Ohio has delayed their primary until June. I don't think Sanders was going to win Ohio but I'm not sure it helps him that much since he will probably get pasted in FL. If he can turn out the Hispanic vote like he did in NV he might have a chance in AZ but the virus hurts Sanders where he says he is the strongest. IN turnout.
Sanders does deserve credit for moving the needle but I still think he could've done more if had dropped his focus on being a revolutionary and worked with the DNC. Sanders helped to swing a few liberal districts even more liberal but moderates are the ones who took the House and many state houses.
Hard to tell, Elizabeth Warren is essentially what you're describing and she didn't really catch on herself, but who knows what she could have done if Berne didn't run (and if the DNA thing didn't happen). I think one of the biggest mistakes from Bernie was using the label democratic socialist instead of social democrat. Socialist is just a scare tactic word in America, people don't understand it, older people do not like it. I think it's important for progressives to identify his missteps and correct them. A big part of Bernie's lure is being anti-establishment, so it's hard to tell if that was a hindrance or not, maybe he would have gotten further playing nice, maybe he wouldn't have gotten as far without it. If he played nice, but the media still trashed him, I'd guess he wouldn't have gotten nearly as far. It would have been nice if he had good enough game to have a plan with Warren, Yang, Gabbard, maybe Steyer to all endorse him, which could also be a weakness due to him not playing nice enough. Overall I think what he did as a whole was tremendous, but clearly not enough for the majority of the voting demographic (not people) are at right now to win the dem nomination. What he did do is inspire the future generation, laid out some really good groundwork, started a movement, all of those ridiculously high margins amongst young voters is a sign, the young demographic will carry and expand his movement to be greater every year from here on out, and will one day replace the current moderate control of the dem party.
You're right about the word socialist -- that has been a boogie man for both parties for decades. I first thought about that with AOC -- why not use a different word with the same meaning? It's like a guy selling firewood and insisting on calling himself a f***** salesmen.
Yep, just easy bait for all of his opponents and the media. I'm guessing Bernie has used that label in the past so he can't hide it or deny it, he's too honest to pull that ****, but it hurts him inside of the political game. For AOC and all future progressives, drop it. This isn't Europe, our people don't know what the hell you're saying when you say socialist. We have to use social democracy, which is the truest and most correct label for the platform anyways.
Tomorrow is a major wild card all of a sudden. What if Bernie wins these states because of young people being the only ones who turn out?
I kind of like that. He's stubborn about pushing his policies, which are policies that overwhelmingly help the American people. So I see him as being stubborn, and relentless in his effort to help the American people, specifically the middle/working class and the poor, those who need the progressive policies he pushes the most. I know some wished he was less stubborn and was more open to other policies, but there are usually very real reasons why he's not very open or interested in the other policies.
I bet the loss in turnout for young people is greater than for older people. Young people don't care as much about voting, and are bombarded with the virus on social media, older people take voting way more serious, and I bet will still show out despite the risk.
On that I'm just talking about the word because you know others have said that to him. [Bernie voice] I'm not changing the name -- the name stays -- why would I change the name!?
I know you'll disagree .... but the fact is that many of us have been in similar situations. Sure it is more expensive today , that's just inflation at work. But the fact is that there are ways to avoid the mountain of debt. Its all about choices. What this debt forgiveness and free college idea is to me is these people wanting the prize at the end of the tunnel but not wanting to make any of the sacrifices along the way. And in reality , it doesn't make that education any more accessible tomorrow than it is today .... Literally anyone can into a college today if they are willing to make the financial commitment to pay the bill. Sure , the wealthy have an advantage - they always have and always will. But the fact that any one of us can make the decision to take on the financial burden to achieve continued education gives individuals without great wealth as close to equal opportunity as our society can offer.
I might have a higher opinion of younger voters if it happens, but if they’re out, I’m thinking they got better things on their list to do
My point is that you don't know the choices of everyone involved. You don't know the familial background (were they helping the family pay the bills? Is there a parent who got cancer? Did a sibling die while serving overseas and they had to spend time and these people had to do spend some of the time doing various things to help their family?).You don't know any number of things about their personal situation. (Do they have a medical condition restricting the time and ability to devote time to things like jobs while going to school, etc.?) The possibilities go on and on and you have no idea. So for people to sit there and comment on what others should have done to eliminate their debt, isn't really valid.
And I blame that on ..... government involvement. Those loan givers and educational institutions were coerced by government to expand the pool that they were giving loans to but quickly realized that they could charge literally whatever they want. And its not based upon merit at all .... Anyone can get in if they are willing to take on the financial responsibility. This is another part of the increase in tuition costs as we've gone from the top ~10-20% in terms of grades going to college to "anyone who will sign their life away". Employers demanding degree's for jobs that require no specialized learning doesn't help the situation either. I think that's somewhere we could start to fix this problem - entice employers to hire non college grads for (middle class) jobs that really have no requirement for it and driving down the demand for the degree and the cost along with it. Sure , it would be nice if we could all have degree's in whatever our hearts desire .... but I don't it as a reasonable expectation.
Of course .... but society shouldn't be expected to provide a catch all safety net either. Sometimes it just sucks to suck. And really , why does the salesman , receptionist , marketing rep or secretary need a degree ? -They need people skills not calculus , history or literature. The cop ? Fireman ?.... There's no expectation of recouping the investment in many of these jobs in comparison to others that do require specialized education which have a much greater earning potential yet they are paying much the same cost to reach a much lower earnings plateau. (that's a problem).
Dang... Totally agree with you... I think the entire school thing needs to be revamped... I see these iCode and other places popping up too teach people how to program is the way to go... they are centering on a particular skill set for that job... T_Man
Really , what those places are teaching should be taught in public school - We spend over a decade "Preparing" them for life and they are ill prepared for much of anything aside from the most basic entry level jobs. If they have to pay for an education after a decade of public education just to get a middle class job , we've failed. Honestly I feel like "High School" should be preparing them for whatever jobs they may take up post graduation not just readin ritin and rithmetic. They should be learning relevant skills to today's world / economy. But hey , we can afford to spend a hundred million on high school sports complexes .... What's really silly is teaching them more readin ritin and rithmetic (General Education) in college when it has no bearing on their particular field of study. We're just totally impractical.
Unfortunately schools are teaching towards a stupid test... And again I agree with the basic studies in college, a waste of money... T_Man
