Honestly I don't blame Bernie supporters for not supporting anyone else - nor do I blame anyone else for not supporting Bernie. The policy idea's are so far apart ... It's just like AOC said , in any other country we wouldn't be in the same party - She was for once. Bernie's a socialist , the rest are Democrats (aside from potentially Warren who doesn't know which she wants to be).
Yes. Warren needed to dismantle these weak moderates who should have never been allowed to enter her lane like Klobuchar who is now snatching up educated women from right under her nose. Instead, Warren kept playing up "women on this stage have... accomplishments" mantra, which gave Klobuchar legitimacy and look what's happened to Warren since. This should race have been a Royal Rumble where Warren and Bernie tagged up and went after the field first, and then, fought each other at the end. Warren should have never cozied up to the establishment and listened to Hillary's former advisors. Those fools who couldn't beat Trump in a general election, have now run Warren's campaign into the ground.
I was referring to Bernie's supporters and your statement that you don't blame them for not supporting other candidates' positions and policies. Sorry that it was unclear. I was in agreement with you and just adding on to it.
I read the piece and it is interesting and there is certainly something to be said about her argument. That said as noted in the piece she was wrong on a few predictions also this part is substantially wrong: "But still, the results bore out her theory: For Democrats to win, they need to fire up Democratic-minded voters. The Blue Dogs who tried to narrow the difference between themselves and Trump did worse, overall, than the Stacey Abramses and Beto O’Rourkes, whose progressive ideas and inspirational campaigns drove turnout in their own parties and brought them to the cusp of victory." First off as noted O'Rourke and Abrams both lost their elections so citing them as Democrat successes is questionable. Second Blue Dogs (moderate to conservative Democrats) made up the vast bulk of the 41 districts that were flipped. She might have a point that numerically more liberal Democrats got more votes overall as in districts like MN 5 and NY 14 they won overwhelmingly that isn't the argument that is being made but that Democrats won back the House. It doesn't matter if they get everysingle vote in Brooklyn that still is only one House seat and a seat already held by the Democrats. In her model she acknowledges that there are 6%-7% of true independent voters. Other analyst cite as high as 20%. Either taking the low or high number Trump still lost the popular vote by about 3% and the margin of victory for him in the swing states of WI, MI, and PA was less than 1%. His margin of defeat in MN was 1.5%. A 6% difference in the electorate can make a big difference. Regarding who those independent voters are she points out that McMullin, Johnson and Stein all took enough votes that could've gone to Clinton. Possible but that is not certain. Probably Stein's votes will go Democrat but McMullin's might not nor is Johnson's votes guaranteed. McMullin was the Republican Never Trump vote. Those people might either come back to the fold, and according to her rationale should since they really are Republicans. Johnson ran as a pro-legalization Liberatarian. Many of those who don't really care about Libertarian ideals might support a Democrat but most Libertarians are already very skeptical of Democrats especially people like Sanders and Warren. Bottomline though even accepting her model as being factual and accurate there still isn't much reason to vote for Sanders based off it. She is saying pretty much any Democrat can win based on Anti-Trump turnout.
Right, I think I just wanted to sort of combat the narrative (that some people say, I'm not saying you do) that Sanders' identification as a democratic socialist is so inherently toxic that he would simply be unelectable. The main take away from her argument (which I confess is something myself and many Sanders supporters already believe) is that it's all about turnout. In order to win you have to activate low propensity voters like minorities and young people. I also believe that those targeting voters generally have a better ROI than trying to appeal to these unicorn swing voters. Of course, her theory also implies that minority and youth turnout is already a given due purely to anti-Trump sentiment but I don't think we should take that for granted. On the ground infrastructure and money also matter a lot, so far the Sanders campaign is leading in those categories as well. My bottom line is just vote for whoever you want in the primary, though if anyone talks to me I am of course going to make the argument for Bernie.
Which exposes why Warren would make a subpar president. If she can't manage a competition of less than a dozen, how is she going to do once she is in office. This doesnt even begin to delve beyond politics and positioning in our own government.
Texas has by far the highest uninsured rate out of any state in the USA. A whopping 18%, a 5x multiplier of the states with the lowest rates (3%), and 2x multiplier of the USA average of 9%. Medicare for all disproportionately benefits Texas the most out of any American state. Something to think about.
I admit I don't know if Sander's identification can keep him from the presidency. I don't know for certain if any Democrat can beat Trump and I still think this election is a 50% shot. As an incumbent with strong economic numbers Trump has a statistical advantage. That he can't get past 50% in approval points to inherent weakness and Bitecofer could be right than any Democrat can capitalize on anti-Trump feeling to win. I don't think we can just take that for granted and it would be a huge mistake among Democrats to just presume that will be the case. What I'm looking at is how Democrats have been able to comeback during Trump in 2018 and several special elections it was moderate Democrats like Doug Jones, Conor Lamb, and Melissa Slotkin that flipped red districts. It is very possible that Sanders can turnout a strong youth vote that didn't vote before in WI, MI, PA and other swing states to overcome rural votes. In 2016 in WI there were fewer votes in Milwaukee than in 2008 and if Clinton had won those she could've won WI. That said there were fewer votes in the whole state and in 2014 WI had the highest turnout for any state during a midterm election at 55% and Scott Walker won that one after surviving a recall vote two years earlier. Even if Sanders can turnout more numbers in traditionally blue areas there still might not be enough votes to win if Suburban areas don't agree with the Sanders' platform. Even if Sanders wins I think it will be a very narrow win with few coattails. That is why I think that a Sander's presidency will be very ineffectual. At the moment Democrats have an opportunity to both hold the House and flip the Senate. To do that they have to win red and purple districts. Once Sanders is the top of the ticket the whole Democratic party will be tied to Sanders. Sanders might be able to win back WI and PA by turning out more votes in Milwaukee and Philadelphia but that might not help Conor Lamb who narrowly won PA 17th a suburban district. For that matter a Hickenlooper and a Kelly will have a very hard time winning CO and AZ if they are tied to Sanders. As all of us should recognize controlling the Senate matters. For any Democrat it will be a very different Presidency if Mitch McConnel is still majority leader or Schumer is.
Watched 2 minutes of it. Where were you when Russian bots spread false information to help the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election? Funny how things change. People are stupid enough to believe things on Facebook and not do their own research. That's the constituency. That's the reason Trump got elected. Stupid, misinformed people. Obviously this has been a known thing with Facebook. Obviously our President is getting his talking points from Fox News. I think that's worse than allegations that CNN is in cahoots with a body that may potentially help put forth a candidate that may potentially win the Presidency. This is stupid. It's how right wing radicalists get radicalized. This guy is going to have a heart attack soon, and there won't be many tears shed.
Good luck with your post, Judo. I pointed out that Clinton won 3 million more votes than Sanders in the 2016 primaries, and 3 million more votes in the general against trump and that, in my opinion, the 12% of Sanders voters who (shockingly) voted for trump could have won the election for Clinton. To my knowledge, that 12% didn't include Sanders voters voting Libertarian or Green instead of for Clinton. But hey, Bernie in going to carry all before him, according to his ardent supporters. If he gets the nomination, I'll certainly be supporting him and praying that he wins (despite not being religious), unlike many of his supporters did with Hillary, which helped give us trump. What I care the most about is that trump is defeated and that the Democratic Party takes the Senate. I am not convinced that Bernie Sanders will take us there. What I'm hearing so far is a lot of spin. We'll see how it all turns out. What I care about it that we win. Some of the supporters of Bernie Sanders simply don't understand that. In order to get all the things done that many of us would like to see accomplished, you have to win the levers of power. It's simple logic.
You do know he was a Bernie supporter? I think he claims to be an independent now. How is that radicalizing the right?
I didn't know he was a Bernie supporter, but he sounds like a right radical. Eh, I guess he's a left radical, which I'm not fond of, either. It's that kind of thing that hurts this country. I'm not sure why everything has to be so extreme nowadays.
Don't listen to micfry. Jimmy Dore is an extreme anomaly. The vast majority of his followers are Trump supporter trolls. He used to work for TYT and he became more insane by the week and TYT punted him out.
