Sanders gets best reception at early 2020 audition

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Sanders gets best reception at early 2020 audition

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/392186-sanders-gets-best-reception-at-early-2020-audition

Democratic presidential hopefuls embraced their party’s left flank during a presidential cattle call in the nation’s capital on Wednesday.

More than a thousand energetic attendees gathered at the We the People Summit to hear from some top potential 2020 contenders: Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). But it was Sanders who won the most applause from the crowd of progressive and labor activists.

All of the possible 2020 candidates struck a liberal message, touting the need for universal health care as well as protecting and expanding Social Security and Medicare. But the lawmakers also made calculated decisions about what issues to emphasize as they look to build up their support among the party’s activist base.

The energy in the room was palpable throughout the entirety of Sanders’s speech. He received multiple standing ovations, and “Bernie!” cheers broke out when he walked on and off the stage.
Democratic presidential hopefuls embraced their party’s left flank during a presidential cattle call in the nation’s capital on Wednesday.

[stonecutter357]

1. lol

[NurseJackie]

68. Swoon!

Bernie!

[George II]

83. Kinda reminds me of this, too:

[ehrnst]

91. Huge, cheering crowds... where have I seen that before?

Oh, right.

Last week, as part of his ''nonvoter tour'' of the Midwest, Mr. Nader addressed capacity audiences of 1,800 in Madison, Wis., and 1,000 in Flint, 1,200 in Ann Arbor and 1,700 in East Lansing, Mich. Last month, he drew more than 10,000 fans in Portland, Ore., in what his campaign claimed was the largest political rally for any candidate this year -- until last night.

To Mr. Nader and his supporters, those crowds are clear evidence that his campaign has finally gained steam, building a movement of disaffected voters -- one might call them angry white liberals -- that will put the Green Party on the political map.
............................................................

Though a funny man in private, Mr. Nader, 66, makes little effort to indulge in the small gestures of politicking, like mingling with supporters or making small talk with voters. Neither does he try to soften his sometimes sharp-edged manner or warm up his cool, intellectual demeanor in quest of votes.

Mr. Nader rarely takes time to work the crowds. Asked why, he replied: ''Bishops do that. This is deliberative democracy.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/us/the-2000-campaign-the-green-party-nader-fades-in-polls-but-draws-crowds.html

[NurseJackie]

94. Nailed it!

one might call them angry white liberals -- that will put the Green Party on the political map.

Nailed it! The NYT's writer was accurate then, and almost prophetic in how eerily those same descriptions apply so well to today's fringe malcontents who believe they can "gain power" by LITERALLY sabotaging the Democratic party with "protest votes" thereby relinquishing power to the GOP. This was Susan Sarandon's reason for living last go-round.

[ehrnst]

95. Some campaigns pursue a strategy of planning large rallies.

This is especially true of campaigns that are behind in the polls, because it creates the appearance, one might even say the illusion, that the polls must be wrong, because hey, look at all these people!

Look at all those people for McGovern! For Mondale! For Dukakis! For Romney!

And they all lost… and three of them lost badly; two (McGovern and Mondale) each lost 49 states.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Trump-win-in-every-visual-poll-but-lose-in-the-scientific-ones

And some campaigns make it a point to hold rallies near or on universities, where many more have the time and the energy to attend and really send up those cheers that are so gratifying for the candidate's self image, especially one who has used the focus group tested phrase "free college" as opposed to "debt free college."

That's really hard to walk away from, as we've seen.

[George II]

103. Actually I think the reception was because he brought a box o' joe and two dozen munchkins.

[mythology]

148. So any politician drawing cheering crowds is bad?

Somebody should have told Obama that those campaign events were a waste of time because somebody you don't like did it too. Are you really so desperate to diminish Sanders that you think this criticism isn't silly?

[ehrnst]

151. Strawman, much?

I said that big crowds don't "necessarily" indicate a large turnout at the polls. I didn't claim the inverse.

Are you so desperate to quash any observations concerning Sanders that aren't praise that you would resort to misrepresenting someone's statements in order to be able to argue with them?

[AtomicKitten]

246. Sure

... if "observations ... that aren't praise" equates to mocking his popularity, but it doesn't so you can drop the pretense.

[ehrnst]

255. No, it doesn't equate to "mocking his popularity."

Is that clearer?

[pangaia]

254. Only if it is Sanders....

[progressoid]

104. Gee, I wonder if you have ever posted swooning OPs about Hillary Clinton.

Hmmm...

[NurseJackie]

122. Gee, I doubt it. Besides... who TF cares?

104. Gee, I wonder if you have ever posted swooning OPs about Hillary Clinton.
Hmmm...

Gee, I doubt it. Besides... who TF cares?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. No surprise there... let me save some people here the trouble...

Yes, we know, Bernie is not a Democrat.

[Power 2 the People]

9. LOL

Ditto

[QC]

13. !

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. LMFAO!!

[dae]

43. LOL, here we go again and I'm with Sam

I love Bernie and what he stands for.

[Sailor65x1]

183. Epic!

[Uncle Joe]

217. ...

[KPN]

19. Maybe they'll take you up on that.

One can only hope, dream, etc.

[LanternWaste]

63. More trouble savings...

"Bernie is not a Democrat..."

Nor is he a sacred cow, in which any negative criticism of his policy or position is labeled as 'bashing,' and discussions of those same called 'divisive.'

Thanks our stars that rarely, if ever happens.

[LWolf]

150. .

And he still has my full support.

[njhoneybadger]

3. Blah, Blah, Blah

[Wednesdays]

12. Elaborate, please.

[SamKnause]

4. I love Bernie !!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Me too! Not bad for someone who's not a Democrat... Bernie never fails to deliver the goods!

[Raine]

33. I do too

love, love, love him!

[CentralMass]

5. But but but...

[CentralMass]

6. I can hear the teeth gnashing.

[Cha]

38. Yeah, you always say that. You're hearing things.

[Tarc]

7. If only clapping, tweeting, etc...were how elections were decided....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Yes, being the most popular prospective 2020 presidentilal candidate is SOOO overrated!!

Go Bernie!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Skip voting?... Really?... Wow!

[Tarc]

60. Too much of the same old stuff

We need a little diversity and youthful energy, not looking to the past.

[awesomerwb1]

8. The Hill?

Yawn

[oberliner]

10. "Perhaps the most vigorous applause in the room was for the outgoing congressman Luis Gutirrez..."

Perhaps the most vigorous applause in the room was for the outgoing congressman Luis Gutiérrez, who received standing ovations and loud cheers when he condemned the Trump administration’s immigration policy and its efforts to crack down on asylum seekers and separate migrant families at the US-Mexico border. “I can think of nothing more cruel, more evil than to rip a child from a mother’s arms who is fleeing systematic rape, murder, torture.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/13/democratic-2020-hopefuls-progressive-conference-we-the-people

[grantcart]

39. Somebody just lost their voice lol

[lunamagica]

85. I love Luis Gutierrez! He is a reall warrior, who walks the walk!

[Gothmog]

203. I like Congressman Gutierrez

I am glad that he got the most applause

[Schedule]

15. Bernie lost to Hillary despite higher enthusiasm in 2016

Biden is beating him in all polls matching them up (Biden wasn't present in this event, by the way).

[KPN]

20. Too bad about that.

[Garrett78]

25. And it only appeared remotely close due to caucuses.

The race was essentially over by the 2nd week of March 2016. Clinton had it wrapped up after Super Tuesday.

Events such as this one in DC, like caucuses and straw polls (Ron Paul famously did great in Republican straw polls), are notorious for not being representative samples. Plus, at this early stage, the advantage naturally goes to those with the most name recognition.

[ehrnst]

96. Which is why delegates and not actual vote counts are always mentioned by Sanders

when he talks about his performance in the primaries.

Same reason Trump talks about the Electoral College rather than vote counts.

[Garrett78]

97. And the delegate numbers are warped by disenfranchising caucuses.

[ehrnst]

98. Yep. (nt)

[Garrett78]

108. There seem to be people who honestly think the 2016 race was close. Either that or...

...they want Sanders to be the 2020 nominee so badly that they're in denial. Or they're clinging to the notion that a crowded field will open the door for him, but the field won't be crowded for very long.

Sanders does not have nearly enough support among the base.

[ehrnst]

112. That river in Egypt, I suspect.

It also fuels Trump supporters.

[Gothmog]

205. Hopefully the Democrats will be getting rid of caucuses and open primaries

[Garrett78]

231. Cross-over voting has the potential to influence results, but...

...I doubt there's enough cross-over voting to substantially alter the results (especially with Democrats, thankfully, not having winner-take-all primaries). So, I don't lose any sleep over open primaries. Some Sanders supporters seem to think he dominated the open primaries, but Clinton won more open primaries than Sanders did.

Caucuses, though, are flat-out wrong. There are so many people who simply will not or cannot take part in such long and very public voting events.

Something else I don't like is starting with 2 states that aren't the least bit representative of our electorate. IA and NH hold way too much sway.

[Orsino]

65. This is a key point.

Sure, it looked for about a week as though Sander had a small chance of catching up to Clinton, but the real enthusiasm lay elsewhere.

In 2018, I don't see disenchantment with Democratic corporatism as a big target for voters, or any other reason to believe Bern would get any more traction.

And he's not a Democrat anymore.

[ehrnst]

114. Would you define what you mean when you say "Democratic corporatism?" (nt)

[Orsino]

129. Not enough space, but here's an example.

https://newrepublic.com/article/147247/democrats-helping-trump-dismantle-dodd-frank

[ehrnst]

130. Is that it? Really?

"He supports this bill because it provides relief for small community banks and credit unions in Virginia, helps prevent further harmful consolidation in the banking industry, and strengthens consumer protections for all Americans.”

How is this "corporatism?"

I mean the flat earthers talk about "Darwinism," like that's a thing.

There's plenty of space, so please clarify your definition of "corporatism," as applied to Democrats.

[Orsino]

131. He's supporting the dismantling of Dodd-Frank in exchange for pork.

And just possibly in exchange for campaign donations: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033177

But if Kaine was right to do so, why were most of his Democratic colleagues so wrong to vote the other way?

Every politician has an excuse for compromise, and most Democrats will excuse this behavior by other Democrats, and most of us will continue to vote for Democrats anyway, because where else are we gonna go? Kaine is still one of the good guys IMO, but I will not excuse this obvious quid pro quo.

[ehrnst]

133. So, if a majority of Democratic Reps oppose it, it's wrong?

Is that what you are saying?

And if a majority support it, it's right?

Is that the only example you have of what you refer to as "corporatism" on the part of Democrats (since you seem to be unable to give an actual definition...)?

[Orsino]

136. If Kaine's excuse is that it'll be good for Virginians...

...why do most Dems agree it'll be bad for elsewhere? And why did the GoP want it?

Weakening Dodd-Frank is bad, and Dem support is particularly galling. EGRRCPA now requires the Fed to cozy up to the biggest banks and write custom regulations for each. I don't want any Trump appointee in charge of that process, and not just because I'm old enough to remember 2008.

Perhaps under a president Clinton this law wouldn't be so frightening.

[ehrnst]

140. You avoided answering my question...

If a majority of Democrats are not supporting it, does that make it a bad?

And is the inverse true - if a majority of Democrats support it, does that mean it's good?

[Orsino]

155. It's not a relevant question.

We have to look at the whys and why-nots, and at the apparent quid pro quos.

Democrats aren't good because we're Democrats. The things that make us good help make us good Democrats. While I understand that remaining pure under the assaut of Citizens United isn't always easy, that big, easy money is precisely the sort of thing that Dems should avoid if they don't want to end up smelling like Republicans.

[ehrnst]

157. You asked why the Dems who opposed it were "wrong."

You made the inference that because they opposed it, it was wrong, not me.

You think that Democrats who support this are being corrupted by Citizens United?

You think that any politician can be "pure?"

I certainly don't know of any who are.

[Orsino]

195. Oh, we all have our purity tests.

And in the age of Trump, a senator's too-snuggly friendship with the bankers is going to pale next to the rampant assaults on democracy. We just have to be alert on all fronts.

[ehrnst]

256. But there is no politician who can pass all the purity tests

despite what their fans say...especially when there are different standard applied to any other candidate, especially challengers.

[Orsino]

257. Some are made-up, some are second-tier, some have grave import.

It's up to each of us to judge. Our responsibility is to stay informed and not lose sight of ones that matter.

[ehrnst]

258. No "purity test" can apply fully to humans, let alone politicians.

Especially those politicians who declare themselves the true measure of purity.

[tinrobot]

147. How much of that "enthusiasm" was real, how much of it was Russians?

Don't forget the Russians used their tactics to support Bernie as a way to divide Democrats...

Bernie has been rather silent on that aspect of his "popularity"

[LWolf]

152. That says something

about the establishment, doesn't it?

That the most popular politician in America is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and that the establishment Democrats would rather lose to Trump than get behind him.

I was hoping for better from the party in 2020.

[leftofcool]

18. Don't care how much applause he gets.

Democrats run a Black female for President or we write in Hillary.

[Bradshaw3]

26. Which would just re-elect trump

Brilliant Sarandon strategy there.

[Blue_true]

162. Yes it will and that will suck.

Think Trump is bad now, let him get reelected. The shear damage will be enormous and will take decades to correct, beyond the lifetimes of pretty much everyone here.

[Bradshaw3]

202. I hope others recognize the future you do and work to stop it

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Write in Hillary? What happened to unity behind the duly elected Democratic presidential nominee?

[Garrett78]

30. I'm rooting for Kamala, but I'll vote for the Dem nominee regardless.

I'm certainly not going to waste my vote on a write-in. Anyway, there's no way Sanders will be the nominee. Like straw polls and caucuses, events like this one in DC are not usually representative of the electorate.

[Raine]

34. So much for unifying

behind the party nominee...

[Twisty]

37. What the serious fuck?

[LWolf]

153. My first choice

for a nominee is not Sanders. It's a Black female.

Nina Turner for president.

[AtomicKitten]

241. Yes.

Love her.

[Blue_true]

161. No write in, please don't fall for the far left's BS mistake.

We need to get rid of Trump with the only person that can beat him, the Democratic Party nominee. Please keep this in mind as we go through the 2020 primary grinder.

[KPN]

21. Another article meant to stir things up.

I'm a Bernie fan. I watched his address. Maybe he got more applause than others, but it wasn't obvious if you only watched him. Much to do about absolutely nothingin my opinion.

[grantcart]

40. It's all about the stir

[KPN]

75. It's pretty apparent ... and I have to wondet

whether and to what extent it is orchestrated, and really by whom.

[YOHABLO]

24. So what will the Democratic Party do if Bernie becomes that popular with Dem voters?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. We will all unite in rallying behind Bernie in 2020, just as we did in supporting Hillary in 2016...

What choice do we have if we hope to depose the Dick-tator-in-Chief?!

[MrPool]

35. Yes!! And he will get the same respect and unity that

was given to John Lewis, A four star general, and congressional WOC. I can just taste the unity now!

[NurseJackie]

71. ...

[ehrnst]

92. You use that word "unite" to describe what happened in 2016

I don't think that word means what you think it means....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. Huh?

[ehrnst]

115. Were you on DU then?

If so, then you are being disingenuous.

[Blue_true]

166. Bernie created enormous ill will at the convention.

He should have spent the whole convention talking with groups of his supporters about the importance of backing Hillary 100%. But all he did was show up one night then vanish for a couple of months. The bad taste is still in my mouth, but I promise you that if Bernie somehow becomes our nominee, I will support him 1000% because that is no fucking alternative, IMO.

[AtomicKitten]

245. Some 2,000 internal DNC emails were released the day before the convention

... outlining how the DNC and the party's leadership had worked to sabotage Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, prompting the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz before the Democratic National Convention. After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.

With incontrovertible proof finally in hand, it made Sanders' supporters who had donated money and worked their hearts out a bit cranky, understandably so to any reasonable person. And I assure you, the bad taste is still in our mouths.

[lunamagica]

102. Thing is, it will never happen. He is not going to get away wuth not showing his full tax returns

this time. That alone will stop him.

Plus there are other problems out there, like Jane and Burlington college...

[BannonsLiver]

110. +1

The Bernie fans here seem to be anticipating a cakewalk if he runs in 2020. I don't anticipate that will be the case for the reasons you mentioned, among many others, including general fatigue.

[Blue_true]

167. I wonder how the Bernie fans will react when reality sets it.

Will they man and woman up, or will they act like babies and fuck up our chances to rid the nation of Trump?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

113. Thing is...

First, the question that was posed, which I responded to was: "So what will the Democratic Party do IF Bernie becomes that popular with Dem voters?"

The "second thing" is, IF Bernie runs again for President in 2020, and IF Bernie is required to disclose his tax returns, I have ZERO doubt that he will.

The "third thing" is, even IF it were true that Jane has a "Burlington College" problem - which I highly doubt -since when is it appropriate it to hold the sins of the spouse against the candidate?! How many times did we argue, APPROPRIATELY, in response to right-wing zealots, that any sins of Bill Clinton shouldn't be attributed to, or otherwise held against, Hillary in her campaign against tRump? That was absolutely the correct view to take... but, when it comes to bashing Bernie, I guess NOTHING is out of bounds.

[ehrnst]

117. "since when is it appropriate it to hold the sins of the spouse against the candidate?!"

You really do have no memory of DU in 2016, do you?

[lunamagica]

120. Amazing, isn't it

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

186. Yes!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

126. LOL Ehrnst... I think it's YOU who has had the memory lapse...

As I said, and you obviously recall, many here on DU argued, RIGHTFULLY SO, that it's inappropriate to hold the sins of the spouse against the candidate, YOU among them no doubt. So, why the double standard when using Jane's conduct to bash Bernie?? How quickly they forget!!

[lunamagica]

119. If you have ZERO doubt he will disclose his tax retrurns, why hasn't he done it already?

The 'Jane is looking for them" is one of the most pathetic excuses ever given. It was a blatant lie. What was the problem then, that is not problem now?

[ehrnst]

121. Not the actions of someone with nothing questionable in those returns.

Excuses don't look good for DT, or any other politician avoiding the usual transparency expected of politicians with ambitions for the Oval Office.

[lunamagica]

123. IKR? releasing full tax returns goes a long way to show a candidates honesty and transparency

there were only TWO candidates in '16 who refused to release their taxes: trump and Sanders. How peculiar is that? And how does it make Sanders look? Let me answer that. It makes him look bad...I mean, he and trump hiding their returns...bad. Then why would he allow himself to look this bad?

The only answer I can think of is that releasing his taxes would make him look worse. That's the most logical, simple explanation.

He has guarded those tax returns like a mad dog. Thinking he will release them now has no base in relity

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. Bernie has shown AMAZING transparency when it comes to what he has had to say to Wall Street bankers

in public and behind closed doors.

[lunamagica]

189. Transparency? The real transparecy would have been to show his tax retuns, not his empty words

you have been asked this before, and you never reply. Why do you think he refused to release his full tax returns?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

226. Of course I've replied... just not for the 10th time...

... so please don't make shit up about me. Thank you.

[lunamagica]

232. Sorry I missed your other explanations...will you please enlighten me

to the reasons why he refused to disclose his full tax returns?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

238. As I've said, repeatedIy, I don't know 4 sure why Bernie didn't release his tax returns.

But, regardless, as I've also said, he SHOULD release at 5 years of past tax returns IF he intends to run again in 2020.

But, if you're forcing me to GUESS, in answer to your question, I believe the reason Bernie didn't do so was because Hillary refused to release her speeches to Wall Street banks and Bernie was using his tax returns as leverage to get her to be transparent, which obviously didn't work.

But, again, that's just a GUESS IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION... I have ZERO INTEREST in relitigating the 2016 primary... I, for one, am looking forward, and in 2020, I support the call for Bernie to release his tax returns regardless other candidates' decisions on this issue... it's the right thing to do, no question.

[lunamagica]

242. Thanks for you reply. If your guess is correct, why did he say that Jane was looking for them?

[Blue_true]

169. Bernie himself seemed to have had sketchy goings ons that no release of tax returns

covered up. There were questions of income, investments, his net worth being far larger than he claimed. All that stuff will come out this time around, and if Bernie turns out to be as pure as new snow, I will be the first to apologize and offer to wash your feet, but I don't think that I will have to.

[ehrnst]

116. States are making this mandatory to get on the POTUS ballot.

I'm sure the cries of "why are we not INCLUSIVE?!!!!!" will rise if candidates can't get their records "in order" prior to this.

Deja Vu all over again, as someone once said.

And of course Sanders has not been vetted like other candidates- including HRC, the most vetted candidate in history.

At least by Democrats.

With swelling ambition comes scrutiny expanding in kind, and Sanders has a history of not reacting well to scrutiny of his life that other politicians are subjected to.

(Yes, this is from 2015, but the focus isn't about last Democratic primary, but this particular politicians' record of responses to routine questions about his life that he is uncomfortable with.)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927

[SergeStorms]

41. If Bernie becomes a Democrat....

and wins the nomination I'll back him 100%. As an Independent, riding on the backs and bucks of Democrats, then no. If he decided to run as a third party candidate I'd do everything within my power to make sure he fails, miserably. There's much too much at stake here, and I don't care whose feelings get hurt.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. No question Bernie SHOULD, and WILL, join the ranks of the Democratic Party IF he runs again...

for President in 2020. As much as I support Bernie, like you, I would have to reject and denounce him if he ran as an Independent.

AT THE SAME TIME, some in the Democratic Party, like some of those here, who want to bar Bernie from running as a Democrat, ironically, could be the ones most responsible for forcing hom to run as an Independent.

That would be CATASTROPHIC to our chances of defeating the Traitor-in-Chief in 2020!!

[Blue_true]

170. Bingo. nt

[Demsrule86]

66. It is too late. He isn't going to become popular with Democrats. he had a shot last time

but now we move on. I voted for Bernie in the primary last time...and he won't get my vote again in a primary. Judging from what I have seen working on Cordray's campaign he won't get many Democratic votes in Ohio...just one area of course, but I was surprised at how strongly people felt. I hope he doesn't run so we can move on and not revisit the division of 16...I know you all get annoyed when I say this but I think 80 is too old to run for president...I just do. Health is very fragile at that age. And, we would most likely be running a new candidate in 2024 who would not have incumbent advantages.

[Blue_true]

164. If he wins the nomination, me and most other democrats will back him 100%.

There is absolutely NO WAY that I will not vote or write in. If Bernie is the nominee, I contribute to his campaign any way that I can, and vote for him when I vote early.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

188. Right there with you!

[SidDithers]

28. He'll make a great Senator from Vermont...nt

Sid

[NurseJackie]

77. He's a good fit for Vermont's demographics...

... not for the demographics of the entire United States. All I'm saying is that he should stick to what he knows.

[lovemydogs]

31. If I was there I would be standing in ovation for sanders

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

228. As would I!!

[DemocracyMouse]

32. I'll vote for ANY Democrat, but I like how Bernie, Harris, Booker and Warren are waking the nation

I hope Biden is taking in, and beginning to resonate with, these thoughtful, conscientious Americans. Their progressive ideas have never turned off anyone I've ever spoken to – and I talk to a lot of people! For example, if Biden – or any front runner – talks about extending Medicare to all, he'll get the voters' enthusiasm. If he explains how the money wasted currently on commercial insurance cos. will nearly pay for the program (yes, the numbers work out), he'll get their respect. But he has to do the research like Warren and B. Sanders.

Just do the research, Joe. Don't rest on your laurels.

[Nevernose]

42. Biden already knows

The only reason he wasn’t a two term president, IMHO, was delivery.

He’s hardly a “leftist.” He’s been on the wrong side of a few issues, especially earlier in his career.

But I had the luck/privilege of hearing him speak to fundraisers in 2007, well after he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. I was not one of those fundraisers, but Democrats are cooler than Republicans and so let me sit a table. It was a table in the back, but still...

Joe Biden gave a barn burner of a speech. Outstanding. I said here on DU, when he was running for senate, that Obama was going to be out next POTUS. Reid brought Obama out here to GOTV. I was an early adopter of Obama. However, after I heard Biden speak without he pressure? It was a holy shit moment. It was like the second coming of FDR. Our caucus had already passed and I kept knocking on doors for Obama, but if Biden had been that one guy from that one night, from the beginning? Where he just said what he thought and didn’t give a fuck? Biden would have won handily.

[Rhiannon12866]

47. Thanks so much for the recollection

He obviously has the experience we've needed and he was a great partner for Obama. Besides being a gifted speaker, he's incredibly popular with pretty much everyone, including his colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

[DemocracyMouse]

99. OK, I actually agree he's got good energy, but his policies?

I saw him once denigrate teachers in higher education for being paid too much. He singled out a small minority of star professors who are paid well into the six digits, without an apparent awareness that most college intructors have been marginalized into adjunct positions which pay non-living wages. And, sorry, most cannot sustain a second job and must cobble together multiple adjunct gigs to survive. The point is that Biden hadn't done his homework and I was extremely disappointed. If he had, he'd be blaming the rising cost of higher education on the shift towards a "business" model where students are treated like consumers (accounting for grade inflation, the dumbing down of classes, expensive increases in sports and country club amenities), and stakeholders like the upper administrations doubled and tripled their salaries and doubled the total number of administrators.

Now, to be fair, it might have been a "winging it" moment for Biden. I contacted a close associate of his in the Obama admin and Biden's team did diligently take in my analysis and sources.

Maybe he got the message and I'll gladly route for the man (if Warren doesn't break through the pack!)

I'd love to see ANY Democrat point out that turning any non-profit industry into a business (health insurance, prisons, education) leads to higher cost and de-humanized conditions. But they have to be smart and couple that position with a statement about the equal importance of empowering a people's entrepreneurial for-profit sector WITH a sound non-profit infrastructure. Democrats always emphasize the former over the latter and get accused of being "anti-business." (Yes they are rightly critical of big business, but the Republican fog machine obscures it).

Some day an angel will come along and say "a non-profit infrastructure by the people, for the people, will fuel a beautiful, highly creative, people's for-profit economy." Maybe Biden can strike that balance.

[Blue_true]

171. If Biden runs in 2020 and promise to serve only one term.

I would do backflips getting to the poll to vote for him, at least then I know the country would be back under sane leadership.

[leftstreet]

36. DURec

[kamalafan]

44. I can see a Bernie/Kamala ticket!

And that would ensure a landslide victory over Trump!
Lots of excitement around the both of them and it would really bring lots of voters out.

[NurseJackie]

72. Nope. She's better than that. Don't sell her so short.

She can succeed and fly high on her own without having to rely on another politician's "coat tails". Such a short-sighted move would likely harm her political career in the long term. I'd lose a lot of respect for her ability to think strategically if she ever considered such a thing.

[BannonsLiver]

111. Agreed

There's not a snowball's chance in hell she would be on a ticket with Sanders.

[Blue_true]

173. I can see her and Joe on a ticket.

And if Joe promises to serve only one term, that ticket is a winner.

[NurseJackie]

177. Why would he do that?

That's a pledge that does not inspire confidence. I'd be MORE willing to support someone who's in it for the long haul and who has a vision that needs (requires) a full eight years to implement successfully.

An early pledge to "only serve one term" strikes me as something that would come from a candidate who lacks confidence in himself or herself... it's as if that candidate is making a grand bargain with the voters "I know you don't really like me, but vote for me anyway because I promise to leave after 4 years".

No thanks.

[Blue_true]

180. To save the country. Trump needs to go, I think Joe can take him out.

The pledge and living up to it would give Joe and ironclad lock on a win, IMO. Then after one term, his younger second can lead the way.

[NurseJackie]

182. It tells me that he lacks commitment. I just don't see this as a "winning" message.

[Blue_true]

233. Like many things in life, it all about how it is phrased.

If he points out the atrocities of the Trump administration and point out that he wants to get the country back on course and he is confident that he can do that in four years, then yield to a younger person, lots of people that may have not wanted to vote for him based upon his age will likely come over to him.

[NurseJackie]

235. That's a weak compromise...

If he points out the atrocities of the Trump administration and point out that he wants to get the country back on course and he is confident that he can do that in four years,

I have more confidence in the our ability to find a well-qualified, energetic, dynamic, experienced and inspiring candidate... WITHOUT having to look to the party's "Old Guard". I'm sure that someone will emerge who can deliver that exact same message. It doesn't have to be Biden. Sorry, but Biden is not "the only one who can save us".

then yield to a younger person, lots of people that may have not wanted to vote for him based upon his age will likely come over to him.

That's a weak compromise... and isn't a very strong message coming from the Democratic party either. It's not very inspiring of the bottom line is "yeah he's old, but that's the best we can do right now... and never mind about the age thing 'cause he doesn't feel up to pulling a full 8-year tenure."

What I'm saying is, the whole concept just sounds desperate and it totally sends the wrong message about Democrats and the Democratic party. I think it's reasonable for people to want Democrats to be (and to be seen as) the party of the future, not the party of the past.

[Blue_true]

181. A good VP choice would provide 12 years for his policies to take root.

That is if the far left don't pull the 2000 and 2016 bs again.

[kamalafan]

252. I think Joe has too much baggage

[kamalafan]

249. It would be an unstoppable ticket IMHO

and I like both Bernie and Kamala. It would be a fantastic way to drive voters to get out.

[ehrnst]

174. She had to confront him on the Senate floor about how his

loyalist were bashing her as an "establishment tool."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

227. Not sure about his "loyalists," as you call 'em, but Bernie speaks the truth...

which splains why he's so damn popular.

[kamalafan]

250. And a ticket of Bernie and Kamala would unite things

I think it would be the perfect combination myself.

[Gothmog]

207. Senator Harris will be on the top of ticket

Link to tweet

[AtomicKitten]

247. She'll have to defend her support of ICE which was part of the Patriot Act

... and the legal basis for Trump's heartless immigration policy. Obama broke up plenty of families with his massive. number of deportations, but Trump is going even further with the virtual concentration camps he's setting up - all done under ICE.

https://m.

[kamalafan]

251. Ah never mind

I read incorrectly.

[still_one]

45. A walk down memory lane........ "Nader Supporters Fill Madison Square Garden

The mostly 20- and 30-something crowd paid $20 each for tickets to the rally, billed as ''Nader Rocks the Garden.'' They whooped as celebrities, including Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore and Bill Murray, heaped praise on Mr. Nader.and chanted a chorus of ''Let Ralph Debate."

''Welcome to the politics of joy and justice,'' Mr. Nader said. ''We are building a historic, progressive, political movement in America; a movement for which Nov. 7th is just one stopping place.''

In an hourlong speech that at times sounded like a left-leaning history lesson, Mr. Nader assailed big business for what he called ''a corporate crime wave,'' and said the Democratic and Republican parties were controlled by corporations. ''Our country has been sold to the highest bidder,'' Mr. Nader said.

Mr. Moore, a filmmaker, urged the crowd not to worry that voting for Mr. Nader might help Mr. Bush by taking votes from Mr. Gore.

''The lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil,'' Mr. Moore said. ''You don't make a decision because of fear: you make it on your hopes, your dreams, your aspirations.''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/14/business/the-2000-campaign-the-green-party-nader-supporters-fill-madison-square-garden.html

Mr. Moore, a lot of people have forgotten you bullshit logic which started us down where we are today. I haven't

[betsuni]

46. Aaargh.

This is depressing.

[still_one]

49. My point being that anecdotal observations are not a good criteria to judge things,

and using things as "best reception", has very little value

[betsuni]

50. Yes, I know.

[shanny]

52. Still with the NaderNaderNader BS.

The election in 2000 was a coup d'etat: 5 Republican justices stopped the recounting of votes and awarded the Presidency to the candidate of their party. It was such an obviously, egregiously bad decision that they stipulated it was not to be used as a precedent (wtf?). iow they were fully aware of their perfidy at the time.

And nobody did/said shit about it, including our candidate. Because norms, and checks and balances. Handwriting was on the wall then, sports fans, and we've been beating up the wrong enemies ever since.

[still_one]

81. Bullshit. The same lies and distortions were spewed how there was no difference between republicans

and Democrats, and the same lies and undermining of the Democratic nominee occurred from the SAME usual suspects in 2016.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican with the help of those self-identified progressives who either refused NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee, voting third party, or not voting, continue to this day to have no regrets for their actions, and most of those Democrats running for Senate in those swing states were progressive by any standard.

While this rally appears to be a group willing to work WITHIN the Democratic party, and not adopt an all or nothing ideology, the lessons of 2000 and 2016 need to be remembered

[shanny]

89. Thank you for making my point for me.

[Gothmog]

87. Nader was rove's puppet

I will never forgive nader Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[bahrbearian]

59. 'The lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil,''

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2018, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[still_one]

86. Yes I am. Working and pushing ideas within the Democratic party is important. That appears to be

intent of this rally.

The only way to move forward is with everyone involved.

Howard Dean's 50-state strategy recognized this.

Those that adhere to either their way are no way, usually have the exact opposite of their goals

[Squinch]

48. Realy? People clapped loudly for him? Wow.

[betsuni]

51. It was the best reception. Be Best!

[Squinch]

62. Well no. According to the guardian, Gutierrez got the

best reception. So maybe the slogan should be "have your acolytes say you are the best at everything, even when it appears to be untrue."

Worked for whiny little Donnie, after all.

[betsuni]

64. Yes, I know.

Being sarcastic.

[sheshe2]

69. ...

[brer cat]

100. I got it.

I loved the "be best."

[Squinch]

105. Oh, I know. And it really does lend itself to "be best."

[mcar]

74. Be Best never gets old

[VOX]

53. He entered the venue as an angel, borne aloft by the wings of ten thousand butterflies.

Oh, children, it was a sight to behold. And the thunderous applause for him...*HIM!* went heavenward, and it was like a sweet, soft tonic for the angels above. But we need your love, children. Give it to us, please! Good God, I feel it tonight! Whoooo!

[grantcart]

90. The devotees were smitten and behold a tax return descended to the masses . . .

From above but only the true believers could see it.

[RandiFan1290]

54. Bashers going bonkers

Wonder if they plan on voting for trump if Bernie gets the nomination?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Nothing would shock me when it comes to BDS.

[treestar]

82. Come on though - the OP invites it

We all know there is divided opinion about Bernie on DU. OP surely knows that. 2 years now with claims that Bernie has the most fans, the best crowds, etc. He was going to win all 50 states! You can hardly be surprised that a post saying he had the most enthusiasm somewhere is going to invite the usual suspects like me to be cynical.

[sheshe2]

93. ***

Treestar~

[sheshe2]

58. Correct me if I am wrong here.

RandiFan1290
54. Bashers going bonkers Wonder if they plan on voting for trump if Bernie gets the nomination?

Are you calling DUers that disagree with Sanders "bashers" and of possibly refusing to vote for BS if he wins the nomination and to double down you seem to be accusing Democrats on this board of possibly voting tRump? Did I misunderstand your comment?

[Squinch]

107. No. And we wouldn't boo him at the convention, either. Because that would just be fucking stupid.

[sheshe2]

56. Interesting article.

From your link.

Sanders, 76, spent much of address telling attendees about how his 2016 presidential campaign changed the conversation within the Democratic Party. Sanders, who lost in the primary to Hillary Clinton, secured a number of his initiatives in the Democratic Party’s convention platform.

“Many of the ideas that we talked about were thought to be fringe ideas, radical ideas, extremist ideas,” he said of his campaign planks like infrastructure reform, tuition-free public colleges and “Medicare for all,” which has been embraced by many Democratic House candidates in midterm campaigns this year. “Because of your efforts, those ideas are now mainstream American ideas.”

Yet, Sanders didn’t embrace every liberal policy tossed his way on Wednesday. Asked what he would do to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Sanders declared the need to protect so-called Dreamers but didn’t go as far as calling to defund ICE — an idea which has gained some traction among more liberal candidates.

When Warren, Sanders’s top competition on the party’s left flank, took the stage, she used her time to hammer the GOP. She said Republicans are leaving workers behind and argued that there’s widespread corruption in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. She specifically called out the GOP’s tax overhaul as “evidence of corruption in Congress.”

Elizabeth is armed and ready to fight the GOP and the future of this country. She is calling out the GOP's corruption, attacking them head on. Dayum, I love my Senator.

[Vinca]

57. I would really like to see a younger candidate. It seems like the old guard will be running from the

crypt if allowed. (Disclaimer: not ageism - I'm old.)

[BlueStater]

61. You know this party is in fucking trouble when it wants to run an 80-year-old man for president.

I will not stop mentioning how absurd this is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. You mean Biden?

Just half kidding. Both Biden and Sanders are exceptional in their ways but I agree that it isn't a good sign if we have to look for leadership now from men of their generation. I don't dismiss the possibility of supporting either one of them, but still...

[BlueStater]

109. Both of them are old.

So is Warren, really. If you were born on or before December 31, 1949, you're now too old to be president and should not be considered a viable candidate. Bernie was born before PEARL HARBOR, for fucks sake.

[Blue_true]

176. If Bernie and Joe agreed to serve ONLY one term.

I would vote for either in a heartbeat versus Trump. I would vote for either, even if they did not agree to serve only one term. The stakes are way too high.

I hope democratic voters have the wisdom to choose one of the younger bright lights that we have in the party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "

-Karl Marx

[disillusioned73]

73. This is why..

[sheshe2]

78. Well actually

oberliner (52,092 posts)
10. "Perhaps the most vigorous applause in the room was for the outgoing congressman Luis Gutirrez..."

Perhaps the most vigorous applause in the room was for the outgoing congressman Luis Gutiérrez, who received standing ovations and loud cheers when he condemned the Trump administration’s immigration policy and its efforts to crack down on asylum seekers and separate migrant families at the US-Mexico border. “I can think of nothing more cruel, more evil than to rip a child from a mother’s arms who is fleeing systematic rape, murder, torture.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/13/democratic-2020-hopefuls-progressive-conference-we-the-people

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210730598#post10

[disillusioned73]

79. Good for him..

I saw an interview w/ him recently and I hope he is able to make a difference with his grass roots activism.. Puerto Rico can use all the help that it can get..

[NY_20th]

76. I'm very impressed that a relatively small group of activists

were able to get so many high profile Democrats to meet with them, and am equally impressed that these Senators took the time to address their concerns.

Kudos to all. I wish I could have been there.

[mopinko]

80. they should save the shit for after nov.

[George II]

84. Were the attendees holding up numbered cards when each appeared?

[Squinch]

106. I think the swimsuit competition clinched it.

[samnsara]

88. Good for him but hes not a dem

[Hassin Bin Sober]

124. This was already addressed in post #13

[LiberalBob_in_MA]

127. If the Democrats want to sideline Bernie --

-- then they should officially adopt the policies he is advocating for and that all of us want (I think) -- such as universal healthcare for all, free education at state Universities, campaign finance reform, etc, etc.

Make it part of the Democratic platform in no uncertain terms and as a PARTY repeat these things over and over and over again. They would win in a landslide.

No more "we'll look at it and consider it", or whatever BS. State unequivocally what they stand for.

If they did this -- Bernie would step aside.

Didn't the Democrats 'absorb' competing leftist labor parties in the beginning of the 20th century by taking up their pro-labor issues in a similar manner?

Being "the other corporate party that takes money - but we won't screw you as badly as the Republicans" doesn't cut it.

Who was it that said if you offer the people the choice between a fake Republican and a REAL Republican the people will choose the genuine article every time?

[ehrnst]

132. They have adopted universal health care for all....

and Campaign finance reform, and affordable post high school education and training.

Perhaps you haven't looked at the platform for a few decades...


Bernie didn't invent those ideas - they've been Democratic issues since before Sanders was on Capitol Hill.

[ehrnst]

138. Perhaps you are confused about the term "Universal Health Care" means

And expanding the ACA is indeed implementing Universal Health Care.

No, "Medicare for All" is not the only path to Universal Health care, nor is it interchangeable with Universal Health Care.

Single payer is to universal health care what toy poodle is to canine.

Is that clearer?

"We have finally made real the principle that every American should have access to quality health care, and no one should go bankrupt just because they get sick — and we’ll never stop fighting to protect that principle."

What I'm not clear on is why you are on Democratic Underground if you are not a Democrat.

"Just read the Democrat weasel words that are part of their official party platform."

[ehrnst]

143. It was a step towards it - and the furthest we have ever been towards it.

Because no Universal Health Care plan can happen in 8 years, not even Medicare for All.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

Gradual expansion of the ACA is the way non-partisan health policy analysts say is the most affordable and most feasible way to get to universal health care coverage. I take their word over any politicians claims to the contrary.

And you seem not to understand what the ACA is - it's a law, not insurance. You need to educate yourself on facts before critiquing any Democratic success in that area.

What have the GOP or Greens or Libertarians or independents actually accomplished in terms of actually moving towards Universal Health Care coverage?


Now, tell me about how Dems don't support campaign reform or affordable higher education? Those aren't just "weasel words" in that platform, Bob.

Since you seem unclear on the platform, here it is:

In recent years Democrats have further increased access to higher education and restructured and dramatically expanded college financial aid, while making federal programs simpler, more reliable, and more efficient for students. In 2010, President Obama signed into law student loan reform that cut out the role of big banks. The Obama administration also doubled our investment in Pell Grants and made it easier for students to pay back student loans. President Obama has worked to reform the higher education system and invested the most in student aid since the G.I. Bill. Democrats are committed to protecting that progress, because affordable public education is the foundation of our middle class.

What have the GOP or Greens or Libertarians or independents accomplished in that area?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Here is her plan for campaign finance reform:

As president, Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United—the Supreme Court case that unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections.Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect Americans’ right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She will also propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office.

End secret, unaccountable money in politics. We need federal legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, Hillary will sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. She’ll also push for an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to give small donors greater influence.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

I hope that clarifies things about Democrats for you.

[ehrnst]

154. The ACA is the step towards it - NO universal health care will be acheived in under 20 years.

The ACA is effectively our national health care system, and it has been attacked and weakened by the GOP. What do you think they would do to an attempt at Single Payer.

My point was, that ACA does not get at the 'private' insurance problem -- only mandates it for those that are above a certain income level and not getting it through an employer.

As I said, you cannot eliminate private health care coverage in less than 20 years, and other countries acheive universal health care with some participation by private insurance. Did you skip over that part with the examples from Germany and the Netherlands?

There are still millions of people who make too much money to qualify for government subsidies on buying a plan -- and cannot afford ~20K a year for a family plan without such subsidy. Yep, that's what it costs.

Bernie's not going to get that fixed in under 20 years, either.

The Democratic platform regarding healthcare, once we strip away the platitudes and other non-specific rhetoric -- calls for (maybe) lowering the age you can join Medicare to 55.

That's what Hillary Clinton was planning, allowing people to buy into Medicare at age 55. Perhaps you've heard of her? Big Democrat. The platform states the goal of universal health care coverage, and doesn't lock into just one specific tactic, especially one that hasn't materialized in nearly 40 years of attempts.

Real Universal Healthcare for all -- would lower that age to zero (0). I think Bernie had the right idea.

Again, that didn't happen in Ted Kennedy's lifetime, and it's sure not going to happen in Bernie's. Ideas are one thing - results are another. Bernie's idea isn't really financed like Medicare, but putting Medicare in the name is good political marketing.

But it’s important to understand that “Medicare for All” is not a particularly accurate description of most single-payer proposals, notably that being promoted in the Senate by Bernie Sanders and by his supporters around the country. Medicare deploys both premiums and co-pays; one of the big selling points of single-payer is that it gets rid of both of those cost-sharing features. Medicare, like its first cousin, Social Security, depends heavily on lifetime contributions into a fund that pays for a sizable portion of benefits. By definition, single-payer is available to everyone, including people who haven’t paid a dime into the system. Medicare covers mostly acute care. Single-payer covers pretty much every medical service. And most of all, Medicare has a robust private-insurance component: about a third of the Medicare population gets its coverage through private Medicare Advantage plans. Single-payer proposals by and large abolish private health insurance: thus the name single payer.

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

[ehrnst]

160. Let's unpack this:

Would there be room for private insurers to offer 'Medi-gap' plans on top of what would be included in a universal basic benefits package? Sure. There is now in Medicare, and -- as you note -- in other European systems.

Actually no, not in the Medicare for All package that Sanders has proposed. Private insurance goes away. Have you even read it?

No one is saying private insurance completely and absolutely goes away.

Yes, that is pretty much exacly what is being sold in "Medicare for All". Your own posts indicate that is what you thought. Perhaps you really don't understand what Sanders is proposing. Or you are trying to change your argument as we go along....

Insurance companies would mostly be eliminated.

Because everyone would eventually get insurance from Medicare, private insurance companies would essentially be eliminated. The bill would bar employers from offering private insurance once the new system becomes universal.

The bill does establish a program to help the industry’s workers transition to new careers. Insurance would be allowed to cover services that are not part of the Medicare system, but they would probably be marginal, since the bill establishes a robust set of Medicare benefits.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/14/us/impact-of-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan.html

Unless the Democrats do better on this issue, and IMHO they do not nearly go far enough with their current 'platform' --
They WILL be challenged and splintered by the Bernie's of the world. Count on it.

They have done better than Bernie ever did. Think about that.

I agree 100%. The 'idea' of being Republican-lite as they have been for the last 30 or so years has been an abysmal failure.

Who has been "Republican-lite" for the past 30 years? Certainly Republicans aren't defending LGBTQ rights, Planned Parenthood, women's reproductive health, the environment, immigrants and POC. Perhaps you are unclear on what Republican means.

Because Democrats are not it. Splintering us by equating us with "Republican-lite" is how we ended up with Trump.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

187. Where to start....

So I won't address your issue with Bernie's specifics.

Of course you won't. It's clear you neither know nor care what is actually in his "MFA" plan.

A UHC Democrat platform doesn't have to be verbatim what Bernie pitched

Absolutely - it just needs to support UHC, in whatever form will get it to people sooner. You seem to have evolved on this during the course of our discussion. I'm glad that I have had an effect. You're welcome.

Yes, I know, on LGBT, women's issues, the environment, POC, and more -- the Democrats are not the same.

Yes, Hillary pulled Bernie to the left on social justice issues, which is apparent after the election. Hillary was always more knowledgeable and accomplished on Health Care Reform and social justice policy. She aligned with the platform, never called abortion a "social issue," and never dismissed issues that didn't affect white straight men directly as "identity politics."

My point is the Democrats are doing it to themselves by not taking a forceful stand on UHC, unlike the 'soft' approach they are adopting now

.

Again, you seem to equate UHC with MFA, which is not the case, as I have shown you.

But when it comes to being the "other party of big business" they are.
Ex: The ACA was written by lobbyists and thus, did almost nothing to control costs (profits).

You have still not been able to provide a list of lobbyists that "wrote" the ACA. Can you provide a non-fiction example of Democrats being the "other party of big business"?

My point is the Democrats are doing it to themselves by not taking a forceful stand on UHC, unlike the 'soft' approach they are adopting now.

If you aren't a Democrat, why do you feel qualified to lecture us on UHC, a topic you clearly don't have accurate information on?

Whatevah.

[ehrnst]

191. Let's unpack this:

My point was and still is, so long as the Democrats are soft and wishy-washy on UHC (which they are in their platform IMHO, I respectfully accept that you and others would disagree)

Good to see you evolving on this in the course of our discussion. You're welcome.

-- they will be divided by Sanders or a Sanders-like candidate who pitches the real thing. Period. Full stop.

"the real thing?" again, can you be less vague?

It was you that took me on and down the rabbit hole of what UHC really is, if we could do it here in the U.S. (oh noes! too radical! too soon!) and where Hillary stands vs. Bernie, etc, etc, etc.

By "rabbit hole" you mean being corrected on what you claimed is in MFA, the Democratic Platform, the fact that other countries acheive UHC using hybrid public/private payers, and the fact that Hillary was proposing exactly what you said should be proposed, but you didn't seem to know about?

All of that was just a sidebar debate between you and I, where reasonable people can disagree on semantics.

Words have meanings, and you didn't know what some of them meant, and that was causing you to promote misinformation.

Still waiting on the names of the lobbyists who "wrote the ACA," Perhaps you could write Senator Sanders, who claimed to have "helped to write the ACA." He would certainly know the names of the lobbyists he worked with, yes?

[ehrnst]

197. By "demanding a lot" you mean asking for backup for your claims?

The ACA, which is privatized everything with the government subsidizing those who can't pay full price -- will never achieve UHC. There will always be a significant percentage that fall through the cracks, not old enough, not poor enough, live in a state with shitty safety net protections, and so on.

As I said, the ACA was intended to expand. It was chipped away at by the GOP. Our best hope for expanding coverage to all is to restore and expand it. To promise UHC in less than 20 years is uninformed at best, lying at worst. If you think it was "wishy-washy" ask someone whose child had a pre-existing condition...

Joe Lieberman did not write the ACA. Though at his behest -- the 'public option' got scotched. You can play games with me over who literally held pen in hand or hands to keyboard and wrote out/typed out the exact verbiage, but we are just being stupidly obtuse as to what I meant.

Um... when did I say Joe Leiberman did write the ACA. You brought him into this. I'm not "playing games" when I ask you to back up your claim that "lobbyists wrote the ACA," nor when I say that Sanders claimed to help write it. You clearly can't back up the assertion, as we can all see by your defensiveness.

All I'm saying is that the people will be ready for real UHC by 2020 -- good luck on selling them "lets go back to 2016 ACA". They will be divided by a Bernie-like saying "Medicare for all. Now. Everyone in, nobody out".

Yes, that would split oof Democrats will less of an understanding of what Bernie is actually proposing. And since MFA isn't going to happen for at least another 20 years, if at all (due to the way that he wrote it) anyone Bernie-like or otherwise promising "everyone in, nobody out" during their administration is hawking an empty promise. Then where will Democrats be? If you think people got pissed off by "not being able to keep their doctor" how do you think they're going to react to when "everyone in, nobody out" doesn't come to passy. That would just be stupidly obtuse as to what MFA meant.

A hard-left progressive will sell UHC in 2020 -- and win. Maybe the Democrats should get out in front of this and head off the next Bernie. And no, it won't be with more wishy-washy let's go back to the ACA.

Well, if the "hard-left progressives" that Our Revolution endorsed this year are any indication, they won't get a chance to "sell" anything, because they can't seem to get elected. Perhaps they should take a lesson from those who won, and pivot left on social justice issues, instead of focusing on empty promises that they know they won't be actually called upon to deliver. Those of us not "stupidly obtuse" on the issue aren't fooled.

[ehrnst]

214. And now we go on the defensive when we can't back up our claims...

Predictable.

Both Starr and Pollack, however, said it would be possible to make a switch, although it would have to be carried out over a very long period of time.

“You could imagine some kind of long transition, where you gradually expanded Medicare,” said Starr, “for example moving it down to age 55” and then in later years continue to lower the age threshold.

https://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

How long do you think that expanding medicare to 55 year olds, then extending CHIP upwards will take with the GOP on the attack. Canada took from 1947- 1962 (15 years) for all the provinces to go single payer independently before the a very liberal goverment was elected and put a federal layer on. Using that as a metric, in 2016 Coloradocare failed to pass, and Green Mountain Care, started in 2010, also failed to get off the ground. California can't figure out a way to do it quickly, because they are actually looking at what it would take.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Single-payer-will-take-years-to-implement-Gavin-12846093.php

We also have a larger population, and Canada didn't have a baked in private system to overhaul, so I added 5 years for that. And that's generous. It's an average of 19 years between successful health care reform efforts in the US. I have an understanding of health care policy, and you clearly don't. That's not huffy - that's just fact. And the fact that Sanders refuses to even discuss Green Mountain Care's demise, let alone talk about lessons learned doesn't say much for his understanding of the obstacles, or his willingness to admit that he might have something to learn. Either way, it doesn't add to his credibility on the topic that he brands as his.

So you still haven't been able to provide any evidence or names of lobbyists who "wrote the ACA." But Bernie claims to have helped, so again - write Bernie and ask him who was with him when he did this. You keep repeating Joe Lieberman, but no, he's not a lobbyist, and no, he didn't "write the ACA." We understand that you want to think that, but it's just not accurate, as your lack of ability to present any actual identities shows.

You then seem to be agreeing with me that a progressive pitching UHC in 2020 would split the vote. That was exactly my point. It was JMHO that Democrats should have a better policy to head off that likelihood rather than the milquetoast position they currently have in their platform.

And my point being that it's glorified snake oil at this point - but named after something that's not snake oil - excellent marketing, as I have posted before, and you continually ignore. Democrats who want to run in 2020 will get on the bandwagon right now, because so-called progressives have made it a litmus test, not because it's possible. Under informed people don't see it as that. An unfounded one, but a litmus test.

TYou're the one jumping down my throat and being all hyper-defensive about it.

Project much? You get annoyed that I ask you to back up your claims.... pot, meet kettle.

I think the very far-left progressive types are just as onboard as any Democrats regarding social justice issues.

Some have been pulled to the left of it by HRC, of course. No surprise. She got the votes in 2016. It's sort of in the Democratic platform. You should read it sometimes.

What you seem to be saying is they should be happy and content to just focus on that and not expect too much on healthcare.

Again with the strawmen. I think that people should be promised the sky by people who don't even know how to fly an airplane. You seem to think that unless they are promised the moon, they are being cheated.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

Watch and see, the electorate by 2020 will be primed for such a pitch.

There are always people willing to fall for pie in the sky promises. Look at Trump supporters.

Getting all huffy about it -- will not make it go away.

Honey, you need to take a look in the mirror. Getting all defensive and huffy won't make those promises of Healthcare for everyone in one presidential term any more realistic. Milquetoast factual credibility and bad math will not health care reform make, no matter what kind of promises longtime politicians make that will prolong the cheering crowds at the end of a career. That's some tough juju to give up.

Whatevah.

[ehrnst]

216. And yeah, they started a long time ago, and didn't retrofit a baked-in system of insurance.

Strange how different that is and yes, the vast majority use private insurance partners to deliver it.

But of course, as you insist -- can't be done here. Not in twenty years. Big Pharma and insuranceCO also tells me that all the time.

Not me, Hon - professional, non-partisan policy analysts who work for self funded orgs. Trump and the GOP also tells me that there are "alternative facts" that make things sound much more agreeable...

Your opinion of course, but some of us say it can be done. It MUST be done

What credentials do you have in health care policy? I mean, GOP politicians say that eliminating Planned Parenthood will stop abortion - it can be done. It MUST be done! And those who want to believe just jump right on - and the GOP is right out in front of it. But the problem is, while it sounds logical, the non-politicians who understand health care policy know that it's just not true, even if it sounds easy, and that's not a matter of "opinion."

You say there are always people willing to fall for "pie in the sky" -- they will be there alright in 2020 -- just waiting for the next Bernie to come along.

Glad you finally understand what "medicare for all" really is. A political unicorn.

Democrats best get out in front of this.

WE have been out in front of Universal Health Care for years - and have gotten the U.S. closer than we've ever been. I suggest that you support US, because not doing so is going to get us more years of Trump - or Pence.

If not, you should just head on over to JPR, where an echo chamber awaits.

Nice attempt at racking up those post numbers tho - they'll be impressed.

[ehrnst]

221. Actually, it was a very long time ago, before health insurance was baked in to the economy

And no, people didn't have to give up anything to implement it, as people here would now.

And health care costs were way lower, because there weren't the expensive technologies we have now - it's much easier to keep costs down than it is to bring them down.

Just the basic inescapable logic that others do it, cover 100% all their citizens -- and pay a fraction per capita.

Yes, like the GOP basic inescapable logic that eliminating Planned Parenthood will eliminate abortions, and that women will keep their knees together if they can't get contraception or abortion. Uninformed "logic" isn't logic at all. Your lack of understanding of the history of other nations' health care systems, and the differences in what they started with renders your logic and assumptions similarly flawed.

I have supported Democrats in every election since I was able to vote.

You refer to Democrats as "they." Just sayin'.

The only 'echo chamber' I see is the manufactured "It can't be done!" crowd. Who's interests do they serve?

The interests of facts, data and reality. I have also harshed the buzz of many anti-choicers with statistics on what happens when you apply actual data to their cherished simple answers concerning Planned Parenthood, and I certainly have done this to the MFA or bust boosters, unfortunately. Some have actually listened.

To imply that anyone who puts a pin into the inflated promises of a politician is acting in the interests of Big PHARMA and is a corporate shill, is a familiar trope.

I wish the unicorn you have been promised is real. I loved my health care in the UK. I understand why we can't wave a magic wand and just put everyone on Medicare next week or even next decade, so that makes be the party pooper.

I'll live...

[George II]

199. A "hard-left progressive" has no chance of winning. What is your definition of...

..."hard-left progressive"?

[ehrnst]

200. Don't be "so demanding!"

Asking Bob to clarify what he means when he's vague...

[Voltaire2]

206. Great response.

[George II]

222. "we're working towards it! (nevermind we take money from big pharma/insurance too)"

Can you explain this statement, please? WHO is doing that?

[George II]

209. "NO universal health care will be acheived in under 20 years." - if ever.

[betsuni]

139. Oh, Bob.

[ehrnst]

144. Actually, it is the closest we have ever come, and it was and is intended to expand to

extend affordable coverage to everyone. It's the only real progress since Medicare and Medicaid were implemented.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-obamacare-anymore-its-our-national-health-care-system/2017/07/28/1a6583fe-73d3-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

No universal health care plan will happen all at once without massive disruption to the health care delivery system and to the economy, because of how interconnected it is.

Words have meanings, and those meanings are important.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

149. Even Bernie can't deliver universal health care for all.

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2018, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Not within his lifetime. He can deliver.... words.

That is a politician's promise, and not one that actual health policy experts support. Single payer was introduced in 1972 by Ted Kennedy. Why do you think that he didn't support Sanders' plan?

Actually, many countries use a hybrid of public/private payers to acheive Universal Health Care, so yes, it can be done. They deliver more than words, they deliver universal health care, despite your insistence that there is no way that they can...

For instance, Germany has a universal multi-payer health care system paid for by a combination of statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) officially called "sickness funds" (Krankenkassen) and private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung), colloquially also called " (private) sickness funds."


Healthcare in the Netherlands is financed by a dual system that came into effect in January 2006. Long-term treatments, especially those that involve semi-permanent hospitalization, and also disability costs such as wheelchairs, are covered by a state-controlled mandatory insurance. This is laid down in the Wet Langdurige Zorg ("General Law on Longterm Healthcare" ) which first came into effect in 1968 under the name of Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ). In 2009 this insurance covered 27% of all health care expenses.

For all regular (short-term) medical treatment, there is a system of obligatory health insurance, with private health insurance companies. These insurance companies are obliged to provide a package with a defined set of insured treatments. This insurance covers 41% of all health care expenses.

And very few countries have ever had a federal single payer plan. The few that have single payer usually do it at the province/state level.

You need to become more educated on universal health care before lecturing people on it, especially Democrats.

[ehrnst]

168. So why hasn't he delivered it?

He's been yelling for years, while Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton actually got legislation passed to extend affordable insurance to children.

It's easy to promise something if you know that you'll never actually be expected to deliver, and can blame not delivering on everyone else but yourself.

Why do you think that he couldn't get Ted Kennedy on board?

The people are ready for Universal Healthcare.

But the polls show that they are not on board with "Medicare for All" - but something more like a "public option."

So there is more than a bit of sleight of hand going on when single-payer fans try to borrow Medicare’s “brand” and popularity and suggest that any damn neoliberal who has doubts about “Medicare for All” is politically idiotic as well as reactionary. The underlying reality is that some of the very features that make Medicare different from single-payer are inseparable from the program.

A recent poll from Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the point. It showed that 59 percent of Americans support “a national health-care plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.” Sounds pretty strong, until you see that 75 percent support a “national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it but people who currently have other coverage could keep what they have.” The first proposal is single-payer if you understand it. The second very clearly isn’t single-payer.

As non-single-payer health-coverage expansion programs come out that utilize or imitate Medicare, the potential for confusion is growing. Some interviews conducted by BuzzFeed with actual voters in Nebraska illustrates the problem:

[C]onversations with more than two dozen Omaha voters reveal a dynamic that polling, too, has begun to capture: When some moderate and left-leaning voters say “Medicare for All” sounds like a pretty good idea, they aren’t actually thinking about single-payer health care. Instead, they’re thinking about simply expanding the program to include more seniors or children, or offering a public option that people can buy into, or what Hillary was promoting - allowing people to buy in at 55.

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html

And best of all -- having taken no, zero, zilch, nada, etc, corporate and private interest money -- there would be no backsliding, no "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" gaffes (which the lobbyists who wrote the ACA screwed Obama over).

Unions don't have corporate interests? And yes, Obama made a gaffe, and no, lobbyists didn't write the ACA. Again, you seem to have no clue what you are talking about in that area, as you lecture those of us who do.

Again, you need to actually educate yourself on what is in Medicare for All, - even as you keep changing what you claim is in it, and what polling has been done before lecturing Democrats on it, and calling Democratic presidents "wishy washy," dishonest and not passionate about it.

Hillary Clinton is passionate, honest, and actually had the political skill and experienced in health care reform to get something accomplished, unlike less expert, less experienced, less capable types that simply yell and wag a finger for decades.

[ehrnst]

178. Interesting - Ted Kennedy got CHIP passed and wasn't president.

And what makes you think that Sanders has the legislative and persuasive skills that either Ted or LBJ did?

He certainly hasn't demonstrated them in his time in the Senate, if he does. He couldn't get Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone to back his plan, and that says a lot.

So, I'll play your game. Why don't you tell us what lobbyists "wrote" the ACA?

Because Sanders takes credit for helping to write it. Are you saying that he was working closely with lobbyists?

"We’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it."

[ehrnst]

184. Let's move the goalposts, shall we?

"We’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it." - Bernie Sanders

Still waiting for the list of lobbyists that "wrote" the ACA. Going to avoid that? I can understand why you'd want to...

The U.S. was not ready for UHC back in LBJ's day. That was over a half a century ago. To say we aren't there now is disingenuous, if not absurd.

I see that I've hit a nerve - you've gone full strawman and red herring.

LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid implemented. You will admit that much, right? I never said that he was trying to implement UHC - I said that Bernie clearly doesn't have the skills to work with congress and the Senate that LBJ had as LBJ demonstrated in the Senate.

And LBJ had to lie about what Medicare and Medicaid would cost in order to get it passed. The CBO makes that impossible now.

Can you be a little more vague when you say that even though we weren't "ready for UHC then" and "To say we aren't there now is disingenuous, if not absurd?" Ready how? Economically? Politcially? Your lack of knowledge on the issue, and your lack of interest in learning about it seems to be causing you to flounder about for a "win."

I mean, what does Joe Lieberman have to do with this?


Whatevah.

[brooklynite]

185. First explain how Bernie Sanders becomes President...

...if he hasn't convinced a majority that his Medicare for All strategy is worth voting for.

[ehrnst]

192. Yes, there is that. (nt)

[ehrnst]

194. They did support it - the ACA. Congress, Senate and the WH.

Again, you seem to be falsely equating MFA with "uhc."

Again, no UHC is going to be implemented at one time, in under 20 years, no matter what a politician promises.

Had the GOP been willing to "give it time" we would be well on the way to UHC with expanded medicaid, expanded CHIP, and medicare buy-in at 55. And you think that the GOP is going to do that for "MFA?"

Yeah, "wait and see" on that...

People need health care now. Hey - helping someone pay their electric bill in the winter is putting dollars into the pocket of Big Coal, but you don't let people freeze to death while you argue over when we are going to eliminate fossil fuel use....

[ehrnst]

219. And they sure won't get it if politicians are dicking around

trying to sell unicorns.

But wait .... you're saying it will take 20 years to do that and is completely unrealistic.

To get EVERYONE on accessible health care that is guaranteed? Yes, that's a conservative estimate.

So I'm not sure what you're saying.

I'm saying that to promise it in under 20 years will give the GOP ammunition to kill it - like "you can keep your doctor" was used to discredit Obama on the ACA, and gave them support to challenge the Medicaid expansion, which they then turned around and used as ammunition against the idea that the ACA would cover them....

And if you think that people get pissed off having to give up their primary care physician, what do you think they will do when they learn that their options are reduced even further under "medicare for all." Say what you will, but asking people to give up something in they like and are accustomed to in their health care so others can be covered will be a knife fight. That knife fight was not an issue when Europe was establishing their health care systems in the 40's. You seem to lack an understanding of that - they weren't asking people to give up anything, because there wasn't anything for them to give up. And it is far easier to keep costs down than to cut them once they are high. No, neither Canada nor the UK could start now with what we have, and have what the system they have now. Like Social Security - it didn't cover nearly what it does now 75 years ago, nor was the cost of living nearly what it is now. If we had started in the Truman administration, we might have what they do. But that window has closed.

What you refer to "milquetoast" in that area is called "managing expectations" in real life.

Is that clearer?

[KitSileya]

224. What a moronic idea. The bully pulpit is working great right now, isn't it?

Stopping children from being caged. WHat on earth makes you think that a President Sanders would get anything done without a majority in Congress? It's completely ludicrous to think that Sanders would get things done when Obama couldn't because of the opposition. He doesn't have the network on the hill that Obama had, because he's refused to work with the Dems for so long (re Barney Frank) and he certainly won't get the Republicans to vote for his policies.

[Hortensis]

234. Bob, I'm a lifelong liberal, 40-year Democrat,

and 45-year supporter of universal healthcare, and I couldn't disagree more with your post. To the point that I don't understand how you think, and don't even want to.

Democrats have a huge, existential battle to win.

COUNTDOWN TO MIDTERMS: 140 day!

[Hortensis]

237. Yes, but I don't live in a one-issue world. My huge priority is saving

progressivism in government, and even government of, by and for the people itself. Which is intrinsically progressive.

Lose control of our democracy and we can all kiss all government-assisted healthcare programs goodbye for the next couple decades at very least.

[AtomicKitten]

248. Regarding the 2016 Democratic platform ..

Bernie's appointed representatives (5) battled with the Clinton/DNC representatives (10) on the platform drafting committee, but were outvoted on several issues:

1. They supported fracking.

2. They supported the TPP.

3. They supported the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

4. They did not support a $15 minimum wage tied to inflation.

5. They did not support a carbon tax.

6. They did not support Medicare for All.

[ismnotwasm]

134. Not happening

With all due respect it’s just not happening.

[NCTraveler]

135. In a long time. nt

[Renew Deal]

156. The same sort of thing happened for President Ron Paul

[Blue_true]

159. Voting is where it counts. Who gives a shit who a horde of elitists cheer? nt

[kimbutgar]

163. Sorry it's because of bernie we have Twitler.

I am so over Bernie.

[LWolf]

198. Er...no.

It's because HRC couldn't beat Trump that we have Trump. It's because the party chose to nominate the most unpopular Democrat in the country, and rejected the person who could have, would have, beat Trump. And, because the party establishment doesn't want to acknowledge their own responsibility for the loss in '16, it may happen again.

[kimbutgar]

212. Twitler stole all of Bernie's talking points and Bernie never spoke out against him

Then they convinced the Bernie bots to vote for twitler because he was like Bernie. And Bernie said jack shit.

[LWolf]

229. Wow.

There's someone who is either totally disconnected from reality and truth or who, like the man in the WH and his staff, simply don't care about truth. I guess he's not the only one.

[kimbutgar]

244. I supported Bernie and I am not crazy

I think he sold out the Democratic Party and the fact that he went back to being an independent is odious. But I know Bernie bros don’t like real liberal lifelong Democrats criticizing him.

FYI I supported Bernie in the primaries and voted for him.

[LWolf]

259. Again, just wow.

1. "Bernie bros" is a propaganda term suggesting people that don't exist in real life, at least, not in any significant number. I'd think, as someone who "supported Bernie," you'd know that.

2. Bernie was always an independent. I'd think you'd know that, as well.

3. Establishment Democrats have always criticized him; no surprise there.

4. This kind of establishment propaganda is what is going to defeat the party...again. And I'm frustrated and angry watching it happen.

[PubliusEnigma]

201. Bernie, the Fairweather Democrat

He is Trump's pawn.

[LWolf]

208. .

[PubliusEnigma]

213. The Democratic nominee will be a Democrat. Not an Independent.

[LWolf]

230. Okay.

I'm fine with that, as long as the nominee is not a neoliberal. I've got a whole list I'd be happy with. Sanders isn't on it. Not because he hasn't earned my support; he has. I just see his role going forward differently.

At the top of my list for 2020 is Nina Turner.

[ucrdem]

240. LOL, there are more people on stage than in the audience

and two are conspicuously exiting.

[blake2012]

211. When he announces top presidential contenders

And says he’ll continue fighting for you in the US Senate

[konnie]

243. THIS IS WAR

people we are in a war. and war makes strange bedfellows.

the dnc just passed a rule that any candidate for the democratic party must belong to the party.

we live in a country based on a two party, winner take all system.

to that end, Bernie must officially join the Democratic party bringing his
person, his progressive ideas, his money, and his voters with him. even if it's only for the 2018/2020 election cycle.

we cannot afford to be splintered this time.

we cannot afford to be purists this time.

we must all pull together for the good of our country and our souls.

[SHRED]

253. "Democratic hopefuls..."?

I didn't see the 'D' after Sanders name.

Musta missed it.