuanced picture of which candidates did well in last week’s third Democratic presidential debate, let’s break down reactions among these differently motivated voters.
Who Won The Debate Among Voters Who Prioritize Electability? Health Care? Climate Change?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-won-the-debate-among-voters-who-prioritize-electability-health-care-climate-change/QuotePart of the difficulty of picking winners and losers in a debate is that each voter brings a different rubric to the task. For example, a Democrat whose top priority is enacting stricter gun control may be looking for different things in a candidate’s performance than a voter whose sole objective is to get President Trump out of office. So to get a more nuanced picture of which candidates did well in last week’s third Democratic presidential debate, let’s break down reactions among these differently motivated voters.
LEAKED: Who & What Trump Is Scared To Run Against
Presidential candidates talked up their vision for fighting climate change Thursday, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and others promising "bold" action on an issue that has become a defining one for Democrats ahead of the 2020 election.
In total, 12 presidential candidates — 11 vying for the Democratic nomination and one Republican mounting a primary challenge President Donald Trump — are pitching their environmental plans during the two-day, town-hall style event taking place at Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service in Washington. The forum, which is hosted by MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi, comes amid a week-long series of climate coverage from NBC News, MSNBC, Telemundo and NBC News digital.
A string of polls released last week suggest that support for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders might be underestimated, The Hill reports.
Although the polls show that Joe Biden remains the frontrunner and Elizabeth Warren continues to generate buzz, Sanders’ success in the polls and with strong grass-roots support reportedly puts him in a position to have a good chance of winning.
“He has the money, the campaign infrastructure and an intense base of supporters,” said one Democratic strategist. “Does he have a tough road to the nomination? Of course, all of the candidates do. But has he been overlooked so far? Absolutely. Out of all the candidates, he is the one you can definitely say is in this for the long haul.”
Not sure Bernie should get credit for having more diverse support than last time given that he has far less support than last time. A lot of voters have left him. White liberals have been particularly likely to leave him (for Warren) so the residue of what's left is more diverseDictionary.com defines residue as "something that remains after a part is removed, disposed of, or used." Silver is saying that Sanders has a smaller and more diverse group of supporters so far than in 2016 because Warren has taken many white liberals from him. Residue is an appropriate word to use in the context in which he used it. It is nowhere close to the same as deplorable.
the tragic cliché of the downwardly mobile lumpen failson has become a mascot of the Yang Gang
There’s no law that you have to take a serious interest in politics, so it’s no crime to support Andrew Yang’s campaign for president of the United States.
At first, he was a caricature, parading his identity as an Asian-American math nerd in lieu of a personality.
Tulsi picked up her third qualifying poll yesterday, so she needs one more in the next week to qualify for the October debates.Tulsi got 2% in the Monmouth poll of New Hampshire released today. She'll be in next month's debate.
Life is good!!Tulsi picked up her third qualifying poll yesterday, so she needs one more in the next week to qualify for the October debates.Tulsi got 2% in the Monmouth poll of New Hampshire released today. She'll be in next month's debate.
Soooo, if we thought that Booker or Harris were likely to be the nominees, should we start constantly repeating the 'n' word here, because, hey, everybody should have to get used to it, since that's what at least some of Trump's followers will be using?Bernie the Kike and Harris the nword won't be spoken out loud (by many), but Pocahontas will be blaring from every speaker for months. If Warren were of Native American heritage Pocahontas would equate to the nword, or kike, but she isn't, so it doesn't.
I still thing Bernie is more likely to win, so should I constantly refer to him as Bernie the Crazy Kike, so that we can all get inured to the slurs??
but Pocahontas will be blaring from every speaker for months
Yes, the most idiotic MAGA hat people will do that. Why you are doing it too is beyond me. Bought a MAGA hat, Terry?
I may have no politics to offer but i can dance in a weird way!
Soooo, if we thought that Booker or Harris were likely to be the nominees, should we start constantly repeating the 'n' word here, because, hey, everybody should have to get used to it, since that's what at least some of Trump's followers will be using?Bernie the Kike and Harris the nword won't be spoken out loud (by many), but Pocahontas will be blaring from every speaker for months. If Warren were of Native American heritage Pocahontas would equate to the nword, or kike, but she isn't, so it doesn't.
I still thing Bernie is more likely to win, so should I constantly refer to him as Bernie the Crazy Kike, so that we can all get inured to the slurs??
Campaigning against its use will further alienate Native Americans, their supporters, and every member of a visible minority will be pissed that a gringo first used minority identification to scam the system & now claims minority inclusion to fight her political battles. Not a good stance to take when the manure strikes the air handler.
It's not something she was born with, it was her own doing & she was foolish enough to bring it front and center through her very public bet with Trump. I think it cost her whatever chance she may have had to become the next president.
Bernie and Tulsi is my favorite ticket in part because I think they may have a chance against Trump. Anyone else has too many negatives.
Trump is going to be hard to beat with this impeachment show in the offing. I can't imagine why Pelosi changed her mind.
Terry
Also, who says you can't tax the wealthy more to get that money back?
Care to back up that bullshit with a source GSY?
Terry wrote: "Bernie the Kike and Harris the nword won't be spoken out loud (by many)..."Wili
The more we coarsen the dialogue, the more likely it is that they will be.
If you want to be part of moving the discourse in that direction, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you...it just doesn't strike me as a good, or particularly moral, idea.
To win the Presidency as a Democrat she'll need to totally re-brand herself. No minority will knowingly vote for a white that scammed the system and was rewarded with a position intended for a minority applicant. The Republicans under Trump aren't likely to let them forget.
Terry
Good point, Steve. Terry, generally quite astute about many things, just seems to be oddly off and oddly obsessed about this one.You've never met the Mrs. obviously. :)
Some men do seem to be quite put off kilter by strong, smart women, I guess...
Sen. Bernie Sanders raised more than $25 million over the past three months, his campaign said Tuesday morning.
The haul -- up more than $7 million from his second quarter total -- underscored Sanders' continued strength with small dollar donors. The campaign announced last week that it had received contributions from more than a million people.
"Bernie is proud to be the only candidate running to defeat Donald Trump who is 100 percent funded by grassroots donations -- both in the primary and in the general," Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement celebrating the new figures.
"Media elites and professional pundits have tried repeatedly to dismiss this campaign, and yet working-class Americans keep saying loudly and clearly that they want a political revolution," Shakir said.
I wish it weren't so, but Sanders really is America's best hope for positive change. If he isn't elected president, the country will go nowhere (except probably further downhill).If he doesn’t get the nomination do you think he could run as an Independent?
Think about their ability to deal with these constraints. They are not the same. They don't have the same strategy, they don't have the same approach.
Warren's approach is one of technocracy.
Bernie's approach is to build a movement that lasts past the elections which is something he understands better than everyone else running by far. Even Obama didn't understand that.
Read Meagan Day[1] - on the kind of labor movement and the kind of grassroots power that would be necessary for Bernie to pass anything he is trying to do just doesn't exist with anyone else.
Pocahontas is the worst. I would vote for Trump if the Democrats pick Pocahontas. I would not vote in the election otherwise, but if they nominate her, I will be a likely Trump voter -- and I can imagine many more independents also shifting to Trump if the D candidate is a lying socialist thief.Ugly but it’s true. So many Americans willing to vote a proven “liar billionaire thief” (well the billionaire not entirely proven) before an, allegedly, “liar socialist thief”.
No, only the American people can 'cure' America.
With a large grassroots movement and the right leader, there is a chance. The door is wide open. Go fucking through it.
Pocahontas is the worst. I would vote for Trump if the Democrats pick Pocahontas. I would not vote in the election otherwise, but if they nominate her, I will be a likely Trump voter -- and I can imagine many more independents also shifting to Trump if the D candidate is a lying socialist thief.Ugly but it’s true. So many Americans willing to vote a proven “liar billionaire thief” (well the billionaire not entirely proven) before an, allegedly, “liar socialist thief”.
That's quite a difference from the Fox News Wisconsin poll released this weekend, which had Biden 28, Warren 22, Sanders 17. The Change Research poll is done with targeted online ads. Curiously it has disappeared from their website as of now.
In South Carolina, Fox News has Biden 41, Warren 12, Sanders 10. A Change Research poll from August revealed it's the very large contingent of black voters that give Biden such a big lead with a 45-15 advantage over Sanders. I may be tone deaf, but I can recognize that Sanders' demographic appeal is limited at this point. Age 65+, college educated, and blacks are a huge part of the Democratic electorate. Sanders won't win without them.
Eight candidates have already qualified for the November debate, with Booker, Steyer, and Yang all getting their fourth poll in the last few days.
That's quite a difference from the Fox News Wisconsin poll released this weekend,
Just in time for the debate. Now they really gonna go after him
QuoteJust in time for the debate. Now they really gonna go after him
Maybe the heart attack will encourage him take the gloves off and denounce the corruption in the Democratic Party (it helped Trump massively to win the GOP primary last time).
Tulsi Gabbard unites Putin apologists, bloodstained Modi, genocidal Assad and the U.S. far right
Link >> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/tulsi-gabbard-unites-bloodstained-modi-genocidal-assad-putin-and-the-u-s-far-right-1.6870890
Time for Tulsi supporter to do the Tulsi move: Jump the bandwagon.
Tulsi Gabbard unites Putin apologists, bloodstained Modi, genocidal Assad and the U.S. far right
Link >> https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/tulsi-gabbard-unites-bloodstained-modi-genocidal-assad-putin-and-the-u-s-far-right-1.6870890
Time for Tulsi supporter to do the Tulsi move: Jump the bandwagon.
You don't have to be a Gabbard fan, but you need to be careful not to propagate unnecessary and untruthful smears, given that it's quite clear where they're coming from (and I know you're definitely not in that camp)
I think Gabbard is very useful in pushing back against the war machine and spreading some other progressive ideas
but there is only one possible president that will help the US go forward again, and that's Bernie Sanders. If he doesn't become president, it's game over.
Bernie for Pres
Tulsi for VP
Bernie is wonderful on the domestic issues, Tulsi on the international scene.
Both are needed if we are to have any chance of making any headway re. AGW.
Today I'm more concerned with Canadian politics. Trudeau has been a major disappointment across the board. That said, he's the best that has any chance of winning a majority.
Canadian politics is more a game of trying to shut out the worst, rather than fighting to elect a green candidate who can't win a majority and is very unlikely to be a part of any government that is formed.
Between elections I try to influence the Liberal Party to distance itself from the DNC, and to live up to their peaceful green talking points.
Terry
<snipped>The DNC are very effective gatekeepers, often eliminating candidates that might have been able to win elections.
I seriously doubt we will see either name on the ballot. Right now, it looks like either Biden or Warren. If it is Biden, Warren as a VP would unite the party. If Warren gets the nod, the VP is up in the air (Biden is unlikely to accept second fiddle again).
<snipped>The DNC are very effective gatekeepers, often eliminating candidates that might have been able to win elections.
I seriously doubt we will see either name on the ballot. Right now, it looks like either Biden or Warren. If it is Biden, Warren as a VP would unite the party. If Warren gets the nod, the VP is up in the air (Biden is unlikely to accept second fiddle again).
A damn shame really.
Terry
The only person who took me aside and said we really need yo worry about the 4th industrial revolution...
It's almost like the opposite of Bernie's tax equation where he is like "Yes, you are going to pay more in taxes but you are getting a lot more in services - with Yang it's "You are getting a thousand bucks as UBI a month but you are losing a whole lot more than that in the destruction of the welfare state."
There are leftist ideas to the UBI and this ain't it!
The inquiry must be done transparently. I don't know what's going on behind those closed doors. We as members of congress don't have access to the information that is being shared. I think the American people deserve to know what the facts are, what the evidence is presented as the inquiry goes on.
I'm in non-f_around mode. If Tulsi takes two percent from Bernie's that hurts this campaign, you are a monumental idiot for supporting her.
Ok, since i trashed Tulsi for being so incredibly inconsequent and phony, let me also trash Warren. Because she is just the same thin flag in the wind.Let me ask you, do you find Warren an inherently dishonest, indecent person? Flawed as she is, I find her and Sanders the most attractive to try to fight for real left (not necessarily radical) politics in the US. Yes she has her (mild) inconsistencies as politicial, but she’s years light ahead morally of Mayor Pete, Kamala, Sleepy and corrupt Biden, ...
Remember when she wanted to make the military green? What was that? That was a status quo talking point par excellence. Don't reduce the military! Don't stop the imperialism. Make the killing green she sais. What a pathetic asshole!
And then, when she voted on an overblown Trump military budget. Remember that?
Progressive my ass!
Not originally my post but here are some things people need to know about Tulsi Gabbard:
Tulsi Gabbard comes from a family of conservative activists, most famous for their opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
Tulsi Gabbard has said her personal views on LGBT equality haven't changed as recently as 2015: https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tulsi-gabbard-a-young-star-headed-for-the-cabinet/62604
Tulsi Gabbard is rated "F" by Progressive Punch for voting with Republicans, despite the strong progressive lean of her district: https://imgur.com/wDhVNKq
Tulsi Gabbard was nearly a part of Trump's cabinet at Steve bannon's suggestion: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-consideration-trump-cabinet/story?id=43696303 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307106-bannon-set-up-trump-gabbard-meeting
Tulsi Gabbard has also been praised multiple times by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist and prolific white nationalist propagandist: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36352314/bannon-name-drops-hawaii-congresswoman-in-national-interview/
Tulsi Gabbard declined to join 169 Democrats in condemning Trump for appointing Steve Bannon to his cabinet administration: https://mauitime.com/news/politics/why-didnt-rep-tulsi-gabbard-join-169-of-her-colleagues-in-denouncing-trump-appointee-stephen-bannon/
Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She's a self-described hawk against terrorists. Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy: "In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," Gabbard said. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove.": https://www.votetulsi.com/node/27796
Tulsi Gabbard copies the rhetoric of Republicans: Gabbard voted against condemning Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, and was praised by conservative media for publicly challenging President Barack Obama over his refusal to use the term "Islamic extremism" when discussing terrorism: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/tulsi-gabbard-slams-obamas-refusal-to-say-islamic-/
Tulsi Gabbard also copies the policy of Republicans, voting with them to block Syrian refugees: https://medium.com/@pplswar/tulsi-gabbard-voted-to-make-it-virtually-impossible-for-syrian-refugees-to-come-to-the-u-s-11463d0a7a5a
Tulsi Gabbard has multiple connections to Hindu nationalists: https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard frequently repeats Russian talking points and works to legitimize Assad: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
Tulsi Gabbard was one of only 3 representatives to not condemn Assad for gassing Syrian civilians and the only Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/121/text https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/20/house-democrats-refugee-bill-social-media-backlash
Tulsi Gabbard has introduced legislation pushed by GOP-megadonor, Sheldon Adelson: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-adelson-idUSBREA2P0BJ20140326
Tulsi was later awarded a "Champions of Freedom" medal at Adelson's annual gala in 2016: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love
Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii did not endorse Tulsi's 2020 bid due to concerns of Tulsi's lack of a progressive record. Senator Hirono said she would be "looking for someone who has a long record of supporting progressive goals" when asked if she will support Gabbard in the Democratic primary.
Tulsi Gabbard was born into a cult called the Science of Identity. It was created in the 1970's and is led by a white man named Chris Butler, but he calls himself Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa. Tulsi's own aunt has come forward and called it the “alt-right of the Hare Krishna movement”. To this day she is an active member and some of her campaign staff come directly from that cult. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html
Let me ask you, do you find Warren an inherently dishonest, indecent person?
Flawed as she is, I find her and Sanders the most attractive to try to fight for real left (not necessarily radical) politics in the US.
Yes she has her (mild) inconsistencies as politicial, but she’s years light ahead morally of Mayor Pete, Kamala, Sleepy and corrupt Biden, ...
QuoteIt's almost like the opposite of Bernie's tax equation where he is like "Yes, you are going to pay more in taxes but you are getting a lot more in services - with Yang it's "You are getting a thousand bucks as UBI a month but you are losing a whole lot more than that in the destruction of the welfare state."QuoteThere are leftist ideas to the UBI and this ain't it!
For welfare experts, this is where cash benefits can become a boon. “There are certain programs in place currently, which are deeply paternalistic, that tell the poor how to spend their money,” says Rakeen Mabud, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. “That paternalism, I think, goes away to some degree, when you replace some of those programs, the cash transfer program.”
“There’s a wealth of literature of the effectiveness of cash transfers over ad hoc welfare programs,” says Samuel Hammond, a researcher at the Niskanen Center who studies poverty.
Unlike welfare programs, UBI would also be much more straightforward to execute. “One of the issues we face is most people do not participate in every program they’re eligible for,” Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center, tells Mother Jones. “In some cases, you might meet eligibility requirements but the program might not be fully funded.”
...
The government’s main food-aid effort, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is a perfect example. “SNAP is huge and really important to lifting people out of poverty,” she told Bite. “But it’s difficult to apply for and use,” Eligibility requirements are strict — for a family of four, gross monthly income can’t exceed $2,665, or about $32,000 per year. Adults have to comply with a work requirement and time limitations, and enrollment is “not automatic, even for families with kids,” Lowrey notes.
As a result, in 2015 — the most recent year with government data — just 83 percent of Americans who met SNAP’s eligibility tests were enrolled in the program, and for the working poor, the participation rate was even lower: 72 percent.
I don't really care if you want to call it left wing or right wing, but replacing welfare programs with cash transfers isn't a net loss.
Well Warren and Clinton are nothing alike
I don't really care if you want to call it left wing or right wing, but replacing welfare programs with cash transfers isn't a net loss.I'm talking especially about Yang's UBI plan which lets you decide between UBI or welfare benefits.
So please explain to me how you will pay your medical bills when you have decided to take the UBI and then you get a chronic disease? A cancer treatment for example easily costs you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Yang's UBI is on top of medicare-for-all and social security. He proposes replacing unemployment benefits and food stamps (programs that can reinforce poverty by disincentivizing earned income), not the entire welfare system. And even then a person can opt out if their benefits are higher than 12k. It's somewhere in between your right-wing and left-wing versions.
Yang is mainly in the race to push his signature issue, a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Yang proposes to give every U.S. citizen between the ages of 18 and 64 $1,000 a month, no strings attached. (Well, one string: It makes them ineligible for other existing welfare benefits, and if they are currently receiving any welfare benefits they would have to give them up if they wanted the 1k.)Link >> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/andrew-yangs-curious-plans
In a February working paper co-authored with economist Hilary W. Hoynes, Rothstein found that while a “generous UBI” could replace the need for most welfare programs, it could also run the risk of redistributing funds away from the lowest-income families. The loss of disability benefits and Social Security would almost certainly put seniors and households with disabilities at a disadvantage.Link >> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/what-andrew-yangs-universal-basic-income-would-actually-look-like/
Under the universal basic income, those who are legally disabled would have a choice between collecting SSDI and the $1,000, or collecting SSDI and SSI, whichever is more generous.
From your link, Sedziobs:QuoteUnder the universal basic income, those who are legally disabled would have a choice between collecting SSDI and the $1,000, or collecting SSDI and SSI, whichever is more generous.Where can i read the actual bill? Do you know that by chance?
Yang's plan is largely based on this UBI study from the Roosevelt Institute
Yang's plan is largely based on this UBI study from the Roosevelt InstituteWait, that FAQ page you linked me to ... is the plan?
It's the "platform". Compare to the "details" on this page: berniesanders.com/issues/jobs-for-all/ (https://berniesanders.com/issues/jobs-for-all/)
(b) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:Link >> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIVERSAL MEDICARE PROGRAM; UNIVERSAL ENTITLEMENT; ENROLLMENT
Sec. 101. Establishment of the Universal Medicare Program.
Sec. 102. Universal entitlement.
Sec. 103. Freedom of choice.
Sec. 104. Non-discrimination.
Sec. 105. Enrollment.
Sec. 106. Effective date of benefits.
Sec. 107. Prohibition against duplicating coverage.
TITLE II—COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS, INCLUDING PREVENTIVE BENEFITS AND BENEFITS FOR LONG-TERM CARE
Sec. 201. Comprehensive benefits.
Sec. 202. No cost-sharing.
Sec. 203. Exclusions and limitations.
Sec. 204. Coverage of institutional long-term care services under Medicaid.
Sec. 205. Prohibiting recovery of correctly paid Medicaid benefits.
Sec. 206. State standards.
TITLE III—PROVIDER PARTICIPATION
Sec. 301. Provider participation and standards.
Sec. 302. Qualifications for providers.
Sec. 303. Use of private contracts.
TITLE IV—ADMINISTRATION
Subtitle A—General Administration Provisions
Sec. 401. Administration.
Sec. 402. Consultation.
Sec. 403. Regional administration.
Sec. 404. Beneficiary ombudsman.
Sec. 405. Complementary conduct of related health programs.
Subtitle B—Control Over Fraud And Abuse
Sec. 411. Application of Federal sanctions to all fraud and abuse under Universal Medicare Program.
TITLE V—QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Sec. 501. Quality standards.
Sec. 502. Addressing health care disparities.
TITLE VI—HEALTH BUDGET; PAYMENTS; COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES
Subtitle A—Budgeting
Sec. 601. National health budget.
Subtitle B—Payments To Providers
Sec. 611. Payments to institutional and individual providers.
Sec. 612. Ensuring accurate valuation of services under the Medicare physician fee schedule.
Sec. 613. Office of primary health care.
Sec. 614. Payments for prescription drugs and approved devices and equipment.
TITLE VII—UNIVERSAL MEDICARE TRUST FUND
Sec. 701. Universal Medicare Trust Fund.
TITLE VIII—CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974
Sec. 801. Prohibition of employee benefits duplicative of benefits under the Universal Medicare Program; coordination in case of workers’ compensation.
Sec. 802. Repeal of continuation coverage requirements under ERISA and certain other requirements relating to group health plans.
Sec. 803. Effective date of title.
TITLE IX—ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Sec. 901. Relationship to existing Federal health programs.
Sec. 902. Sunset of provisions related to the State Exchanges.
TITLE X—TRANSITION
Subtitle A—Transitional Medicare Buy-In Option And Transitional Public Option
Sec. 1001. Lowering the Medicare age.
Sec. 1002. Establishment of the Medicare transition plan.
Subtitle B—Transitional Medicare Reforms
Sec. 1011. Medicare protection against high out-of-pocket expenditures for fee-for-service benefits and elimination of parts A and B deductibles.
Sec. 1012. Reduction in Medicare part D annual out-of-pocket threshold and elimination of cost-sharing above that threshold.
Sec. 1013. Coverage of dental and vision services and hearing aids and examinations under Medicare part B.
Sec. 1014. Eliminating the 24-month waiting period for Medicare coverage for individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 1015. Guaranteed issue of Medigap policies.
Subtitle C—Private Health Insurance Availability During Transitional Period
Sec. 1021. Continuity of care.
TITLE XI—MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 1101. Updating resource limits for Supplemental Security Income eligibility (SSI).
Sec. 1102. Definitions.
Sanders, Warren & Why The Difference Between Socialism & Capitalism Matters ft. Artesia BalthropI take your point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PaaQC6974
In case Warren ended up as candidate, would you just not vote in 2020 as many people did in 2016 because of Clinton?
I take your point.
Being in the top 1% of income, my taxes will go sky-high under a Bernie Sanders administration, but sometimes you have to be willing to fight for someone else, fight for someone you don’t know.
People are dying cuz they don’t have healthcare, those are people worth fighting for.
So by all means, tax the hell out of me.
A nation is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable people among us.
While I live in luxury, most Americans are working harder than I’ll ever work in my life, & get paid scraps for it.
It ain’t right.
Tax me whatever‘s necessary.
QuoteBeing in the top 1% of income, my taxes will go sky-high under a Bernie Sanders administration, but sometimes you have to be willing to fight for someone else, fight for someone you don’t know.
People are dying cuz they don’t have healthcare, those are people worth fighting for.
So by all means, tax the hell out of me.
A nation is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable people among us.
While I live in luxury, most Americans are working harder than I’ll ever work in my life, & get paid scraps for it.
It ain’t right.
Tax me whatever‘s necessary.
Via comrade @michaelsayman on Twitter >> https://twitter.com/michaelsayman/status/1188702321879875584
Yet, they fail to mention the larger number of people likely to die, due to inefficient, government-run healthcare.
https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/
Yet, they fail to mention the larger number of people likely to die, due to inefficient, government-run healthcare.
https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/
cherry-picked data points
Note that the US *does* have a single-payer system
cherry-picked data points
At least now i know why Kat linked it. Cherry-picking is a good friend of his.
Americans have no idea how terrible their system is. Canadians have no idea how wonderful their system is (at least in comparison).
It's not just the cost, it's the quality.
Terry
... at least in comparison ...
How can that Buttigieg guy possibly be so high on the list?
How can that Buttigieg guy possibly be so high on the list?
He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherent sentences during a debate.
Beto O'Rourke Ends Presidential Bid
He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherent sentences during a debate.
He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherentsentenceslies during a debate.
FIFY ;)
I do recognize that this is a Bernie fan club, but there is a good chance that it will be someone else.
Do you have something real against Buttigieg or just here for the slander?
Just wondering, bc I watched the debates, and find him to be intelligent and well spoken.
I do recognize that this is a Bernie fan club
but there is a good chance that it will be someone else.
I assume the "list" we're talking about is the Iowa poll I posted. Buttigieg is a Midwestern candidate who performs better in Iowa than other places. Warren and Sanders do better in New Hampshire. Biden is nearly untouchable in South Carolina. Nationally things haven't changed a whole lot. Over the last several months, Warren's rise and Harris' decline have been the only major trends.How can that Buttigieg guy possibly be so high on the list?He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherent sentences during a debate.
Hey, Kat, do you see that?
8)
Hehe, that is funny.
Anyway, i promised you Biden would drop in the polls, and here we are. You can count on me, Kat. :)
Well, then let's just watch this a little longer, shall we? :)
Biden will drop, even more, is what i see.
I don't see that.
Grab some popcorn. :)
I would support him in a heartbeat if he supported the weakest humans of all, babies in the womb.
Why We Want to Abolish Billionaires: Hard work doesn’t get you a billion dollars — rent extraction, financial speculation, resource monopolization, and exploiting working people does. We don’t envy the superrich, we want to stop them.
Gabbard qualified for the November debate in the last few days, so we're still at 10 candidates. Only O'Rourke and Castro are missing from last month's 12.Good to hear!
OMFG, what a shitshow. How is Biden any better than your average bigot Republican Joe?
Biden Says Warren’s An “Elitist” While He Sucks Up To Wealthy Donors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2iSsCOQ-eA
It will be hard for Warren to counter elitism when she was a Harvard professor and her election team is made up of ivy leaguers.
I'm really surprised that Harris imploded as she did.
Any theories on that?
I'm really surprised that Harris imploded as she did.
Any theories on that?
I found that disgusting.
Gabbard with 6% in today's Quinnipiac New Hampshire poll, good for 5th place (top 4 below). She's just one poll away from qualifying for the December debate. Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, and Klobuchar have already qualified. Gabbard, Yang, and Steyer need one or two more polls in the next month or so.I'm unsure whether Tulsi is running for a chance to challenge for presidency, or for a chance to influence the debates & possibly be chosen as a VP partner. We need a candidate that's serious about peace.
Biden 20%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Sanders 14%
Do you have something real against Buttigieg or just here for the slander?
I notice, Bbr, you are talking about money. Wanna talk about politics?I am not a Trump guy, I am a NOT BERNIE OR WARREN guy, I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat, I don't think I would vote otherwise unless it was against Warren / Bernie.
As a Trump guy, do you want this ticket, because is's a losing ticket?
What's the difference between Bloomberg and Trump politics wise?Bloomberg is a major advocate for action re: climate change, he is also very socially progressive. Bloomberg's legacy in NYC was fantastic.
I have news for you: None that would possibly make any difference.
So logically, any Bloomberg guy is also a Trump guy.
Bloomberg is a major advocate for action re: climate change
he is also very socially progressive. Bloomberg's legacy in NYC was fantastic.
Comparing the two and saying they are the same belies a deep ignorance and an unreasonable hatred for those who have money, whether they have earned it or not.
Bloomberg is a self-made man. He did not get handouts.
If you think Bloomberg and Trump are the same on policy, I suggest you do some cursory Google-ing on Bloomberg's legacy
-- I do not have the time or the will to advocate on behalf of a billionaire,
but I do believe in his ability to restore the status quo
B_lumenkraft is not a Democrat, or a liberal. He is an angry, illiterate socialist whose only goal is chaos and misery for all. Because he is an angry, sad human being, everyone else should also be angry and sad. The same can be said for the majority of the far-left Democrats.
This is very sad. But what can I do about it? Educating them won't change anything because they cannot be educated, they are clinically stupid. So I suppose I will simply ignore them. Let them froth and rage. But do not be mistaken -- these people are the very reason Trump was elected, whether they voted for him, or not. They feed on anger, it is their only sustenance. And that is why they would not vote for a dyed-in-the-wool centrist who could restore the policies of the Obama and Clinton eras over Donald Trump. Because they actually don't even dislike Trump. They love him. They love to hate! It is sick. Truly, disgustingly, sick.
Currently, Sanders is the only option to be the Democratic nominee and president. If he doesn't become both, there is zero hope of improvement for the US and for the world. It has to start somewhere, and this is it, right here, right now. Everything else is just business as usual.It really is. Thank you Neven for stating it so clearly.
Any American on this forum who takes AGW seriously, has the moral imperative to vote for Sanders. Not doing so, would be unforgivable.
It really is as simple as that.
American has a moral imperative to vote for the candidate endorsed by Right To Life.
You are putting your imperative on preborn babies.
Fatally so.
You are putting your imperative on preborn babies.
Fatally so.
No, i don't. As you know this is not a topic i feel i have a say at all. So my imperative, in this case, is that it's not my damn business (since i'm male).
Killing an fetus or embryo because it is inconvenient
No, every women that I value does not agree with me on this, but I value them for other reasons.
If people are taking AGW seriously and are not angry to some degree or other, they are not really taking AGW seriously.If reducing aerosols and CO2 results in an acceleration of the +SWE trends across North America (where they are most prominent), Americans would actually have a moral imperative to vote for Trump. I understand this viewpoint is controversial but history demonstrates that the Younger Dryas and other sustained advances in continental SWE have first impacted North America.
Maybe at some point I'm going to ban everyone from this forum who I feel doesn't take AGW seriously. Some of them will be right-leaning, others will be left-leaning, because let's face it, denial runs deep, regardless of tribe.
Currently, Sanders is the only option to be the Democratic nominee and president. If he doesn't become both, there is zero hope of improvement for the US and for the world. It has to start somewhere, and this is it, right here, right now. Everything else is just business as usual.
Any American on this forum who takes AGW seriously, has the moral imperative to vote for Sanders. Not doing so, would be unforgivable.
It really is as simple as that.
I don't understand why people here think Tom is not entitled to his opinion. I may disagree with Tom on this issue but I think he is allowed to have a separate opinion and I can respect his reasoning for this opinion. Screaming at him etc is not going to change his opinion. So let him have his viewpoint!
I did not say you were, but tom is entitled to his viewpoint even if both of us disagree with itI don't understand why people here think Tom is not entitled to his opinion. I may disagree with Tom on this issue but I think he is allowed to have a separate opinion and I can respect his reasoning for this opinion. Screaming at him etc is not going to change his opinion. So let him have his viewpoint!
To get the record straight, Tom is the one proposing for forbidding things, not me. In case you have problems understanding basic logic again.
American has a moral imperative to vote for the candidate endorsed by Right To Life.
Well, Tom, this is not a moral, but your religious imperative.
When you put fundamental religious imperatives on others, that's called sharia law.
Neven, the reason I voted for Trump was solely on the abortion issue.
You brought up voting for Bernie, implying that anyone who would not vote for him (like me) is worse than a Nazi who rapes and kills children in his off-hours.
If you don't want to debate abortion with people like me, then don't demand that we all vote for Bernie. And I won't debate abortion, then.
And if you should not pass a law if it cannot wipe out what you are legislating against, then you should not pass any laws.
Here’s one way I’ll do that. In 2011, following the failure of cap and trade legislation in Congress, I teamed up with the Sierra Club on a campaign called Beyond Coal. By organizing and mobilizing communities affected by the harmful pollution of coal-fired power plants, we have helped close more than half the nation’s plants — 285 out of 530 — and replaced them with cleaner and cheaper energy. That was the single biggest reason the U.S. has been able to reduce its carbon footprint by 11 percent — and cut deaths from coal power plants from 13,000 to 3,000.
Now, I will take the next big steps. First, I will expand my support for the Beyond Coal campaign so that we can retire every single coal-fired power plant over the next 11 years. That’s not a pipe dream. We can do it. And second, I will launch a new, even more ambitious phase of the campaign — Beyond Carbon: a grassroots effort to begin moving America as quickly as possible away from oil and gas and toward a 100 percent clean energy economy.
At the heart of Beyond Carbon is the conviction that, as the science has made clear, every year matters. The idea of a Green New Deal — first suggested by the columnist Tom Friedman more than a decade ago — stands no chance of passage in the Senate over the next two years. But Mother Nature does not wait on our political calendar, and neither can we.
CognitiveBias:
Once a child is conceived it already knows life. And you are forcing your values on them. Fatally.
If reducing aerosols and CO2 results in an acceleration of the +SWE trends across North America (where they are most prominent), Americans would actually have a moral imperative to vote for Trump. I understand this viewpoint is controversial but history demonstrates that the Younger Dryas and other sustained advances in continental SWE have first impacted North America.
Paradoxically, this means we must actually support the agents behind AGW. It is easy for Greta to say America should stop polluting when Eurasia's glacial advance will be decades or centuries behind North America. It is not so easy for North Americans to say "we will sacrifice our continent so that Greta can frolic in meadows somewhere else while we starve and die".
Basically, we are extremely screwed and there is nothing we can really do about it, so blaming it on politicians or believing they can make a difference when we have already unleashed an event in the making that could fall somewhere between the Younger Dryas and the KT impact in terms of global significance, is completely folly. As is this entire thread. LOL. We are screwed and pretending we can do something about it is somewhat worse than acknowledging what may be impending and planning for a societal back-up as everything around us collapses.
If ASIF members cannot agree that Bernie Sanders needs to be the Democratic nominee and then the president, or are unwilling to act accordingly, they are not serious about AGW, and I don't want people who are not serious about AGW to be members of the ASIF any longer. Which means I kindly ask those people to leave this forum and spend their time elsewhere, a place where it's okay not to be serious about AGW (there are many).I personally find future mass murder of living children and adults in the coming decades by AGW to be a much more terrible sin than present "murder" of embryos, especially those recently created or those forced upon the woman or those that put the woman risk or those that put other cohabiting embryos at risk (our personal case).
OTOH, when a poster who has been advancing a hare-brained theory of impending glaciation for years all over the forum - despite lots of evidence and arguments to the contrary posted in the appropriate threads - has finally revealed his hand by claiming nothing should be done about AGW to avoid hastening this impending glaciation, maybe it's time to reconsider the policy of scientific tolerance.
You have always had it out for me. IDK why, I have never done anything to you. My "hare-brained" theories are also verifying in the form of massive +SWE departures growing season by season, and record cold temperatures becoming much more common across the "Triangle of Coldness".I have NOT always had it out for you, and have no beef with you. I did and do have it out for your glaciation theory, which is not verifying btw (as opposed to massive fall/winter snows which have a good reason).
I have also kept my posts on this theory confined to wherever it is relevant, specifically, I have stopped posting it in the main forum and taken it to my threads in the snowcover area, where you still harass me. Why don't you just put me on ignore? I can return the favor if you like, I thought we had no beef, but evidently, you still have a bone to pick.
You have always had it out for me. IDK why, I have never done anything to you. My "hare-brained" theories are also verifying in the form of massive +SWE departures growing season by season, and record cold temperatures becoming much more common across the "Triangle of Coldness".I have NOT always had it out for you, and have no beef with you. I did and do have it out for your glaciation theory, which is not verifying btw (as opposed to massive fall/winter snows which have a good reason).
I have also kept my posts on this theory confined to wherever it is relevant, specifically, I have stopped posting it in the main forum and taken it to my threads in the snowcover area, where you still harass me. Why don't you just put me on ignore? I can return the favor if you like, I thought we had no beef, but evidently, you still have a bone to pick.
Here we are again, discussing it in the wrong thread, where I am unable to respond.
Let me also point out that, while I think it probable that hundreds of millions, if not billions, will die of Global Warming in the next hundred years, I have always had a skepticism that I would reach the Beatles 64. First because nuclear war would destroy civilization. Then because the Millennium Bug would destroy civilization (I was a faithful reader of Gary North). Then because Peak Oil would destroy civilization. I have a couple years and change left, and so far I have a perfect score. Zero. A quarter would have an 87.5% chance of doing a better job and couldn't do any worse. But abortion has killed hundreds of millions of babies in my lifetime. I must make my vote on present realities, if necessary (and it is) choosing the lesser evil.I think it is interesting to consider that bogeymen always exist in western society because of the lack of visible external threats. Humans have evolved to respond to constant threats. So whether they exist or not, we are hardwired to fear the millennium bug, peak oil, etc. Not so much females it seems -- perhaps because they typically were not the ones who dealt with external threats -- but among males, the paranoia is strong, and I am certainly no exception. When the DMI ran away back in 2016, I was convinced the world would be over by now. It is nice to be wrong!
Let me also point out that, while I think it probable that hundreds of millions, if not billions, will die of Global Warming in the next hundred years, I have always had a skepticism that I would reach the Beatles 64. First because nuclear war would destroy civilization. Then because the Millennium Bug would destroy civilization (I was a faithful reader of Gary North). Then because Peak Oil would destroy civilization. I have a couple years and change left, and so far I have a perfect score. Zero. A quarter would have an 87.5% chance of doing a better job and couldn't do any worse. But abortion has killed hundreds of millions of babies in my lifetime. I must make my vote on present realities, if necessary (and it is) choosing the lesser evil.I think it is interesting to consider that bogeymen always exist in western society because of the lack of visible external threats. Humans have evolved to respond to constant threats. So whether they exist or not, we are hardwired to fear the millennium bug, peak oil, etc. Not so much females it seems -- perhaps because they typically were not the ones who dealt with external threats -- but among males, the paranoia is strong, and I am certainly no exception. When the DMI ran away back in 2016, I was convinced the world would be over by now. It is nice to be wrong!
Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign announced Tuesday morning that it reached four million individual contributions faster than any presidential candidate in history, a milestone the campaign touted as evidence that the Vermont senator is surging with less than 80 days to go before the Iowa caucuses.
Now he predicts that Sanders will not be allowed to win the nomination or that he will be killed:
Ilhan Omar is essentially a terrorist, "some people did something," also she is incredibly corrupt and is f*cking her own brother. AOC helped torpedo Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. Do you really want to back domestic actors whose main targets are opportunities and liberty?Now he predicts that Sanders will not be allowed to win the nomination or that he will be killed:
Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Talib, and Bernie Sanders are the most threatened people in the world right now. There are bulks of nazis out there promising to end them.
Secret service doing nothing of course. Since they are not from the establishment they can be spared...
Hey, Bbr, i have never heard you distance yourself from right-wing terrorists. Why is that? Are you a terrorist supporter?....what? She literally said 9/11 is not a big deal. You are not worth engaging, my mistake.
(In case you didn't get what i just said, let me give you a hint: This is what you just did with Ilhan. I want no answer obviously. If you are answering anyway, you only show that you still don't get it which would be pretty embarrassing!)
Gabbard v. Harris serves as a political Rorschach test of sorts: Who you think “won” their exchange is largely a function of where you fall on the spectrum that goes from #StillWithHer to #FreeJulianAssange
I didn't know Buttigieg had floated sending troops to Mexico to fight drug cartels. Gabbard brought that up.
I also didn't know the US and Papua New Guinea are the only countries without paid family leave, as Yang pointed out.
I'll look into both of those myself after watching the debate.
I wonder if "quality polls" will become less relevant. Monmouth polls (which 538 rates A+) are done exclusively by phone, with the majority being landline. That will obviously under-represent younger demographics, who generally do not answer unknown callers on their cellphones. I don't know anyone under 40 with a landline.
In Monmouth's most recent New Hampshire poll, only 29% of respondents were under 50, and only 12% were under 35. Those percentages may have roughly correlated with actual voter turnout in past elections, but the under 50 vote was the majority in the 2018 midterms. The truth is probably somewhere between the "quality" approved DNC list and online polling like Change Research. If so, it's a shame that the DNC process is discounting younger generations in its rather un-democratic selection process.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FT_19.05.23_GenerationsVoting_YoungergenerationsoutvotedBoomerpriorgenerations2018.png?resize=310,520)
IDK, Kat. Given all the other variables (i.e. donations, grassroots support, independent media support, panic on the corporate Democrats side, etc) i come to the conclusion that Emerson is more likely to be not rigged. ;)
Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy.
2106 election
Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy.
Wait, it's either accurate or rigged. I don't know if i understand 'predictive accuracy' correctly, but this would imply only trends are visible anyway.Quote2106 election
;)
I keep hearing 'rigged or not' as if it wasn't a difference.
In 2016 it backfired. Too many Democratic voters where so damn sure this dimwit wouldn't win the election and because of that didn't show up at the voting booth.
Well, KK, considering they predicted the election 90 years early, one out of four ain't bad! :DIDK, Kat. Given all the other variables (i.e. donations, grassroots support, independent media support, panic on the corporate Democrats side, etc) i come to the conclusion that Emerson is more likely to be not rigged. ;)
Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy. On the eve of the 2106 election, Emerson predicted that Clinton would win the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, while Trump would take only Iowa and Ohio.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/11/07/emerson-college-polling-predicts-clinton-wins-by-landslide-n2242543
Emerson also predicted that the Democrats would win control of the Senate, flipping seats in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They got one out of four correct.
Well, KK, considering they predicted the election 90 years early, one out of four ain't bad! :DIDK, Kat. Given all the other variables (i.e. donations, grassroots support, independent media support, panic on the corporate Democrats side, etc) i come to the conclusion that Emerson is more likely to be not rigged. ;)
Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy. On the eve of the 2106 election, Emerson predicted that Clinton would win the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, while Trump would take only Iowa and Ohio.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/11/07/emerson-college-polling-predicts-clinton-wins-by-landslide-n2242543
Emerson also predicted that the Democrats would win control of the Senate, flipping seats in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They got one out of four correct.
Over 60% of registered voters turned out, compared to 58.6% in 2012.
Slight problem with that thesis--millions more voted for Clinton than for Trump.
Over 60% of registered voters turned out, compared to 58.6% in 2012.
How does this break down to dems/reps? If you state the absolute percentage you kinda prove my point.
I remember a poll just before the 2016 election that gave Hillary a 99.5% chance of a win.
Just last week, Nate Silver’s polls-only forecast gave Hillary Clinton an overwhelming 85 percent chance of winning. But as of Thursday morning, her odds have fallen down to 66.9 percent — suggesting that while Donald Trump is still the underdog, there’s a one-in-three shot he’ll end up the next president. Liberals have tried to comfort themselves with the knowledge that FiveThirtyEight is an outlier among the six major forecasts, and that the other five give Trump between a 16 percent and a sub-1 percent chance of winning.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast (https://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast)
...
So how likely is it that there will be either a polling error (either nationwide or in enough states to tip the scale) or a last-minute swing the polls simply don’t have time to pick up on (again, either nationwide or in enough key states)? All the other models are essentially telling us that given the data we have, these scenarios are very unlikely to transpire — but Silver’s is warning not to count it out.
...
Other models are leaning more towards assuming that with so much polling in so many states showing Clinton narrowly ahead, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll all be wrong in the same way. But Silver’s model thinks a “miss” in national polling would likely be reflected in swing states too — even states that have been considered part of Clinton’s “firewall” up until now
Polls don't make predictions, models do. Nate Silver's model gave Clinton less than a 70% chance in November 2016, and gave Democrats only a 19% chance of winning the Senate in 2018. So you must be thinking of someone else, Klondike Kat.QuoteJust last week, Nate Silver’s polls-only forecast gave Hillary Clinton an overwhelming 85 percent chance of winning. But as of Thursday morning, her odds have fallen down to 66.9 percent — suggesting that while Donald Trump is still the underdog, there’s a one-in-three shot he’ll end up the next president. Liberals have tried to comfort themselves with the knowledge that FiveThirtyEight is an outlier among the six major forecasts, and that the other five give Trump between a 16 percent and a sub-1 percent chance of winning.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast (https://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast)
...
So how likely is it that there will be either a polling error (either nationwide or in enough states to tip the scale) or a last-minute swing the polls simply don’t have time to pick up on (again, either nationwide or in enough key states)? All the other models are essentially telling us that given the data we have, these scenarios are very unlikely to transpire — but Silver’s is warning not to count it out.
...
Other models are leaning more towards assuming that with so much polling in so many states showing Clinton narrowly ahead, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll all be wrong in the same way. But Silver’s model thinks a “miss” in national polling would likely be reflected in swing states too — even states that have been considered part of Clinton’s “firewall” up until now
fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/ (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/)
LOL. Did you read your own article? The title is literally Nate Silver: Forecasts Showing Clinton With 99% Chance of Winning "Don't Pass Common-Sense Test".
Silver had Democrats with a 50.7% chance of winning the Senate in 2016. Not 70%.
fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast)
CNN analyst and Politico’s Chief Washington Correspondent Ryan Lizza claimed in an article, Tuesday, that former President Barack Obama had privately said he “would speak up to stop” 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) if he “were running away with the nomination.”
That is simply were he stands politically.You mean where he stands?
Yes. Isn’t spellcheck wonderful?QuoteThat is simply were he stands politically.You mean where he stands?
Dependent on whether weather where we're waiting wears out our outer wear. ???Yes. Isn’t spellcheck wonderful?QuoteThat is simply were he stands politically.You mean where he stands?
I think my spellcheck would start smoking with that!How much would would a spell check check if a spell check could check would?
Dependent on whether weather where we're waiting wears out our outer wear. ???Wahrlich wahnwitzige Wortwucht wirkt bei jedem Wetter! Warum Wäsche wechseln?
Heinz Erhardt Alles mit 'G'Göttliches vom größten Germanisten seit Goethe!
... Of the three candidates, Sanders was least likely to be mentioned positively (12.9% of his mentions) and most likely to be mentioned negatively (20.7%). The remaining two-thirds of his mentions were neutral . . . Warren had the lowest proportion of negative coverage of all three candidates (just 7.9% of all her mentions) and the highest proportion of position mentions (30.6%) ...
Sen. Kamala Harris Drops Out Of Presidential Race
Presidential material indeed. #not6:59min ff is essentially continuing TrumPutin's narrative. Of course the balance now needs to shift a bit into the direction of facts, but the effect is the same: Distraction and vote suppression - even while the narrator pretends to warn of that. Good stuff. :)
Biden Calls Voter ‘Fat’ & 'Too Old' During Tense Exchange
[...]
As of 14 October 2019, the members of the board of directors, in order of seniority, are Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Joseph Cofer Black , Karina Zlochevska, Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina Pericleous.
6:59min ff is essentially continuing TrumPutin's narrative.
"Biden corrupt" (Corollary: "Trump no worse".)6:59min ff is essentially continuing TrumPutin's narrative.
What do you mean, Martin?
You don't find it odd that the son of Biden gets money from a Ukrainian FF company? Doesn't smell like corruption to you?On 2nd thought and superficial inspection, nope, not at all. They want to get rid of their past image of corruption. (*) Thus they hire well-known western names. (Yeah, heck, just like I was once hired for having a German "Dipl. Math." which looks pretty on the business card of the otherwise incompetent QM. (I gathered the job competence later.))
So here is Biden, ranting and yelling. Did he say why it's legit? Did he make an argument that he is not corrupt? Of course not. He's sitting so high on his throne...Maybe he is sick and tired of the same old shit? The fat man was in fact a stupid asshole - but that's what many voters are. Indeed Joe Biden seems to have failed explaining stuff. He looks a bit Hillary-ish or Merkel-ish to me: loss of connection to the simpletons.
Der getroffene Hund bellt.
You don't find it odd that the son of Biden gets money from a Ukrainian FF company? Doesn't smell like corruption to you?
Steve, when it comes to corruption, when it smells, it's already too corrupty!
And he ran without his fathers endorsement and it failed (just like Piquet jr would love to be as good as his dad but will always be remembered for crashgate) whereas Biden jr landed some nice paying job he was not really qualified for.
I would go for less.
Well you don´t know the first statement. I actually really do not care much about this subject but i wonder about the plausible credentials. Could you list them?
Maybe he is sick and tired of the same old shit?
Steve, if you are seriously going to try and defend the Bidens here (which is strategically a really dumb move, never mind the fact that it's indefensible), I would kindly ask you to move to some MSNBC forum.
My point wasn't to defend Biden. My point was that in evaluating any candidate, the sins of an adult child aren't relevant.
Biden has serious substantive flaws, those should be the basis of discourse.
Never, if Bernie does not get the nomination, as the only option would you support him running as an Independent?
. . .
They are all servants of concentrated wealth, and that's why they need to be smoked out, and measures need to be taken to deconcentrate wealth. Only Sanders offers a glimpse of hope of accomplishing that. Nobody comes even close to offering that glimpse.
No other candidate can be considered acceptable?
Only Sanders? All our eggs in one basket? No other candidate can be considered acceptable?
Meanwhile America (and the now many other nations headed by Trump-like leaders) are on an express train to devastation, tyranny, and vast suffering. Stopping that express train must be the first step in the emergency, and this is politically achievable. Virtually any of the candidates would act to halt that express train. But if we bet all-or-nothing on a candidate who is vulnerable to scaremongering, we might well lose it all.
Pete Buttigieg Says 'No' When Asked If He Thinks Getting Money Out Of Politics Includes Ending Closed-Door Fundraisers With Billionaires
Biden is corrupt, just like Trump is.Haha... Paradigmatic. Don't you see any differences or nuances between those two? Putting Biden and Trump into one box? Seriously? You won't better the world with simplistic either-or black-white logic. Trumputin propaganda logic, as I explained before. Strictly following the tertium-non-datur and Western simplifications of negation and nonnegation etc. is not always a sign of intelligence and rigorous analysis - More often than not it is a symptom of the ego's refusal to have a serious look at things and processes outside the logician's head.
Only Sanders? All our eggs in one basket? No other candidate can be considered acceptable?
Unfortunately, this is the case. No other candidate is acceptable.
What's wrong with Yang ?
And didn't you used to fancy Tulsi Gabbard ? What changed ?
But if Sanders doesn't become president, it's game over.
Gabbard identifies as a “hawk” on Islamist terrorism, supporting U.S. military missions against al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State, while opposing regime-change policies that she says create openings for terrorist groups.
A young Gabbard starred in an anti-gay marriage ad in the early 2000s that compared gay weddings to incest and bestiality, opposing gay weddings because “I can’t marry my sister or my brother.” The group run by her father also went by the name Stop Promoting Homosexuality. Gabbard previously issued an apology for her past record, emphasising her work on LGBT+ issues in Congress.
Tulsi Gabbard Is A Rising Progressive Star, Despite Her Support For Hindu Nationalists
<snipped>
Terry, why do you think the Duke and the Bannon type of US NAZIs are supporting her?
Well - isolationism might be preferable to interfering in everything that's comes visible on the horizon. As to the rest, none of these have ever appeared on my radar.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.
- Maya Angelou
I cannot figure out who the dems that like Tulsi Gabbard are. Or why. She is not a good person.
But if Sanders doesn't become president, it's game over.
Sanders does not share your polar black/white position.
I cannot figure out who the dems that like Tulsi Gabbard are. Or why. She is not a good person.
But she's still better than Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Booker, Harris, Bloomberg, and all the others from the Wine Cave crew. What does that say about them?
I don't think it would be very politically wise for him to say that if he doesn't become president, it's game over. But I can say it, with no problems. And if you disagree with it, you're just not serious about AGW or all the other systemic problems humanity faces. At all.
I would rather have a centrist, status quo democrat than a right wing talking head.
Neven, are you alright ?
Because this does not make any sense at all.
At ANY level.
If any of the centrist/corporate Democrats get the nomination, they won't be able to beat Trump,Not everywhere. E.g. there is a NY swing district where folks are scared the Dems take their private health insurance plans away. No kidding - folks can be that stupid not far from New York city. A Medicare for All candidate would hand the district to Trump. (Reported by an insider friend there this summer.)
I would rather have a centrist, status quo democrat than a right wing talking head.
That's how you get Trump. Why would you want that?
Re: "When you are isolationist you are basically saying, "Only my countrymen are able to serve my needs" or "I don't want services from foreigners". This is inherently nationalistic/racist."
You seem to have a different definition of isolationism than I do.
Let me define what i mean by "isolationism" : independence from foreign influence, and refusal to engage in war beyond the nations borders.
Ktb, i'm the biggest supporter of a multi-party system for the US and i despise Tulsi just like you, but this is not the time to vote third party. Period.
Imagine more people would do it like this and Trump wins again because of it. This means more right-wing supreme court judges (at least one) who then turn the country right for the next 40 years. You would have a full stop on anything progressive. The stakes are too high.
The only reason I would vote 3rd party is if Gabbard gets the nomination. She’s on the right politically. Trump is far right.
This in turn means that any strong country can now invade another weaker country, and nobody would do anything about it.
But centrist/corporate Democrats are also on the right politically
The only reason I would vote 3rd party is if Gabbard gets the nomination. She’s on the right politically. Trump is far right.
But centrist/corporate Democrats are also on the right politically, because they serve their donors and not the American people. So, why would you vote for that? Any Blue won't do, when it isn't really Blue. Haven't the right-wing Clinton and Obama presidencies taught people anything? Identity politics doesn't make you left-wing, it's the economic policies. When these serve concentrated wealth, they are right-wing. Leftism has ceased to exist in the USA after Jimmy Carter. Only Sanders can bring it back.
Per capita, the US is still the worst polluter by far!
Idk how many times I have to say this. I AM VOTING FOR SANDERS ffs.
That being said, if he does not win the nomination I will begrudgingly support whoever comes up next.
If my options are center/center left, the far right, or 3rd party, than I will be going center/center left.
QuoteIf my options are center/center left, the far right, or 3rd party, than I will be going center/center left.
But 'center/center left' is right in the US! In fact, it's even worse. It's neoliberal, and neoliberalism (the nr 1 philosophy of concentrated wealth) is the major reason the world is in the state it's in. You can't vote for a continuation of that. So, please, if you are willing to vote third party in certain situations, do so as well when your only option is voting for a corporate neoliberal who is not substantially going to change anything. Because you will lose another 4-8 years for nothing! At least try to protest!
Your attitude is what assures the cheaters they can stab Sanders in the back again. They need to win your vote. Don't give it away so cheaply. It's Sanders or nothing.
No, Neven. It's vote-blue-no-matter-who or else we get another 4 years of Trump.
The worst choice (apart from voting Trump directly) would be to vote third party, or not vote at all, because that's how Trump won in 2016.
No, Neven. It's vote-blue-no-matter-who or else we get another 4 years of Trump.
Keep voting for neoliberal shills and you'll see much, much worse and dangerous than Trump.
Things aren't standing still, you know. People voted Clinton and Obama into office, ...
Vote-blue-no-matter-who is the dumbest and most destructive attitude possible.
QuoteThe worst choice (apart from voting Trump directly) would be to vote third party, or not vote at all, because that's how Trump won in 2016.
That's not how Trump won at all. I know you live in a bubble where you have zero contact with poor Americans, but the least you could do, is stop spreading Corporate Democrat misinformation. More people would have voted Trump than Clinton if Jill Stein and Gary Johnson hadn't been third party candidates, or wouldn't have voted at all.
Either way, this is all moot. Sanders is the only one who can beat Trump and offer a path forward. None of the others can, especially the centrist/corporate democrats, because they are beholden to concentrated wealth and will make things even worse than they already are. It's as simple as that, unless you're unable to see through political theatre.
Bernie Sanders: I will not have a Republican as vice president
Link >> https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-not-republican-vice-220357500.html
much, much worse and dangerous than Trump.You seem to have no idea what Trump and friends are doing. Drain the swamp, hahaha.
much, much worse and dangerous than Trump.You seem to have no idea what Trump and friends are doing. Drain the swamp, hahaha.
You are okay with just these two choices?I would prefer a multi party system, of course. But the U.S. system is by its mathematically primitive design a 2-party half-democracy. We have seen that often enough: Green votes are effectively GOP votes. Ask Al Gore and Ralph Nader... That system needs to be changed first. Right now they can't even tackle gerrymandering.
Just swallow it and shut up, right?To the contrary.
AOC said herself multiple times it was Bernie who politicized her.Actually it was the Dakota Access Pipeline :)
So, it's 'without Bernie, no AOC'. :)
[...]An activist she knew at Standing Rock, where indigenous activists were leading a demonstration against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, told her the camp could use more women. So the then-27-year-old Ocasio-Cortez and two friends set up a GoFundMe page, loaded up a car full of supplies, and set out for South Dakota.https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-upset-joe-crowley-dsa-brand-new-congress-1/
Still shaken by the election of President Donald Trump, they brought a camera and logged hours of footage talking with people along the way—small business owners in Ohio, housing experts in Flint, Michigan. They made it to the high plains before Christmas and then lived for weeks among Standing Rock’s water protectors in a tent with a wood-burning stove. Ocasio-Cortez was seeking a “first-person idea of what was going on” in America, she told me when we spoke last fall. What she found was that “militarized corporations” were taking over parts of the country, unchecked by political powers.
[...]
... Even Bernie Sanders can't tell the difference between social democracy and democratoc socialism...
A democratic socialist probably can't win in America in a general election. A social democrat could.Exactly my little problem with Bernie. He is a mainstream social democrat for European standards. But I'm not yet sure about his electability in the polarized, polarizing and primitive polit culture of the U.S.
Neven (or anyone else pushing hard for Sanders):
How sure are you that Bernie will walk the walk and not just talk the talk?
I remember when Obama was elected and he rejoiced that now the seas would stop rising. How did that turn out?
if not Tulsi who?
But according to our analysis, someone polling around where Biden was in the second half of the year has roughly a 35 percent chance of claiming the Democratic nomination. A 1-in-3 chance isn’t great, but this is still better than, say, Bernie Sanders’s or Elizabeth Warren’s chances. They essentially tied for second, with an unadjusted polling average around 16 percent in the second half of the year, which historically has meant a 10 percent chance of winning.
By equating Dems and Reps (a false equivalency IMHO) you effectively work for Trumputin.
What I do, is equate Corporate Democrats and Republicans.
One can do so in many aspects of politics, Neven. But there are topics where even the most conservative corporate democrat is better than the most liberal republican.
I agree with the quoted sentence when it comes to economics. But when it comes to social security, for example, the Dems are remarkably better for decades now. Which, of course, means not that it's good politics but still quite distinguishable from the Reps.
Neven:
Forget FDR, just go back to Carter with his sweaters and solar panels.
And there was still time then to make a difference on AGW.
Well, those people who get their food stamps cut as we speak would disagree i guess.
And the plans to cut social security already surfaced. I bet this will be done within this legislation period.
I can't think of a valid argument for Dems to do such things.
Right, Biden is the same kind! But they didn't succeed against the party lines.
Neven:
Even if Bernie gets in the White House, do you think he can change things? One POTUS once said “ I give orders and nothing happens.”. With all the institutional hindrances will Sanders just beat his head against a wall?
It is going to take decades to get on a less destructive path.Do we have decades to avoid catastrophe?
QuoteIt is going to take decades to get on a less destructive path.Do we have decades to avoid catastrophe?
Clinton did some aweful stuff and the party lines were not drawn around that area because they were all fine with it.
From Ipsos Poll yesterday;
Results show that Sen. Sanders
does a better job of drawing
independent supporters to his campaign.
2.5x more than Biden
3x more than Warren, Buttigieg and Bloomberg
4x more than Steyer
12x more than Klobuchar and Yang
Cory Booker Drops Out of Presidential Race
While Bernie Sanders has always stood up for African Americans, Joe Biden has repeatedly let us down
Link >> https://www.thestate.com/opinion/article239206718.html#storylink=cpy
Elizabeth Warren lies about Bernie Sanders, claims he said: "A woman can't win in 2020."
Pre-crime Bernie in 1988:
"In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States."
Link >> https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1216793548567113728
Warren lied? What we have is divergent descriptions of a private meeting between Sanders and Warren in December 2018. What's publicly known is covered in this article:
Warren lied? What we have is divergent descriptions of a private meeting between Sanders and Warren in December 2018. What's publicly known is covered in this article:
What we know is that two sources, who don't want to go on record (!!), report from a meeting they never attended (!!).
And on the other side, we have a man who is saying "Woman can be president" for decades. Publicly!! On fucking camera!!
What is there to question? This bothsideism is hard to stand in general for me, Steve, but in this particular case, it's extraordinary.
We don't know what was said in that private meeting
The elite of the United States has lost control of the political process in the pre-election campaign
Who will stand up for the “insurance town” in the 2020 election? Why should the government do things? Will Bernie Sanders bankrupt America? Who onstage will let Iran have a nuclear weapon ― you know, just because?
If these sound like terrible questions to you, you’re right. They were awful. And they were the focus of CNN’s tedious, interminable, frivolous debate on Tuesday night ― a fiasco of irrelevance held three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Again and again, CNN anchors substituted centrist talking points for questions
2016 deja vu all over again? The Dem circular firing squad gearing up, cheered by progressive wannabe punditry...
I haven't looked in detail
Who started this, how and why?Looks like CNN started it. The circular firing squad punditry (even Cenk Uygur) then happily (and/or stupidly) misinterpreted it as an accusation of sexism toward Bernie. And there you go again. If I wanted to be paranoid: It's an old Republican trick to avoid any debate of substance. Most Americans, left and right, can only think with their belly.
Looks like CNN started it. The circular firing squad punditry (even Cenk Uygur) then happily (and/or stupidly) misinterpreted it as an accusation of sexism toward Bernie. And there you go again. If I wanted to be paranoid: It's an old Republican trick to avoid any debate of substance.
Looks like CNN started it. The circular firing squad punditry (even Cenk Uygur) then happily (and/or stupidly) misinterpreted it as an accusation of sexism toward Bernie. And there you go again. If I wanted to be paranoid: It's an old Republican trick to avoid any debate of substance.
You still haven't looked into it! But you're still talking!
That Bernie even had to say that corroborates my point. Nothing has changed since.
Heck, f-ing not. (The point (nobody gets).)That Bernie even had to say that corroborates my point. Nothing has changed since.
What's your point? That Sanders is a misogynist and sexist?
Do you seriously expect Bernie to somehow win the nomination?
QuoteWhat's your point? That Sanders is a misogynist and sexist?Heck, f-ing not. (The point (nobody gets).)
Anyhow, ever since the Pocahontas thing it is clear that Elisabeth is bad in the mud slinging department of politics.
Here is what was said, and I insist taking it literally. It's as f-ing simple as that. Liz has not accused Bernie of sexism. That is a stupid misinterpretation or exaggeration - independent of who said it. It is as simple as that, and it should be easy to grasp.
The thing is: Warren or her campaign team did nothing to dispel it. No explaining, just vague statements, even during the debate. She could've explained it like Grim does in two sentences. But she didn't. And then she confronted Sanders while the cameras and mikes were still running, as if she didn't know that.Yes. That's why I think she's a bad choice for presidental candidate. Just like Hillary, professor Liz has trouble explaining the obvious. She can't see that others dont see it. Or, that the public aren't just students who themselves are responsible when not paying attention and failing the class. The Trumpists would steamroll her, with eager help from the progressive punditry (where I smell (subconscious) sexism in several heads. An intelligent woman doing substance triggers the college boys' envy. (Glaring example: Jimmy Dore, esp. with a well-known lesbo :) .)).
Liz has not accused Bernie of sexism.
Continue stirring the steaming BS...?Liz has not accused Bernie of sexism.
That's a rather naive statement, don't you think?
What does it imply if Bernie really said that?
Mr. Sanders distanced himself from the piece by Zephyr Teachout, an associate professor at Fordham Law School, former New York political candidate and longtime supporter of Mr. Sanders. The op-ed, published on Monday in The Guardian, argued that Mr. Biden “represents the transactional, grossly cor