Bernie Sanders 2016 Feel the Bern!

Because that is beyond what is necessary to create and sustain a healthy middle and middle-lower class.

Beyond that, inflating wages for jobs that do not generate more than $30 an hour in value will create a job and production vacuum.

No one is advocating for that. They're advocating for a livable wage as the bare minimum standard.

The slippery slope argument holds no sway here.

 

Why does everyone pretend that only Sanders supporters are annoying Hilary, Trump, Cruz, supporters are all annoying and scary in their own right.

What's also annoying is the media taking quotes out of context to fit their pro-clinton narrative.

 

Those inflation adjusted minimum wage charts are variable. $8 is on the low end of the projected adjustment for the 60s. $10-$11 is probably a fairer adjustment.

The minimum wage here is currently $9.00 and going to $9.50 in August (with inflation adjusted increases every year going forward). So far so good. And to top it off, we don't have a tip credit here so restaurant workers get the full minimum wage plus tips.

So far restaurant prices haven't gotten out of control. Prices have remained steady and automation hasn't taken over everything (although I did see Panera piloting kiosks and predictably old people absolutely hated it. There were also problems but this is a test so that's to be expected)

I'm happy with the results. Kudos to our legislature for bumping up the minimum wage.

 

that is a flat out lie with no proof. if low wage earners have more money they will spend most of it. well where will they spend it? that's right at the restaurants, the clothing store, the cleaners, etc... having more customers with more money hurts business how??? Sure those same businesses have larger payrolls now but they also have more customers who now have more expendable income. If done right, businesses can have higher payrolls but still be more efficient to take advantage of the new expendable income in the economy.

we've increased the velocity of money, and that's good. it's the upper middle class and up who SAVE money (no velocity of money) that hurts the economy.

 

Gee has it right that these charts are variable and I posted one of the most conservative estimates.

I believe that the whole "fight for 15" thing comes from two things:

1) Marketing: as silly as it sounds, you need a slogan/idea that you can sell to the masses. "fight for nine dollars and forty one cents!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

2) Aiming High: You go into a fight like this assuming you will lose/not make your goal. So, naturally, you adjust your aspirations accordingly. Losing the battle for 15, and winding up at 12, is a hell of a lot better than losing a fight for 10 and ending up at 9.

 

Gonna go ahead and leave this here to preemptively shut down the other anti-minimum wage talking point that will surely come up.

 

thanks. I guess I was confused between constant dollars and inflation adjusted numbers. I always thought they were the same thing. Not the first time I've been off on economist jargon.

 

Let me clarify, I do not believe that what party elites had in mind when they created superdelegates was to actively shift the party to the right, but it was definitely one of the consequences. The creation of superdelegates was another set of actions undertaken in what was becoming a Republican-dominated regime with little resistance.

Losing election after election, in addition to having an incumbent suffer one of the worst defeats in history in 1980 tends to make you want to change things. The original intent of the sueprdelegates was to eliminate conflict among the elites and encourage unity. However, it was as also very reactionary to the demonization of liberalism at the time and that was reflected in the party's near-unanimous suppport for Mondale, a politician that was to the right of the democratic party of FDR, LBJ, and RFK.

It was simply another step in the direction in the desire to become a more competitive party. The transition was completed by the DLC council, and utlimately, it became well understood of where you had to be on the political spectrum to have the favor of the elites. Obama had the banks behind in 2008, people forget that. For as left as his rhetoric was, his actions were given the stamp of approval from the neoliberal democrats.

Perhaps we can debate on the intent the elites had when superdelegates were created, but the inability to beat Reagan had a lot to do with it. Ted Kennedy's last stand for New Deal economic policy vs Jimmy Carter's borderline conservative stances divided the party and led to his 1980 election loss. Thus, I concede the primary reason was likely party unity, but there was an underlying shift to the right which was amplified after the DLC convened. The evidence backs this up, as we have never had anybody to the left of Ted Kennedy be the nominee since.

 

How is this condescending towards Super Tuesday voters? I was implying that our corporate media is **** and has not done an adequate job educating the constituency. That's not the voters' fault. Now, does this mean I believe Sanders would have won the majority of the states if he had adequate coverage? No, Sanders is way to the left of the South and Clinton would likely have won either way, but not nearly by the margins she obtained. If anything, I'm being condescending towards the Clinton campaign and the legitimacy of their victories since they like to brag about them all the time, try to direct your backlash in the proper direction.


If you think that media coverage Sanders got from tieing Iowa and winning New Hampshire was enough to offset a year's worth of Clinton pandering and one-sided coverage, you're wrong. In addition, in all of 2015, before the wins, he got 10-20 minutes of TOTAL coverage between the major news media outlets. Trump got about 80 times as much, and look at the support this idiot has gotten with virtually no organization. Clinton got 40 times as much coverage in the same time frame despite being perceived as an inevitable nominee.

You want to know how its obvious that Bernie Sanders is not well known? Surveys show that 70% of the American people favor a single-payer healthcare system, 58% support breaking up the banks, over 50% support increasing the minimum wage, debt-free college education, and a financial transaction tax on wall street speculation. Virtually every one of Sanders' policies are supported by a majority of the people and yet so many STILL are not fully aware of his policies. There is a reason millennials flock to him, they learned about him via the internet, not that joke of a news company CNN which unfortunately, older voters still follow.


Bottom line, Bernie does well in places that give him time to campaign in and make up for the joke that is the corporate media. That's why he managed to pull out Michigan, tie Iowa, win New Hampshire, and win Wisconsin. Also, even in states that he has lost, it is important to note that he does very well on election day voting. Huge parts of the margins in the South and Florida were predetermined by mail-in ballots weeks ahead of the primary, likely because the perception of Clinton as the inevitable nominee had been fed by the media for nearly a year. And if you don't think the media has been dismissive, just read your own posts, the tone the media has set is littered throughout your opinions.

Lastly, your basketball analogy is not adequate. I don't know why you're equating flashy dunks to a growing, dynamic movement that has years of unrest fueling it. I agree that points at the beginning and end are equally important, but the fundamentally sound team started the game (from the beginning) with a 40 point lead that has now been sliced to 20 with one quarter to go. Also, your fundamentally sound team has the refs on their side (the refs being the DNC, who scheduled 6 debates in 2016 vs 26 in 2008) not to mention most of the NBA board of governors (superdelegates) showing public favor to one team. If anybody were betting on this game with complete knowledge at the outset they would be stupid to bet against the Hillary squad. However, new bets are being cast before the 4th, with a lot of them against a complacent team that was basically handed the trophy before the game. (also, what the f*** is using the "rules"? Is that like taking Super-PAC money and laundering additional donations through state parties? If so, then you are correct, Hillary uses the "rules" extremely well)

I could keep going but it's blatantly obvious to anyone who is well informed that the odds have been stacked against the Bernie Sanders campaign from day one. In addition, I suggest you question the sources of your information, as it's clear that your perception of this being a fair election process with a fair media is extremely unjustified and ironically, naive.

 

It'll be good to put the New York primary behind us so Bernard will get some wind taken out of his sails.

Naturally his army of bloggers will only redouble their efforts. You can't do a Google search for Clinton or Sanders without finding links to pro-Bernie, anti-Hillary op-eds dressed up as actual articles.

These utopian ideals you pro-Bernie people keep railing about? The candidate himself hasn't articulated any real plans or solutions to achieve them. All he needs is Sancho Panza and he'll be complete.

Righteous anger will only get you so far. I appreciate many points he's bringing up, but no way, no-how, do I want him as President.

 

I should just let you rant. But I'll respond:

Early media didn't talk about him much because there wasn't much to talk about. They didn't talk about O'Mally either. They did talk about Hillary's emails, Bengazi, her trials as Sec State, the Clinton Foundation, and her campaign. The talking heads at Fox know a Hillary bashing is always good for ratings, so when you add up media hits, she will, unsurprisingly have the most. Especially if the period looked at is to Jan 2016. She received 40X his coverage precisely because she was perceived as the inevitable nominee, and because she had a lot of other stuff going on at the time. He hadn’t done much newsworthy to that time, nor was he a celeb/quote-machine like Trump. How much coverage did Kasick, or any of the other candidates get? How much coverage has any unknown candidate ever received before they gained wide support? A better measure would be Feb to April and restrict it to the campaign. I’m guessing they’re close at best – but that’s just a gut feel. If he wanted early coverage, it’s his responsibility to be newsworthy. His PR team had to do a better job.

IMO much of the media has gone easy on reviewing his proposals -- embracing the pure outsider fighting for values narrative instead. No fracking? Stronger unions? Tear up trade deals? Break up the banks? Higher payroll tax? Revisit healthcare? More corporate tax? What's the impact? How will he accomplish it? As evidenced from the Trump show, much of the media has covered this campaign as a reality show rather than delving into policy impact. It's more fun. And it's what people want to read. Granted, your sources are undoubtedly less biased than mine. And if the coverage has failed to convince people to your point of view, you'll likely find it inadequate. Fair enough.

So we're on to New York... Sanders has spent well here -- last I saw, it was double Hillary spending but those numbers are always a little convoluted in how they're amassed. So let’s leave it at he's not underfunded. That everyone knows who he is and what his slogans are. Demographics favor a split. Polls show her up by 10 or so. He needs to make up ground.

 

In this sense I would say the Sanders campaign has been very successful and has shifted, at least the Democratic, debate to the left.

I said back before all this had started that a coronation for Clinton wouldn't be a good thing for her, the Democratic party or even the country. While I'm sure the Clinton campaign might've enjoyed running virtually unopposed as the GOP ripped itself apart I think they would've suffered from lack of coverage as all of the public interest would be on the other side and also they needed to sharpen their message and their campaign outreach. Only a contested primary can do that effectively.

Presidential races should be more than just a clash of personalities but also a clash of ideas and ideology. If this had only been a debate between middle and far right (or whatever Trump is) it wouldn't serve the country as well. While I'm critical of Sanders I also think without his voice from the left on the national debate has been a good thing.

 

Lol, you're absolutely right, his policies were pretty much boring and there was waaaaaay more interesting and juicy stuff to cover at the time. However, there's a big difference between what matters to most people and what the media perceives to be what people want. There's a reason the corporate media is bleeding, there's reason the average age of CNN viewers is 65 and 70 for fox. Their ratings suck a**, which explains why they would spend the amount of time they did covering 1 missing airliner for months on end. So again, the problem is the mainstream news media, and if we can all agree that they're absolute shi**, I'm fine with it. Regardless of who you support.

Also, really important to point to anyone who doubts corporate media bias, comcast and time warner, who own CNN and NBC, are the two of the top 10 contributors to Hillary's campaigns over the years. Do they ever mention that on air, inform the audience that there may be a conflict of interest? F*** no.


Now, as far as your assessment of how they have critcized his policies, I agree they have not been in depth but they have been fairly dismissive and overall very shallow.

 

Frankly that is very condescending as you're basically saying they were ignorant and many of them would've voted differently if they had only heard of Sanders more. Sanders raised a ton of money early on he could've done more advertising and outreach. Rather than just trying to rely upon major media to get his name out there. Anyway as other posters have noted was it fair to O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb that they didn't have as much coverage? If it's unfair to Sanders what about those guys?

As opposed to the Sanders campaign bragging about the string of caucuses he's won recently? But of course the Sanders campaign is very humble and respectful that they would never crow about their victories.

So it wasn't fair that Clinton has spent years building up a campaign machine, working within the Democratic party to line up support as opposed to Sanders who only about a year ago decided to officially become a Democrat? Or it that Sanders isn't a celebrity like Trump? I'm sorry to tell you if you're upset about fairness in this regard well life isn't fair.

Paul Wellstone's mantra was "ORGANIZE ORGANIZE ORGANIZE!" In this race the one candidate who has been doing that for more than the last eight years is Hillary Clinton. Many make fun of her for it and point that out as a weakness that she is so ambitious and a backroom dealer but the clearly she's benefiting from years of work. Instead though now Sanders supporters are claiming it isn't fair that Sanders doesn't benefit from that when he only started about a year ago and never built a power base.

Yes Sanders issues might be well known but Sanders wasn't. If it was just a matter of issues then it wouldn't matter if it was Sanders. It could've been Warren, Feingold, Franken or some other liberal candidate with more name recognition who could've run. For whatever reason they didn't. Even though I said in an earlier post that presidential races should be about ideas not just personality you cannot separate the personality from it. Sanders has done a lot on strength of ideas but to complain that he isn't getting name recognition because of ideas ignores that him personally is still the candidate not just some generic liberal candidate.

Sure I don't deny I'm occasionally dismissive but since you've talked about facts the facts are that she built up an early lead that Sanders hasn't closed and that the rules of Democratic process make it difficult for someone trailing late to catch up. Not impossible but difficult. That's a fact not spin.

Actually no. In terms of pledged delegates following the basketball analogy the Sanders' team had the early lead having won NH overwhelmingly.

As I said before when fans of team that is trailing frequently complain about the refs. I know I do it frequently in regard to the Rockets.

That said you're right it's not a perfect analogy but as I've said earlier since Sanders is the outsider it shouldn't surprise anyone that the establishment doesn't favor him. Sanders supporters seem to want it both ways. That Sanders is the outsider who stands out side of the system but they also then complain when the establishment doesn't help him out. He's either the outsider or he isn't.

Any definitive proof of this? If the Clinton campaign is acting illegally then the Sanders campaign should use that and press for charges against the Clinton campaign.

And you expected an outsider who wasn't even a Democrat to be on par with someone who had been working for years within the party to get the same amount of party support? I would question who is actually naive here.

Also one more thing. I don't know how old you are but I can tell you Mondale wasn't to the right of JFK. If anything JFK's policies were to the right of Mondale as he presided over a military build up and one of his legislative successes was a tax cut.

 

OK then. It's the lack of coverage from the corporate media that nobody watches except old people.

 

That is just not true.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

 

It's not condescending to say that voters in the South did not necessarily fully understand the platforms of both candidates. It's the truth. Now, it is an opinion to speculate that a lot of those voters would have voted for Bernie if they had access to correct and adequate information about his policies. Personally, I believe that. And the stats I brought up showing how a majority of Americans agree with Sanders' platform supports this speculation. I'm not saying he would have flipped the states he lost, but again, the margins would likely have been much smaller. If you think I'm calling the voters ignorant, then yea, I am. However, I don't hold them to that responsibility, it's the media's job to make sure they are informing the public.
If you want to defend the media's ability to fairly articulate the positions and platforms of all candidates, go right on ahead. But in reality They suck, simple as that.

And by the way, of course it's frickin unfair that the other candidates didn't have any coverage. O'Malley recently mentioned that he knew he was screwed the moment the debate schedule came out, since he knew he wouldn't get enough visibility to draw more donors. So yea, this isn't some Anti-Bernie specific conspiracy, it's an anti-establishment conspiracy. The DNC has done an absolute sh** job in giving their base multiple options. They simply wanted to give the illusion of options, and it's obvious.

The Sanders campaign of course has to brag about their victories, they literally have news anchors everyday talking about him as a "protest candidate" not to be taken seriously that will drop out of the race at any moment. If he doesn't talk about them nobody will. I am definitely biased in this regard, mainly because I believe it is amazing every time Bernie wins a primary. In addition, a lot of the caucuses in which he has won, he has IMPROVED on Obama's turnouts in 2008.
Want to know a dirty secret in all of Hillary's victories in which she beat the polls? The voter turnout in the south was abysmal, they were much lower than 2008, and as a result the percentage of OLDER voters increased relative to younger voters (since older voters are much better about voting). Thus, her percentages were artificially inflated since she appeared to win even bigger than Obama did in 2008. The real reason however, is simply that the voter turnout was low. This is why I don't like it when Hillary brags about her southern victories, she did not do a good job of turning out the vote and to be honest, she just benefited from the popularity established in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and Obama's popularity. I believe that her actual platform had little to do with the votes in the South. I know you want to giver her campaign some credit, but that's what I believe.

In regards to fairness, I just want media that does it's job educating people. In regards to Bernie, I am extraordinarily glad that he hasn't spent half is life fundraising for neoliberal democrats or hosting reality shows, it's a big reason why I support him. If you're proud of Hillary raising money from special interests for her friends in order to not only corrupt them, but also to bribe them for their support, then sure, brag about it. I'll stick to the guy with a real moral center and consistent set of ethics/principles.

n regards to organization, I don't know which Bernie supporters you have talked to, but I don't agree with them in this point. Bernie's campaign is FAR more organic than anything Clinton would ever have hoped to achieve, and that's the beauty of it. Perhaps those supporters were just frustrated that a campaign that was creating so much pro-activity was not being addressed nor covered in the media. Clinton can keep her political machine, Bernie knew what he was going against, and he still decided to fight. My belief is that her intimidating organization and preparedness is what likely discouraged potential challengers like Elizabeth Warren.

By the way, I don't applaud unprincipled pragmatism the way you do. The same reason that you want to give her credit for is the same reason I wouldn't vote for her. Her ambition compromises her principles.

In regards to name recognition. When I say name recognition it does not merely mean that somebody knows his name, they also need to know what he stands for. If you want my theory, it's that voters in the South probably heard of the name Bernie Sanders, but they likely had little knowledge of his actual platform or they had a negative view of him, since the media had basically been dissing him for months.

So to your point about policies not the person, I believe that any progressive candidate with this kind of platform would have been able to strongly challenge Hillary, perhaps even more strongly. Bernie's life is very powerful, but I do not think he is the most well-articulated progressive. Alan Grayson for example would likely have been a much more intriguing and appealing choice.

I also believe that any candidate running on a platform that promised increased taxes for the rich and was not liable to any special interest because they didn't take donations would also have likely have faced a similar media blackout. Comcast and Time Warner, the owners of CNN and NBC, have been two of the top 10 contributors to Clinton over the years. Huge conflict of interest.

However, Bernie decided to run because no other progressive wanted to face the Clinton machine. No one wanted to take on the corporations and the banks. He did, and that take guts.

With respect to her lead. I'm not a fool, I'm not saying that Bernie Sanders is not the underdog, of course he is! He's been the underdog the entire race and he will be unless he overtakes her in pledged delegates. However, he has the momentum, he represents the values of many of the activist movements in recent years. Occupy Wall Street has reassembled to help support Bernie. His message is infectious not the stale crap the Clinton campaign is serving.

Right, we complain about refs because we believe they're biased. The problem in regards to this primary is that they're obviously biased. The rules are written to favor establishment candidates. I'm not blaming the refs, I'm b****ing about a system that fundamentally compromises the best interests of the people.

You're right, he is the outsider. But just because a status quo exists does not mean it is justified. I'm glad the Bernie supporters are pissed about the system. We're pissed because we give a damn. Perhaps you believe that we should accept the current media and the misinformation they spread, but we don't. We'll keep B****in and you know what? We'll B**** some more. You can generalize us all you want and call us crybabies, but we give a damn about an institution that does so much to affect our democracy.
I suspect that you don't actually like the media establishment, but there seems to be a narrative about naive, lazy, and whiny Bernie supporters that you want to fit us into, regardless of anything we say. Try not to be judgemental. I'm a Bernie supporter, and it's not like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Lol, plenty of proof. The problem is it's perfectly legal. Clinton had donors funnel money to state parties to circumvent limits. The state parties then donated it to the Hillary Victory Fund. It's assumed that many of the superdelegates were promised favors for doing this and thus many of them endorse her before the primaries even began, talk about BS.

No, I did not expect an outsider to be on par with HRC right of the bat. When did I say that exactly? I simply expect any politician who represents the interests of the people to have an edge (isn't that a shocking assertion??). And that expectation has become true, They are now tied in the national polls.

Right but you have to take context into account. The top marginal tax rate in Eisenhower's administration was 91%, the highest ever. "Reducing taxes" might sound right-wing, but in this case the rate was ridiculous. JFK lowered it to 65%, way higher than anything we have now, under a "democrat" no less. Mondale on the other hand was trying to defeat Reagan, who had systematically reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% along with other deductions. So ya, Mondale wanted to increase taxes. And you know what? JFK would have done the same crap if he had succeeded Reagan. Ironically, Reagan ended up increasing taxes anyways, but you would never hear a conservative talk about that lol.

In regards to foreign policy, I would argue that JFK was in a more tense period of the Cold War. This is more of a subjective assertion so in regards to foreign policy, JFK was likely to the right of Mondale. But I stick to economic policies when I'm talking about right and left anyways.

I'm in college btw, just another naive, crybaby Bernie supporter who wants free sh** and doesn't know anything right?

To be honest, I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree, but I concede that I am slightly defensive when I feel Bernie supporters are marginalized and stereotyped. Our opinion matters, and shouldn't be dismissed. Bernie has more votes from 18-29 year olds than Clinton and Trump COMBINED. We are the future, we just want some respect.

By the way, Clinton is a weak front-runner. She is scandal-plagued, lacks charisma, and is driven solely by ambition. There's a reason she has been unable to put away a 74 year old socialist Jew despite all the advantages she has enjoyed, and it could still bite her in the a**.

 

http://www.verizon.com/about/news/senator-sanders-needs-get-his-facts-straight

 

Sanders should run Independent. Way he's gained on Clinton is remarkable and I'd say some states he lost early on he'd be winning now.

DNC has sabotaged his campaign and I see no allegiance on his part.
He won every other election running Independent.

At worse he pushes Clinton further and further left down the trail. If he's far ahead in polling against Clinton and Trump come Sept or October he should go to vote but if he's polling even around that time maybe pulling his candidacy