So Pete and Steyer dropped out. That helps Biden and/or Bloomberg. I've become interested in what happens on the west coast. Biden is up against it in California. I wonder how Warren will do? Can she pick off some delegates from Bernie? How popular is she in California?
You don't think adding another $9t-$10t per year would bankrupt the country .... you must fail at 2+2. Considering the fact that the gubmint spent only $4.45T last year that's 3x the current spending. Can we afford 3x the current spending when you are complaining about Trump spending only $4.45T ?
The country is already deeply in debt. We are beyond bankrupt. We are in the negative and it is only getting worse.
The country is certainly in debt. And it's getting worse, which will certainly be a problem at some point. But we aren't beyond bankrupt. The national debt is around 100% of GDP - that's like saying that someone who makes $100,000/yr and has a $100,000 mortgage is beyond bankrupt.
So lets triple down ? I think not. It's just funny that @No Worries quoted me complaining about Trump's spending and deficit but he has no problem with tripling down on that for a Dem candidate. That's beyond stupid .... adding $10,000,000,000,000 spending on top of a $984,000,000,000 deficit. We could , if we chose to pay this thing down in about a decade , maybe two at worst if we buckled down. We aren't bankrupt - just deep in debt ....
There is no guessing what Trump did to the deficit and why. Republicans in Congress happily went along. What President Bernie gets through Congress is an open question. Likely not much of what he asks. What is beyond stupid is your sudden concern about deficits when a Democrat becomes President, followed closely by your delusional belief that Bernie will have supernatural powers in getting his agenda through Congress.
Pete dropping out is the worst thing in the world for Bernie, especially in California and Texas, regardless of how his votes get distributed. There were lots of candidates hovering around 15% - each one that meets that mark gets a chunk of state delegates and lowers Bernie's haul. In California in particular, Biden/Bloomberg/Warren are all in danger of being under 15%. If they all pass 15%, that's a massive shift in delegates. On the flipside, it helps Bernie in the deep south, where he may get to 15% in some places that he may not otherwise have reached.
Bernie winning Cali and Texas easy. Biden is an uninspiring, boring, creeper, candidate that would get destroyed in the general.
The issue is not about winning. If Bernie wins California with 35% and Biden is 2nd at 14%, Bernie gets 100% of the statewide delegates. If Bernie gets the same 35%, but Biden/Bloomberg/Warren each get 15%, Bernie only gets 43% of the state delegates. From a delegate perspective, hitting 15% is way more important for the non-Bernies than Bernie's margin. And the more that hit it, the better for all of them. Getting Pete's votes redistributes helps all of them clear the bar.
The latest polling has Biden up around 20% now in CA and with a shot to win Texas. These are huge outcomes and exactly what Mayor Peter is hoping to accomplish. Establishment dems should make a HUGE push to endorse Biden and pump him up in California. Limiting Bernie's delegates there is what can save them from a brutally contested convention scenario. Klobuchar and Warren eat up delegates in Minnesota and Mass. After Super Tuesday how close will Biden be, that's the question. If it's close, a total revamp of his campaign gives him a theoretical shot to take a plurality over Bernie and then there is no "screwjob" scenario. Biden really needs help from these other campaigns though as his campaign has been poorly run.
What you're saying is the guy that keeps winning won't be able to win. Well in that case, I'm all for a flawed system and flawed party to destroy themselves from within.
Winning in a 7 or 8 player game is different than winning in a two person game. If the moderate votes consolidate around Biden, he can beat Sanders. He doesn't even have to win, all he needs to do is be close to Sandes, and super delegates will push him over the top.
Was the French Revolution great? Change and revolution does not always mean better. What is important is make changes, no matter how small. Incremental changes matter.
That's the case of all sorts of elections across the US that have runoff systems and require a candidate to clear 50%. No one ever seems to complain about it when it doesn't involve Bernie... Bernie fans also didn't complain about it in 2016 when it was the only way they hoped to win.
Yeah, if Biden can dominate the deep south and limit his losses in CA/TX, he could really end up not too far behind. March 10 is Bernie territory, but then the latter part of March favors Biden. I'm really curious to see all the Bernie people switch to "plurality shouldn't win!!" if Biden does get a plurality lead.
Agreed but I want Bernie as a hard correction to the evangelical, no science, infestation. An incremental change from that ideology is not enough in my opinion. We need a hard correction and I always tell folks don't focus on what Bernie wants, focus on what he can get done. His record is full of incremental compromise because he is a season politician.
The French revolution is a natural result of human interactions when class divide is so strong. The act itself was harsh and violent. But the sentiments were real and were a natural reaction. I keep on telling people who are afraid of Bernie, if the current trends in wealth inequality continues and the current status quo of money in politics continues, you are going to be wishing for a Bernie revolution where the worst thing that happens is a surrogate calling Bloomberg a oligarch on cable TV because eventually probably in a few decades it's going to turn into a French revolution. This is not what I want. This is not something that the vast majority of people want. We don't want a violent revolution. But if major reforms don't get enacted in the next couple of decades, **** will go down eventually in unfortunately a violent manner.
