General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders Is Losing Primary Battles, But Winning A War
This NPR piece -- "Bernie Sanders Is Losing Primary Battles, But Winning A War" -- is a valuable counter to the overemphasis on scorekeeping of individual races.
There are two main points:
* First, tabulating results has to take into account the context, namely that Bernie is not endorsing favorites and is playing a longer game than just running up numbers in the 2018 primaries.
* Second, the big picture of all the primaries shows that the party has moved significantly in Bernie’s direction on issues like health care. This shift has multiple causes but certainly Bernie’s 2016 campaign and his follow-up advocacy have played a role.
On the first point, Bernie put his endorsements in context:
Bernie is perfectly well aware that a challenger who faces an incumbent and who has less money is fighting an uphill battle:
The second point is the Democratic Party’s overall issue stance:
Along with health care and minimum wage, there’s similar movement on universal preschool and debt-free college, as Bernie’s longtime strategist observes:
Now, going beyond the NPR piece, I’ll venture my own prediction. The Democratic nominee in 2020 will not be Bernie Sanders, but it will be someone who calls for single-payer health care.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fullduplexxx
(7,852 posts)9 of 31
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Post removed
elleng
(130,861 posts)Really?
awesomerwb1
(4,267 posts)His "perceived" power that he can change a party he doesn't even want to belong to (except when it's convenient for him) to his liking.
I should know better than to comment on a Bernie thread. 
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)hollering about purity from the outside.... just ask Ralph Nader.
whathehell
(29,065 posts)If Nader were a sitting US Senator, who went through a primary, managing to give the Party's eventual nominee a hell of a fight, that comparison might actually work. Nice try, though. 
George II
(67,782 posts)
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)
Me.
(35,454 posts)stay safe
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)whatever it's about, I tend to be with sheshe2. 
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)Luv ya too!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Works on multiple levels.
lapucelle
(18,239 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,143 posts)France, Germany and Switzerland, for example, all have excellent universal health care systems that aren't single payer. I don't think any of those countries would rather have the British single payer NHS.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Hospitals that get federal funding have to provide care under life threatening circumstances. It is universally applied to all. Of course, the definition of healthcare is muddied by what passes as life savings without followupp. Life saving + bankruptcy that ultimately creates conditions where health is compromised. Universally available medical insurance coverage does not necessarily mean healthcare.
Policies require a narrow and specific definition of coverage and healthcare
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)etc. We are not going to get single payer...in my opinion we will end up with some sort of universal coverage with a medicare buy in at a earlier age than now.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Obviously, it's not the kind of healthcare that promotes long term wellness and not what most of us see as real healthcare. But it is universally available medical care.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)And its not that. Its nothing like that.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Universally available medical care is reasonably is a crude form of universal healthcare in practice and according to law. It may not meet your definition of universal healthcare, but we do have universally available medical care.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)specific definition.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)As in, defined by some piece of legislation? Or is it simply something agreed upon by advocates, or you and your like-minded friends?
Medicare is defined by specific policy and procedures.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)Have the last word with some universal healthcare alternate facts, and have a nice night.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Hypothetical new Republican plan: Every federal facility (post office, Social Security office, you name it) will stock cases and cases of aspirin, and give a bottle for free to anyone who requests it.
I get the impression that you would say that that plan "is universally available medical care."
I wouldn't say that.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)He was refused life saving treatment. My daughter broke both her ankles...if we didn't have insurance no one would have set them...
shanny
(6,709 posts)Shocked to see it here.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The point is that there was an agreement that we aren't going to let people die on the street. Republicans want to retreat from that, not upphold or expand on it. The idea is to point out where they once showed some sense of compassion.
yardwork
(61,588 posts)Before Obamacare, one-third of the nation's population was uninsured, virtually shutting them out of access to comprehensive health care.
Many of those who are insured, especially those on Medicaid, struggle to gain access to quality care.
comradebillyboy
(10,143 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)My doctor was telling me about it a few months ago.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)other. France and Germany for instance. A country can organize it as it wants. The important thing is that everyone pays in according to what they can pay, and everyone is covered.
I feel so strongly about this because, so often, when you are too sick or unable work for physical reasons, your work-related health insurance has ended, and you can't afford to pay for the insurance out of pocket.
You may have worked for 30 years and had health insurance. You become ill or have an accident, and you not only lose your job but your health insurance. So you get treatment and end up in bankruptcy court. The cost of health care increases when patients have to be chased down for payment or when they go into bankruptcy because they can't pay hospital or other healthcare bills.
Our current system makes utterly no sense and is cruel. If you live in a system that works, like I did, then you are more sure than ever that we need to change so that everyone has health insurance -- especially when they really can't afford it.
DFW
(54,335 posts)In Germany, care is by no means "according to what you can pay," and we do not have universal coverage. There is a broad patchwork system here, and several hundred thousand fall though the cracks and have no coverage at all. My wife is a German social worker, and worked with these people all the time. I moved my legal residence here in 2011, but keep my job and employer in the USA. I am therefore only eligible for "Privat" health coverage, which means I have to go to one of the companies of this patchwork and apply for insurance which I pay out of my own pocket. I have a pre-existing condition which counts here. I was quoted €2500, or about $3000--per MONTH. That's over $35,000 yearly for health insurance.
Pure paradise, I tell you.........
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In other words, I'm curious about how a natural-born German citizen, employed in Germany by a German company, would get coverage for a pre-existing condition.
I believe in universal care but I can see something of a gray area for foreign nationals. In the UK, for example, I think tourists can get NHS treatment for an accident that occurs while they're in the UK but not for any problems they brought into the country with them.
DFW
(54,335 posts)There are a few exceptions. My wife had some residual problems from her first cancer treatment, and insurance refused to cover some of the ones they considered "too exotic" to be standard, even though she was fully employed at the time.
If an employed German in Germany has a medical problem, they are entitled to the second class health coverage known as "Kassenpatienten," in other words, coverage by one of the patchwork of semi-private health insurance companies. You may have to wait six months for an appointment for a disease that will kill you if not treated in four months, but at least you'll get an appointment. If you are unemployed before 65, you can buy coverage. I paid my wife's €450 a month premium between the time she retired (at 60--cancer plus mobbing was too much for her) and the time she turned 65 last year. Otherwise she would have had no health insurance at all.
As an American working for an American employer, the Germans grant me zero benefits, but demand 50% of my earnings, even on certain earnings that are already source-taxed in the USA at the full rate, pushing my tax rate up to 90% on that income. However, despite that being illegal under the German-American double taxation treaty, they don't care. While education here is paid for out of taxes, health care is paid for out of special contributions (taxes, if you will) from employers and employees alike. So, while I am helping pay for someone's education, I get no health coverage here at all unless I want to opt for the $35,000 a year premium, which is a little out of my league.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I've known that there were differences among the OECD countries in their health care systems. The United States is at or near the bottom in terms of providing care and not causing bankruptcies, but that doesn't mean everyone else follows a single model.
What I learn from your post is that Germany is less socialistic on this score than I'd thought, and therefore not as good as I'd thought.
As a cancer survivor, I'm a pre-existing condition man myself. I hope everything works out for you and your wife.
DFW
(54,335 posts)It wanted to be fair, and at the time its systems were set up, there was little migration. It was set up to handle German society as it stood, and pretty much worked under those circumstances. It was not set up to handle millions of "ethnic Germans" pouring in from Eastern Europe saying "me German, give me money," and suddenly upsetting the balance of government expenditures and revenues that had kept the place on a even keel for decades. These people had never paid into any pensions, often spoke only rudimentary German (therefore useless to employers), and were eligible for handouts under a law dating from a time when only a trickle of people escaping from the socialist east were showing up. The fact that these new arrivals, who never did anything for German society except mooch off of it, now resent "foreigners" like the Syrians, who are fleeing for their lives coming here for more legitimate reasons than they had. The trouble is the numbers. No country can absorb a 1¼% increase in its population within a year when 99% of the new arrivals have no skills, don't speak the language, have a completely different culture, and no place else to go. Tensions there were pre-programmed.
My wife's first time with cancer was in 2001. 2 operations, chemo, radiation and a month at a rehab spa. As a German with a job, she was covered, although her employer resented her "time off." The fact that it was to save her life was minor. Her second time was 2 years ago, and what she had is usually fatal, never discovered until it's too late. It's called "Der Mörder (the murderer)" here. But with her, it was discovered by accident in its initial stages. Her doctor intervened, and shortened the usual wait period for patients with her second class status of health insurance. That intervention got her a quick operation, and the specialist said it was the first time he had EVER treated this kind of cancer and recommended no chemo or radiation. All 84 biopsies came back negative, and he said he was willing to risk no chemo if she was. She said chemo was so awful, she was willing to risk it, too. So far, so good. Her insurance covered her second round of cancer treatment as well, but this time, only because I was paying the €450 monthly premium, as she was under 65 and unemployed. Otherwise, she would have been facing a ruinous half million dollar bill.
So far, she has been cancer-free, so it has been worth every euro to me. Every woman in her family has had cancer twice, and lived to be 90. Both my parents and all their siblings had cancer, and only one of my grandparents lived past the age of 80. So with me, it's "if" but "when."
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)European countries for years. Germany was one of the first if not the first country to insure just about everyone if not everyone -- under Kaiser Wilhelm.
Per Wikipedia:
Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system,[1] with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. Bismarck stressed the importance of three key principles; solidarity, the government is responsible for ensuring access by those who need it, subsidiarity, policies are implemented with smallest no political and administrative influence, and corporatism, the government representative bodies in health care professions set out procedures they deem feasible.[11] Mandatory health insurance originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover the great majority of the population.[12] The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care.
Approximately 92% of the population are covered by a 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 1,100 public or private sickness funds. Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.[13] Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physicians' associations and sickness funds.
1970–Present
Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries.[14] The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.[15]
Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days).[16][17] The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany
That's about as close to insuring everyone as it comes.
We are in danger of losing pre-existing conditions protection, have a man child who wants to be King in the WH and a GOPee Congress that supports him so, yeah, let's focus in some more divisive bullshit.
--$#!;&"!!!!
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)convinced Sen.Sanders will not be a contender in the 2020 primary.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts) Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Sanders has been a hanger-on to the Democratic caucuses his entire career in DC, and he doesn't claim even a single issue that he didn't take from the party and shabbily relabel as his own.
For his trouble he failed at every stated goal but was very useful to hard-core conservatives on two continents who are determined to destroy progressivism. Don't know what war he is supposed to be fighting, but it's not committed to our goals.
Response to Jim Lane (Original post)
Post removed
The Polack MSgt
(13,186 posts)
I read and don't usually reply to Sanders' fans' posts. I find it very difficult to stay on the not flaming/attacking side of the discussion.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It was a sharp and biting criticism of someone... And I'll just leave it at that.
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)But then I remembered...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)last updates.
Bernie's looking more like a dying horse being kicked for questionable purposes.
As for single payer in 2020, it seems possible. Universal coverage was and is the Democratic Party's goal and that ultimately requires some form of single payer. Hillary's administration planned to take the next steps toward that. And our original reason for going the ACA way, of hoping to unite the nation behind it, may be history. If Sanders hangs on enough to use it again for divisive purposes, though, that could once again impede progress.
Speaking of dead or dying though, the ACA is still very much alive in spite of wishes of both Republicans and Sanders supporters to repeal it. We may still continue ahead with the ACA in 2020, building further advances on it as planned. Reality is that most Republicans want to keep it, so it could still be something the middle of both parties could unite behind.
And, very notably, the mood of this election season is rejection of extremism and fringe troublemakers and instead a return to decent and workable government.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)Good on her!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)As did Elizabeth Warren.
If Sanders had run as Democrats run and then gave Hillary the support Hillary did Obama in 2008, Hillary would be president, we would at very least control the senate, and no one would have heard of Gorsuch. And almost everyone would have good healthcare coverage at this point. You can bet Harris never for a moment forgets the role Sanders chose.
Replies the scorpion: "it's my nature."
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)California in Congress
By Sarah D. Wire
Sen. Kamala Harris plans to back Medicare-for-all legislation
Sen. Kamala Harris will co-sponsor a Medicare-for-all plan proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), she told Californians at a town hall in Oakland on Wednesday.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-sen-kamala-harris-plans-to-back-1504138317-htmlstory.html
Link to tweet
I was just saying good for her
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We all are committed to universal healthcare. But what method is not a stand-on-it-even-if-it-kills-it wedge issue for all of us.
Speaking of killing, how many people do you think have died since January 2017 because the election was thrown to Republicans determined to limit and then destroy national healthcare coverage? Rhetorical question only as a reminder that indulging partisanship for its own sake really can kill.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)"Universal healthcare" is NOT Medicare For All. Not at all
I don't know why you're minimizing the significance of her support for NOT-FOR-PROFIT single payer health care
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)majority and very high taxes...but we can get a public option which could lead to universal coverage.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)She didn't say she was signing on to a proposal for a Public Option, because there was no chance of ever getting Medicare For All.
She said, "I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare for All bill because it’s just the right thing to do."
Obviously she thinks there's a chance we will get it
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)we need a 60 vote majority in the Senate based on the costs. It can't be done in reconciliation. We are years if not decades away from a 60 vote majority...and those with work insurance...the majority will oppose it...the best course is to insure those without insurance as the ACA did and offer a public option. It took us 100 years to get healthcare. If we lose the ACA, we can't even get a public option in reconciliation-we would be back to needing 60 votes for anything and looking at the Senate realistically that is just not possible....we need the ACA to remain the law of the land and build on it or we get nothing...the choice is not between medicare for all and the ACA...it is between the ACA (with a public option when we get back on power) or nothing.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We all do. The thing is that this is the real, imperfect world, where there's never one perfect answer but only choices among various tradeoffs. The few nations that have the most pure socialized nonprofit systems are not those believed to provide the best universal healthcare to their people.
Most nations with universal healthcare use various combinations of systems to provide it. It's likely that we will develop a hybrid system or systems to meet our needs. As it is, we of course already use and have experience of various types of systems, like the VA, true nonprofit, Medicare, CHIPS, etc.
On the plus side for us, we're not exactly leading on this. Other nations have been using a whole slew of systems in different combinations for decades, and we can study what's working and why and figure out what'll work best in our very large, diverse nation.
In any case, I believe that Harris is far too smart to commit to one particular system alone and toss all other possibilities out, but that she does support incorporating that general approach into whatever system we eventually adopt.
I don't know if this is the thread where I said it before, but the ACA, though not in itself the end we all want, is working and would be working well if our election hadn't been hijacked. The most realistic and politically and economically achievable, least disruptive, and most dependable way forward could involve holding carefully to what we already have and evolving forward from that. The goal always being affordable universal care, of course.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)That's a big deal for a sitting Democratic senator
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)including her, already committing to achieving universal healthcare. To me that was the huge deal, this bill one of a number that have been introduced over the years against the opposition of the Republican Party. The one our party decides on when we have the power to do it will be the one.
Btw, calling this one "Medicare for all" is a huge deception. I want where it goes, all right, but it bears no resemblance to the very inadequate Medicare I'm on. It greatly expands coverages, so no need to purchase supplementary coverages, and does away with deductibles, copays, premiums, and insurance companies.
A huge problem with it, though, typical for Sanders, is that the bill's numbers don't begin to add up. It would be far more expensive than he claims. I don't mind that personally, what better have we to spend our own money on?, but that would empower the Republicans who will beyond any doubt fight any new plan we advance tooth and nail and who right now are also doing their best to make sure we don't have enough money in the national kitty for anything.
No matter what, there are going to be compromises. For instance, keeping the VA for those who qualify, which delivers a lot more bang for the buck than Medicare, would seem to make good sense. If the Republicans don't succeed in dismantling it first.
But we're in the same book and chapter, if not on the same page. Wish we could just skip to the end.
COUNTDOWN TO MIDTERMS: 149 days.
lapucelle
(18,239 posts)MedicareForAll.org has been trying for years to get a Senate version. Thet're still working on it.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/S1804
progressoid
(49,969 posts)But Sanders has a valid point, "All you've got to do is endorse establishment candidates who have a whole lot of money, who are 40 points ahead in the poll."
Of course this entire "who wins more endorsements" game is kind of childish to begin with. But it seems to keep the media and political wonks busy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in these specials and primaries of a desire for stability and competent government and forrejection of extremists and troublemakers, Progressoid. On right and left. Money usually makes a big difference, of course, but so does the strong local support, including money, that comes from being well established and well regarded in the community and by their peers.
Sanders naturally has a special interest in claiming wins are being bought and just not mentioning the value of solid records of performance or voter reaction to our devastating losses in 2016 -- and to the scary destabilization of the nation we inherited.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)likelihood of winning, and most of them will say that his endorsement gave them more positive exposure, not less...that even if they did not do awesome, they did better than they might have.
I don't know that that can be verified, but that is the very thing that should be weighed when attempting to assess the value of an endorsement - whether or not it helped or hurt. Anybody thinking that Sanders or anyone could or should have the midas touch of making every candidate(those with far less funding in many cases) rise straight to the top of a ticket, are probably, cynically, setting an unrealistic bar by which he can then be called a failure.
Sanders supporters want to repeal the ACA? As far as I know we want to replace it with something better, but certainly not to repeal it in the mean-time, so who are these people?
Can you also point out your version of "extremism?"
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)why Sanders is not exactly greatly admired by Americans of any party or I can head down to some trumpster neighbors and try to convince them that Trump is not exactly greatly admired by billions of people.
Hmmm.... It is a hard choice, I promise, but the neighbors are also offering margaritas by the lake.
Have a nice evening.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)But regardless of your shot at Sanders in this post, it has no relevance on your claim above that a win loss record of his endorsements says anything of significance that you are trying to make it say.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)per that post.Yet is most popular politician in the US
MrPool
(73 posts)Please but keep saying it if it keeps his supporters in rage mode on social media.
George II
(67,782 posts)....of state politicians in the US? I doubt it.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)This makes me smile https://secure.actblue.com/donate/kamalaendorsement
She is one of the people who inspired me to run for office, and I am proud to accept her endorsement. I will continue to lead the charge in standing up against the tide of hostility and anger and always listen to the concerns of those in our district. Show your support and donate right now to help our campaign lead this change.
This endorsement is meaningful as compared to the attacks on Sri by Our Revolution
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)Bernie's ideology IS that of an FDR Democrat. He is trying to steer the party back to its roots. Bringing in progressive independents can only make the Democratic Party stronger and make corporate Dems,who vote like Republicans, think twice before selling out working families for campaign contributions. I don't see anything wrong with that. We AS DEMOCRATS need to strengthen this great party of ours by reclaiming our FDR roots.
The Hill 4/8/17
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday night that he still does not consider himself a Democrat despite taking part in a Democratic National Committee (DNC) unity tour with the party's new chairman, Tom Perez.
"No, I'm an Independent," Sanders said when asked by MSNBC's Chris Hayes whether he now identifies as a Democrat.
"If the Democratic Party is going to succeed — and I want to see it succeed — it's gonna have to open its door to independents," he continued. "There are probably more independents in this country than Democrats or Republicans. It's got to open its doors to working people and to young people, create a grassroots party. That's what we need."
Vox 5/23/15
"The Democrats, to a much-too-great degree, are separated from working families. Are the Democrats 10 times, 100 times, better on all of the issues than the Republicans? They surely are, but I think it would be hard to imagine if you walked out of here or walked down the street or went a few miles away from here and you stopped somebody on the street and you said, "Do you think that the Democratic Party is the party of the American working class?" People would look at you and say, "What are you talking about?"
There was a time — I think under Roosevelt, maybe even under Truman — where it was perceived that working people were part of the Democratic Party. I think for a variety of reasons, a lot having to do with money and politics, that is no longer the case."
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)
shanny
(6,709 posts)which is why we need to? You answered your own question.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)What more could you want?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Sanders ought to be embarrassed for not knowing what so many studies have revealed about "independents."
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)lapucelle
(18,239 posts)have actually read the 1932 Democratic platform. It's policy goals are admirable, but extremely limited in scope. It reads like an unfinished document.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)State of the Union Address.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men."[3] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and renumerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
(snip)
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
lapucelle
(18,239 posts)like the 1932 platform, it is limited in scope. It either presupposes equal treatment under the law for all Americans or ignores it as a necessary condition to achieving economic social goals.
leftstreet
(36,103 posts)Thanks for posting this
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)And who precisely is the enemy?
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Seriously.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)thucythucy
(8,043 posts)Seems to me money in politics is thriving, with no end in sight.
But maybe that's just me.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)opportunity here. Some changes worth noting is that the democratic party as a whole has decided that running to the right or speaking vaguely of compromise between businesses and the people is not the direction we need to go and so they are embracing far more populist ideas than have been previously promoted. Sanders candidacy has I think, a lot to do with that, but his own success can't be taken in a vacuum of what has come before in recent years. What he did do was to give a lot of these issues visibility and made them less fringe and I think, easier to adopt(possibly necessary to adopt), by more mainstream candidates for the coming 2020 fight.
But winning? I actually think we're completely screwed.
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)Thank you.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Has sanders got any major legislation adopted?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)You simply repeat the same things over and over and talk past me, and never address anything I say. You don't want to have a conversation. You don't want to exchange perspectives. I wish you luck.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Thank you for confirming this.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)All of sanders proposals require a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions or may gillions of new voters show up and force the GOP to be reasonable and not block standers silly proposals. Magic does not work in the real world. Sanders proposals are not popular with voters who actually vote in the real world which is why the magical voter revolution failed. https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote
In the real world the conditions are simply not right for a voter revolution https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders/
The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War
The New Deal
The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That’s what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.
We’re light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, 2 or 3 percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They’ve been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.
Like it or not, you don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.
Without some external event as described above, there will be no voter revolution. Millions or billions or trillions of new voters are not going to rise up and help sanders pass these unrealistic proposals in the real world.
In my opinion, Sanders is not likely to run in 2020 and if Sanders does run, he will not be the nominee. Sanders will have to release his tax returns to get onto the ballot in a number of blue states due to proposed and pending ballot access laws. Sanders would also face backlash due to stunts like the attack on Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention (the video of this stunt and the fact that Sanders refused to stop this stunt will not play well with the base of the party). The Our Revolution idiots and Nina Turner are generating a great deal of anger on the part of real Democrats towards Sanders and his proposals. There are a large number of Democrats who blame sanders for Trump's victory. You can count me in that group who blame sanders for trump's victory. In addition, a large majority of Democrats live in the real world and will not accept sanders unrealistic proposals. I seriously doubt that sanders runs and I am sure that he will not get the nomination. Again, there will be no magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rise up to support Sanders. Without a magical revolution in the real world, this proposal is not going to go anywhere
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)This article makes me smile https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/09/berned-out
Rumpled, crumpled, Trumpled
The energy on the left is focused on opposing Mr Trump’s attack on liberal democracy, not on carrying forward Mr Sanders’s revolution. The success of moderate candidates in the Democratic primaries suggests this is making the party more pragmatic and mindful of party unity than Mr Sanders, an ideologue who is not a Democratic Party member, might like.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)much play? Well that's lovely! Where are your priorities exactly.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Magic does not work in the real world which is why sanders had no meaningful or significant legislative accomplishments. Magic does not work in the real world and sanders needs a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions or perhaps gillions of new voters show up to make the GOP reasonable.
The real world is a nice place.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)MrPool
(73 posts)I eagerly await my pink flying pony someday as well.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)which are investments in America's future competitiveness and its citizens.
MrPool
(73 posts)and the far left is on going on about entitlements and what free stuff we should get. Fair discussion when we have a functioning government and a sane president to debate. This must of what it was like in Germany 1933.
Concerned Geman- Think they're gonna put them nice Jewish folk in that rail car"
Far left German-"Yeah that's important and all but the Free Sausage amendment is where our focus should be."
Concerned German; "We're doomed"
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the trajectory we are taking and have taken as a nation, that in part has been facilitated not solely by the Republicans. Money in politics is why we are here today. Getting people to vote for us going forward is a matter of being a party that can starkly contrast without any hint of ambiguity, the corruption and collusion that exists in the republican party. We need to make it harder for people to say "they're all corrupt..." and we do that by picking a fight with the big guys.
We can afford to offer good policy. We can afford these policies. The American people want these policies. None are just giving away free shit. They are all better for the country and its people, in the short term, but also in the long.
What is your version of fighting for our democracy, because money doesn't give a shit what team wins...so long as its team wins. And it isn't particular about what team to invests in.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Here is another good section from the article https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/09/berned-out
The most fervent Sandernistas tended not to be Democrats at all. They were college kids and independents, many of whom subsequently drifted off to a third-party nominee. A middle-aged Sandernista in the crowd in Los Angeles, Jacinta, said she voted for the Green candidate in 2016, considered Democrats and Republicans as birds of a feather, and was frustrated that neither backs free movement across the southern border. Most Sanders voters, by contrast, were loyal Democrats who simply didn’t much like Mrs Clinton. Having little attachment to Mr Sanders’s statist ideas, they nonetheless swung grumblingly behind her. This helps explode the second myth: that the Democrats have veered to the left, where the rumpled Mr Sanders awaits them.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts) thewhollytoast
(318 posts)Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed by building unusual but effective coalitions:
Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”
Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.
Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.
Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.
Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.
Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.
Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.
Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:
Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.
Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.
Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.
Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.
Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.
Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.
Toast
NY_20th
(1,028 posts)Millions of people certainly don't feel like they are winning at this moment.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Reconciliation does not apply to this bill and there is no way to bet 60 votes in the Senate to pass this bill
Health care was on the ballot.
Anyone who was paying attention should have been aware that Trump was going to do everything he can to dismantle the ACA.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Squinch
(50,935 posts)who thought booing at the Democratic convention was a good idea.
shanny
(6,709 posts)--losing 1000 state leg seats; 2/3 of the governorships; the House and the Senate--long before there was booing at the convention.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)where you want us now, right?
Want to address the point I made?
Squinch
(50,935 posts)all up? That got Trump elected.
Your plan sucked.
shanny
(6,709 posts)"I" blew it up? Little ol' me. Voted Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the general, didn't boo at the convention--but "I" blew it up.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)NY_20th
(1,028 posts)Did you not realize what was at stake?
shanny
(6,709 posts)I'll spell it out for you: blaming those who booed at the convention for our current sorry state of affairs--which predates by a long way the election in 2016--is imho stupid and short-sighted.
NY_20th
(1,028 posts)understand the consequences of the 2016 Presidential Election.
As to those who booed at the convention? That is the very definition of stupid and short-sighted. If those people were still unhappy with the most progressive platform ever presented by a Democrat, and they were unable to grasp that nor understand the risk of a Trump Presidency, that's on them, not the Democratic Party.
We are all suffering because of their ignorance. 2016 was a no-brainer, unless you were against the Democratic Party all along.
shanny
(6,709 posts)That is what I am saying and that is all I am saying.
BTW, in the interests of party unity, do you think it would have been a good plan to choose Bernie or a close ally for veep, instead of Kaine? Just curious how you feel about that.
NY_20th
(1,028 posts)The 2016 Election had far too much at stake. Underestimating the consequences of a Trump Presidency is what was stupid and short-sighted.
As to the VP slot, although Senator Kaine was not my preferred choice, I doubt very many people vote based on the VP selection. I also do not believe that VP would have been an ideal position for Sanders, nor do I believe that he would have wanted such position. I do believe that he would have been given a prominent position, i.e. cabinet position if we had won the election.
shanny
(6,709 posts)As for veep, I didn't just mention Bernie--who I agree would not be a good fit--but any Democrat on the left wing of the party, which Hillary is not and Kaine is not. I think you are right, people don't generally don't choose one side over the other based on the VP selection, but it sure can help with enthusiasm and PARTY UNITY. Might even have prevented the dreaded booing. Might even have won the election.
NY_20th
(1,028 posts)ignorant, hateful, spiteful, bigoted person who ever ran for the office of the Presidency, I'm not certain that unity was the goal.
I'm also not sure how one can consider Bernie Sanders as being left wing since he dismisses the biggest part of the liberal left platform: Civil Rights.
He strikes me as more of a Libertarian than a Liberal.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Certainly the choice of Tim Kaine would indicate that.
BTW, I am sick to death of the dismissal of Bernie's LIFELONG commitment to civil rights.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html
As for the libertarian label, you do realize that is a stance diametrically opposed to anything like free tuition, universal healthcare. etc.? Right? Bueller?
All done here.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)Sarandon. They even named their Trump enabling organization "Our Revolution". Can you believe that?
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:55 PM - Edit history (1)
came as a result of the same thing in 10. And true liberals like Feingold lost too, It was a bloodbath and those who are erroneously called centrists did not do it... those who did not vote for Hillary are to blame ...pure and simple. You either vote for the Democratic nominee or you help elect Republicans. And most of us warned and warned ...about everything that has happened.
shanny
(6,709 posts)
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)toeing the party line...nothing.
NY_20th
(1,028 posts)Our nominee had the most progressive platform in history, and Donald Trump was the competition.
How anyone could be so blind to the risk of a Donald Trump presidency is unfathomable to me.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Thank you.
And please stick around.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)right
i guarantee that those responding against his ideas already have their needs covered
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Without the ACA it will be almost impossible to get anything even after Trump is gone. Let's hope Dumpy loses.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)nothing. Those who didn't have healthcare are mostly victims of GOP states not implementing the medicaid expansion...but in time everyone would have had it. Now if the GOP succeeds,we have nothing... and you watch Trump will promise a 'single payer'. We should have defended the ACA and not muddied the water with single payer which is not possible anytime soon if ever.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Maryland has already adopted a ballot access law that will require candidates including sanders to file tax returns. Other blue states will be adopting these laws. New Jersey and California adopted such bill in 2017 but these bills were vetoed.
It will be interesting to see if sanders runs. If the Democrats take the House, trump's tax returns will become public and so trump may not be willing to litigate this issue.
I personally doubt that sanders will be running in 2020 but time will tell
mvd
(65,170 posts)The national could come with time. The state candidates will gain more notice and have possible national runs.
shanny
(6,709 posts)MrPool
(73 posts)is his surrogates,his wife and himself slandering Democrats then yes is he doing exceptionally well.
MrPool
(73 posts)and approve of their agenda apparently.
shanny
(6,709 posts)isn't that the saying? Or part of it: I'm leaving myself out 'cause I didn't make any.
But yes, laughter is good. The best medicine, they say, and I say the best defense against the absurd.
Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.
MrPool
(73 posts)Having to defend Democrats on a democratic site but I digress.
Now if you excuse me I'll have to go look for my taxes hopefully my wife will have found them.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Don’t look at results, look at me move the world, let me take credit for all of it.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)with an even better record on issues concerning women, children, and minorities. This candidate was transparent with financial records, unlike Sanders, and understood every aspect of global politics, inside and out.
Unfortunately, that candidate was honest in 2008, and said that a mandate ("socialism!" was critical for universal healthcare. (Not good enough! It was considered more liberal not to require anyone to do anything they don't want to do.)
The same candidate was honest in 2016, in saying that a $15/hour minimum wage on a Federal level was not yet possible in all states, while offering detailed plans for starting at $10/hour nationwide, and $15 in some regions, building to $15/hour and beyond nationally. (Not good enough! If it's not $15/hour right now everywhere - by some magic spell over Congress - then it's Centrist!)
The same candidate offered detailed, workable proposals (with recognition that Republicans do exist) for no-cost college education, acknowledging that calling it "free" would be misleading and false as a promise.
This candidate had a very long record of being outspoken for women's rights, children's health and wellbeing, education, labor, immigration, tax reform, wage parity, etc...
But as Nader did to Gore...
As Kucinich did to Kerry...
Sanders did to the candidate whose name is somehow a shame for this supposedly liberal Democratic Party.
MrPool
(73 posts)or will send thy puritans into a Twitter rage.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It’s the comparison of Bernie to Nader that’s the stupidest.
And given the appallingly low intellectual level of the cacophony of Bernie-bashing here, that’s really saying something.
If Nader had done as Bernie did – run in the Democratic primaries and, if unsuccessful, endorse the Democratic nominee – then Gore would have become President.
If Bernie had done as Nader did – run against the Democratic nominee in the general election – then Trump would have won the popular vote in reality instead of just in his own imagination, and would have carried several additional states.
And as for all the people screeching that Bernie isn’t a Democrat and he should stop having any involvement in Democratic Party matters and just leave – Bernie is far too smart to follow your advice, but if he were to do so, and run in 2020 as a Green or an independent, then there would be zero chance for any Democratic nominee to win the election. The Republican candidate would romp.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Sparkly
(24,149 posts)despite your characterizations of my post ("idiotic, indefensible" etc.).
What you call the "stupidest" comparison still makes sense to me, despite my "appallingly low intellectual level of the cacophony" you rise above.
Both Nader and "Bernie" ran against the Democratic nominee in ways that cut into Democrats' support, distanced likely Democratic voters, contrasted the Democratic nominee with a fantastical level of left-wing perfection by ECHOING rightwing talking points, weakened sharp contrasts, dampened voter turnout, easily preaching things they never had, and would never have to, deliver on.
"Bernie" did NOT readily endorse Clinton. Like Nader, he sulked publicly, let the damage fester, spoke weak conciliatory words - oh wait, no -- his speech at the convention was JUST like Hillary Clinton's speech in support of Barack Obama! He went all out to motivate his supporters to vote for her!! ...or not...
Sorry. Kucinich was a better Democrat. If you're rooting for "Bernie" to run against Democrats, you've proved my point. It's about "Bernie."
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Precisely the opposite. I'm very glad that Bernie learned the correct lesson from the Nader debacle.
It's just too bad that some people are so blinded by hatred of Bernie that they can never give him credit for that.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Glad "Bernie" learned from 2000 and didn't run against Democrats -- oh wait....
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You now have it right -- unlike Nader in 2000, Bernie did not run against the Democratic nominee in the general election.
Of course, he, like Hillary Clinton, and like Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb, ran against Democrats in the primaries. That's kinda what happens in primaries.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)but "Bernie's" campaign cut against the Democratic nominee, and was positioned as opposition from the primary through the convention and on into the general election -- and even now. (Witness the claims of HIS "Movement."
Not part of the solution = Part of the problem.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sanders has been moving the debate.
Recommended.
trixie2
(905 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)Thanks for the thread Jim Lane
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Of course BS and his bros like to think he's a brilliant general winning some grand, righteous war of principle. lol He is but a helpful idiot to Putin in his war against America.
Bravo Bernie, you're finally a key player! A somebody! Like the new fucking phone books are here.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Manchin wouldn't endorse Obama in 2012 and has said he might endorse Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, putting his votes where his mouth is, he voted for Gorsuch on the Court, he voted for the torturer Haspel to take over the CIA, and he voted to repeal a dozen or so environmental protections and other Obama administration regulations.
But at least he's never weakened America by calling for universal health care, which would play right into Putin's hands because, uh, well, I'm not clear on that part but I'm sure it makes sense.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Can you show me where calling for universal healthcare is helping Putin?
You know what DOES? More chaos. A discouraged populace who is convinced none of their options are any good and they may as well not bother trying.
Also helpful is anyone claiming "I alone" can fix it. In fact wasn't that Trump's schpeel? Funny how it seems to be Bernie's too...
But do go on mischaracterizing what I said, it reinforces my claim.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I even knew that this particular lie would come up, so I pre-addressed it in my OP.
You say that Bernie's schpiel is claiming "I alone" can fix it. That's absurd. If he thought that he wouldn't have endorsed Hillary Clinton, with whom he had significant disagreements.
I remember seeing a clip in which an interviewer said to Bernie, "The course of your political revolution seems --" Bernie interrupted him and said, "Not my revolution. [pointing to interviewer] Your revolution."
There is nothing in my OP and there is nothing in the linked NPR piece that supports this popular (on DU, anyway) Bernie-bash imputation of megalomania to him.
Here's what I wrote about the Democratic Party's collective shift in the progressive direction:
Do you agree with NPR that the shift has occurred? Do you agree with me that there have been multiple causes, including but not limited to Bernie’s 2016 campaign and his follow-up advocacy?
And you still haven't answered my question about Manchin. We have a member of the Democratic caucus who all too frequently undercuts the Democratic leaders and enables Trump. To my mind, that's the sort of thing that creates "[a] discouraged populace who is convinced none of their options are any good and they may as well not bother trying."
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)after sulking publicly without subtlety.
The difference between "Bernie" and our nominee, policy-wise, was hair's width -- as was the difference between our front-runners in 2004 and 2008.
It is hard to accept, apparently, but she got more votes than Sanders; she got more votes than Trump; and the backlash is driven by WOMEN who witnessed how she was maligned and defeated.
From the protest on 1/21/16 to the numbers of women running for office now, this "shift" is not all about "Bernie," even if he leverages it and lays claim to it.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Stop changing subject. Yes, Bernie is a Team of One. Who accomplished nothing. Pound away all night on your keyboard, bro 'splainin' it all but you waste your time. Not interested in exercise in verbosity but I know that's how y'all get your kicks.
Rock on you crazy cultist!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's about this term "cultist" that the Bernie-haters love to use.
Are people who voted for Obama also cultists? The Freepers would certainly think so.
From my point of view, "cultist" seems to mean, in practice, anyone who strongly supports a candidate whom the person using the term does not support.
I don't think I've ever called another DUer a cultist, even when I disagreed with them, but I have less taste for personal attacks than do some people.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Joe Manchin, ergo, something.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Thank you for doing your part, Bernie.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)a center left country...need a big tent Democratic Party and a 50 state strategy which is what we had in 08...the last time we had power all three branches of government (thanks Howard Dean).
Squinch
(50,935 posts)
Schedule
(29 posts)Because Bernie wins when he wins and when he loses and when he ties.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) No. In favor of creating a neck-and-neck horserace where none exists. Creating or prolonging the "drama" and "excitement". Trying to generate controversy and manipulate continued interest... all for the sake of more viewers, readers, clicks. Nothing changes.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As has repeatedly been reported:
1) During the 2016 primaries, the corporate media drastically under-reported Bernie's campaign. He had more success than did any of the Republicans except Trump -- for example, he received a larger share of the votes cast than did Cruz and Kasich, combined -- but did not receive corresponding coverage.
2) The corporate media reported the delegate counts with all the announced superdelegate preferences lumped in with the pledged delegates chosen by the voters. On that basis, the Associated Press, NBC News, and perhaps other outlets pronounced Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee before the voting in California, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia, even though Clinton herself properly refrained from making any such assertion until she had enough pledged delegates.
As a generalization, you're correct in saying that the media have an interest in creating or exaggerating drama. In the particular case of a democratic socialist candidate, however, the profit-driven mass media, owned by a handful of giant corporations, managed to resist that temptation.
MrPool
(73 posts)that has Chris Hayes, Jake Tapper and Andersoon Cooper who never ask Bernie about his taxes,Tad Devine his mysterious 10 million donation on that little FBI thingy.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)All I'm saying is that obviously it's very important to SUPPORT DEMOCRATS, and in that regard it's a behavior and characteristic of his that needs some improvement. Surely we can all agree on something as simple as this, right?
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)right down to the ENOUGH
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)"Sanders' broader goal is to get more first-time voters and first-time candidates involved in the political process, and to keep pushing progressive policies like a Medicare-for-all health care plan into the Democratic mainstream."
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The gist of his message has been consistent. It goes something like this: "I distrust Democrats and I hate the Democratic party. Democrats are corrupt and feeble. Democrats are with corporatists. The Democratic party is ideologically bankrupt. So get out there and, uh, vote for Democrats... uh, or something."
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)And it's applied to all too many subjects.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Lord.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He even won the presidency, but when it came down to the rubber meeting the road his own party hung his ass out to dry...
And why do Dems blindly insist on putting the cart before the horse? Even if Bernie was president now single payer would be a pipe dream BECAUSE THE GOP CONTROLS THE GODDAMNED CONGRESS...
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)How, exactly, do we end the GOP's control of Congress? I agree with Barack Obama's reported statement that focusing on the Trump-Russia issues won't be enough by itself. The emphasis should be on showing voters that electing Democrats will make their lives better.
Some Democratic candidates believe that pushing for single payer is one component of that. Others fear that they'll be open to fear-mongering attacks about "socialized medicine" or whatever. Thus, there's a difference of opinion within the Democratic Party about the politics of single payer as well as about the merits of particular proposals. That intra-party debate was reflected in the 2016 primaries.
The point of the linked article is that, since the 2016 primaries, the intra-party debate has been shifting in the direction of favoring single payer. For example, in 2017, for the first time ever, Conyers's single-payer bill attracted cosponsorships from a majority of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House. In the Senate, Sanders's single-payer bill has been cosponsored by several of the Senators who are often mentioned as possible 2020 nominees. (And, no, this does not mean that I'm a Bernie "cultist" who believes that Bernie thought up the concept of single-payer singlehandedly. It's a factual report about the cosponsorship list, treating that list as one indication of where the Democratic Party is going.)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)BY VOTING!! Is this a trick question?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Great. The people who read DU then vote Democratic. Guess what, that doesn't get us control of Congress.
We make a difference by appealing to millions of people who, inexplicably, don't read online political message boards. We appeal to them by pushing for the things we want to do if elected.
If your alternative campaign strategy is "Democratic candidates shouldn't advocate any policies that don't have the votes to pass in the current Congress," then all I can say is that, as shown in the linked article, many Democratic candidates disagree with you.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)what else do you want?
Besides, if the Dems take congress than impeachment has to be the first priority or there won't be a goddamn country left to even provide single payer....
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I wasn't criticizing you personally at all.
I was addressing the question you asked, about why Democratic candidates should push for single payer. Among candidates who've won their primaries or who are still seeking the nomination, some are advocating single payer and some aren't. You seemed to be implying that those in the first group were making a clear mistake. If that's your position, I disagree.
George II
(67,782 posts)Unfortunately many of his and Our Revolution's endorsees failed to get above 20%, some only 5-6%.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) George II
(67,782 posts)MrPool
(73 posts)math isn't their strongest suit or facts or reality for that matter. But I digress my pink pony awaits to take me to donut land.
kamalafan
(63 posts)We are doomed. Sigh..... not a good look.
FSogol
(45,471 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Focus on issues, not individual politicians.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)They're the ones who thought that this particular story about an individual politician was worth running.
Admittedly, I'm the one who thought that a major new outlet's analysis of contemporary Democratic Party politics was worth posting to a Democratic message board. What a concept, huh?
If your desire to read about contemporary Democratic Party politics is outweighed by your desire to not read about Bernie Sanders, I think there's a mechanism by which you can hide from your view any thread with his name in the title. Of course, the drawback is that you'd miss some stuff from people who obsessively focus on Bernie for the purpose of bashing him. Only you can decided whether your call to "Focus on issues" is subject to an exception when you have a chance to read yet another negative post about Bernie Sanders.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)
Don't worry, we'll work on things that matter, you can keep reliving the "magic" of 2016.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)