Wow, Bernie is -8 on a poll on Morning Joe. Biden and everyone else are +

[wasupaloopa]

Bernie is attacking Biden and Biden responds. I didn't catch the video.

[hlthe2b]

1. Honestly, I am not intent on negativity toward any candidate, but boy, if I were Sanders, I'd be

careful about too much attacking of Biden. Even those who don't like him so much have to agree that he is "likable" and a "nice" guy. This is not a good look for the Sanders campaign. Tread lightly, guys...

[McKim]

2. I am really tired of the attacks here on DU

I am tired of the attacks here on DU. Every day. This is an invitation to bash a candidate. Don’t take the bait!

[handmade34]

3. I will continue to

bash Sanders... he is not a Democrat and he does not belong in the Primaries... he is my Senator and I like him as my Senator but I want him out of the race...

[rusty quoin]

7. I just heard Bernie bashing Biden on morning joe.

He listed off a number of votes which the both of them disagreed.

Everything Bernie said was correct. All of those votes Bernie made were correct.

Fuck Bernie for being right as usual.

[riverine]

37. Bernie and Warren are dead wrong on NAFTA and TPP

The free traders are correct (FDR, Clinton, Obama).

After NAFTA was passed US manufacturing grew by 260% as auto manufacturing moved South to Al. GA, SC, TN. We make more cars here then in 1990.

Bernie and Warren will never get the massive Democratic business vote like Obama did. That is why they are floundering around 10%.

[Demsrule86]

52. I don't agree with that ...far more manufacturing moved to Mexico and

other areas for cheap labor than the south. They assemble cars- no R@D. The money goes home too. Trump did a bad job on tariffs ...doesn't mean they can't work if done correctly.

NAFTA was a disaster and both Clinton and Biden have expressed regrets for voting for it and in Clinton's case signing it. We don't know what Sanders tariffs will look like as he never gives details. But the idea that free trade will ever benefit workers is simply not true.

[PETRUS]

67. Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or are you simply unclear on the facts?

US manufacturing output has been increasing for decades - the rate of increase post NAFTA has been no more rapid than it was before. And our trade deficit exploded following NAFTA's implementation (which suggests that we would be manufacturing even more without NAFTA).

Neither NAFTA nor the TPP can be honestly called "free trade" agreements. The main provisions are about creating a corporate-friendly regulatory regime that takes precedence over national sovereignty. Another aspect of these deals is increased protection for intellectual property. Notice the word "protection" in that sentence - copyrights and patents serve a purpose, but they are government protection and totally at odds with the principles of "free trade."

Additionally, all of the success stories of national economic development involved policies at odds with "free trade" - policies that aren't permitted under NAFTA or the TPP. It's worth noting that Mexico was on trend to be nearly as wealthy as many European countries by now, but has lagged significantly following NAFTA.

[riverine]

68. President Obama rightly likened Sen Warren's scare tactics regarding ISDS to Sarah Palin's death

panels.

President Obama defended TPP vigorously against the lame "national sovereignty" attacks from Senator Warren:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-progressives-trade-tpp

The US has NEVER lost such a dispute.

And IP SHOULD be vigorously defended. Our export products are chock full of IP.

Those are the facts.

[PETRUS]

70. That's one fact (well, one and a half), and some opinions.

You are correct that the US has yet to lose a case under ISDS. But plenty of other countries have.

I disagree about IP for a number of reasons. It's in the interest of companies like Disney, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Monsanto to see to it that IP is defended vigorously, but that's not the same as the national interest. If it costs our trading partners more to secure their products, that's less money available to purchase other US exports. And there's ample evidence that lengthening and strengthening IP protection (as we've done) has worked generate corruption and to stifle innovation - what's good for Disney's shareholders isn't necessarily good for every other American.

[riverine]

73. There are millions of workers that create IP

software engineers, Disney/Dreamworks illustrators, biologic engineers, chemical engineers, designers, etc etc etc.

They create value and competitive advantage.

The boring routine assembly jobs that create little value can't be saved with tariffs - like slapping together athletic shoes.

[PETRUS]

75. That's pretty close to a meaningless statement.

If patents and copyrights were shorter and weaker, or if we payed for research and creative work differently, the products in question would still get made and the people involved would still be employed.

[riverine]

78. It is puzzling why you care about US assembly jobs but not IP jobs

We have a higher standard of living to support.

[PETRUS]

79. What's puzzling is how you determined what my concerns are.

Your conclusion is incorrect.

[Honeycombe8]

76. Pretty sure a lot of manufacturing jobs were sucked down to Mexico because of NAFTA.

NAFTA was a dream come true for corporations. Few environmental regulations, very low wages.

Business did increase in America after that...but not manufacturing, I think. The manufactured goods were produced in Mexico, then shipped here for maybe assembly or distribution. Or America could "manufacture" some of the parts that were needed (or vice versa).

I remember Ross Perot explaining what would happen with NAFTA. After that, his predictions came true. Even his prediction that if ONE company did it, the others would have to, in order to compete. That happened, as well. Ross Perot's company ended up moving to Mexico.

It was also bad for the environment, since pollution in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico. There is pollution in the Arctic Circle that migrated up along the coast from Mexico.

[riverine]

80. Trump made that claim - Politifact called the claim "False".

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/24/donald-trump/did-nafta-kill-millions-jobs-donald-trump/

Manufacturing jobs increased until the 2001 recession.

[Honeycombe8]

81. The article doesn't say manufacturing jobs increased.

The article makes a point of saying that knowing the numbers for sure is difficult, since it depends on who you talk to.

The auto industry lost jobs, it seems to be agreed.

NAFTA "had particularly heavy, negative impacts on employment in the auto and parts industries, and a few others, such as electric appliances," said Robert Scott, who authored the EPI report. He added that the upper Midwest suffered disproportionately, though some of the production was moved to non-union locations in the South.

I don't have to tell you how important the midwest was in the 2016 election.

Politifact concludes that about 800,000 jobs were lost, though maybe small increases in some areas.

We did not find any study that estimates that NAFTA alone cost "millions" of jobs. The largest estimate is about 800,000, and other studies show smaller negative, and sometimes positive, impacts.

And we all remember that Carrier business, with Trump paying Carrier to stay, "saving" all those jobs (Trump claimed). But Carrier did what we knew it would; it stayed long enough to get the money, then moved to the new facility in Mexico.

And don't forget that NAFTA was terrible for the environment. I don't know if those bad environmental allowances have been restricted since then. But they surely aren't up to the standards necessary for a clean environment; America's standards are weak enough.

This site has 3 statements that NAFTA did harm the U S economy (in particular, manufacturing, and in particular, wages), and 3 statements that it helped (even these admit that manufacturing jobs were lost): https://www.theperspective.com/debates/businessandtechnology/nafta-hurt-america/

[riverine]

82. No, the 800k in lost jobs was just one source (an anti-trade source at that)

and manufacturing jobs increased from NAFTA to 2000 like I said.


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

China in 2000 was the big event like Politifact says.

[Honeycombe8]

83. That's one person's conclusion, and is contrary to what experts say.

It is generally accepted that a lot of manufacturing jobs were lost. Permanently. And for those jobs that weren't lost, wages decreased because of the competition with low Mexican wages. Although as a % of total American jobs, that is small, but it hit some areas like the midwest very hard.

Manufacturing jobs did not increase from NAFTA to 2000.

https://www.theperspective.com/debates/businessandtechnology/nafta-hurt-america/

[riverine]

85. That "person" is the ultimate authority on data - the Federal Reserve.

and from your link:

NAFTA – and more broadly, free trade and globalization – are often painted as the culprits in the decline of American manufacturing. But this decline has much more to do with modernization than with globalization. Increasing productivity, driven in large part by technological advances, has allowed companies to do more with fewer workers. While the first decade of the 21st century saw manufacturing jobs falling, manufacturing output actually grew by $800 billion over the same period. Simply put, if new technology allows one person to do the job previously done by five, it will benefit the consumer and the firm, but cost jobs in that sector.

While, according to some estimates, NAFTA led to a net loss of around 100,000 jobs through 2010, this number should be looked at on a macro level. Yes, this was significant for those workers and their families, but at just 0.1 percent of the US labor force, this figure is far from economically crippling.

I agree 100%. I was a manufacturing ERP consultant. NAFTA increased US manufacturing and automation killed the jobs.


EDIT = by the way as an ERP consultant I heard every project start something like this "We want to double output with half the employees"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. BOOOOOOM!!!! MIC DROP!!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NYMinute]

62. ...

[BannonsLiver]

63. Why not support him then?

Not really buying the Warren thing.

[Demsrule86]

8. Sanders bashed Biden on CNN. Biden refused to take the bait...wise.

Sanders agreed not to do this. We certainly can discuss it here.

[Cha]

72. Was Biden asked what

he thought of BS' "attacks"?

The OP said "Biden responds..".. could you tell me what Biden said?

Mahalo, Dems!

[GWC58]

77. I hate to rehash the 2016 primaries, but

I’m going to, anyway. Sanders, after it was well established he could not/would not get the Democratic nomination what does he do? He continued the attacks! That’s something I won’t soon forget. If Sanders does get the nomination I will, enthusiastically, vote for him. Not so in the primaries. As of this date I have not decided on a candidate. 🤔

[Demsrule86]

84. I won't vote for Sanders in the primary ...general yes.

[wasupaloopa]

21. This is not bashing I am reporting news I saw

If you think reporting truth is bashing it is not my problem

[Demsrule86]

25. Sanders didn't mention the crime bill but of course he voted for it too. All that old shit

won't help Sanders. The attacks on Biden makes Sanders look desperate and petty.

[Me.]

87. You Mean Like The Endless Bashing Of Dems By BS

I'm more than tired of it

[CentralMass]

4. It always an exciting time when Comcast picks their candidate.

[George II]

6. In what way is Comcast picking "their" candidate? That is an entirely untrue statement!

[irisblue]

10. hyperbole, an overstatement.

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


You Ok George?

[Demsrule86]

13. Better than Sanders electoral prospects.

Sanders will probably run and run...there is no cure for presidential fever.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

69. I heard once that the only cure for presidential fever is embalming fluid.

[trueblue2007]

89. will he be "running" when he is 97 ??????????

just making a little joke.

[Demsrule86]

14. Just out of curiosity where do you get this from that post?

[irisblue]

24. morning joe gave alot of free airtime to trump in 2015 & 16

Cable media want the eyeballs, controversy is what they need to get viewers.

[Demsrule86]

26. They were reporting polls and they showed Sanders attacks on Biden.

[irisblue]

32. Dem, I was responding to the 'Comcast candidate' comment.

I don't have cable, so I only know what gets reported here, but I don 't see that show.

[Demsrule86]

34. Sorry. Mea culpa.

Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Damn spell check

[Cary]

42. Yet he generated fewer votes than Romney in 2012

Not to defend Scar or Mika, but there is plenty of blame to go around. We should avoid negativity.

[George II]

15. Thanks. I'm fine. I just wish people wouldn't throw stuff at the wall in the hopes that....

....even some of it sticks and a few people believe it. It serves no Democratic purpose.

[Demsrule86]

11. It is based on polling. And the coverage of Joe on MSNBC WAS terrible until recently.

[CentralMass]

44. They did quite a bit of water carrying for tRump. Hopefully that has come to an end.

Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

However they do pump a lot of money into lobbying and campaign contributions. Like $30 million last year. There are issues st stake like net neutrality and some big tax advantages like writing off depreciated equipment etc. It is kind of disconcerting that a corporation is lobbing that kind of cash around and it owns (or is) a media company. I just hope it doesn't buy them too much.

[Demsrule86]

54. They knew Trump. I think that is where much of this came from.

[CentralMass]

58. I suspect that is the case but to my other point..

Even before Citizens United this was a big money sport. Corporaton spend a great deal of money lobbying for their interest. I think that it is impossible to win without dipping your hand in that corporate cookie jar and some point you have to pay for the cookies.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the Democratic Party is much better then the republican party. However the system stinks.

No knock on Joe Biden and I hope that I get a Mulligan on this one but he's the big money candidate this go around. That little Comcast fundraiser was the anointing. This thing is over. Barring some major gaff and with what we've seen from trump I dont think even that matters this is done. The rest of the primary is just for show. No matter who wins the core of this government will still be the best one that big money can buy.

[George II]

66. No one at that "little Comcast fundraiser" contributed more than the legal amount....

....we'll know exactly who contributed and how much, and it wasn't a "Comcast" fundraiser. I don't know why people refer to it as such.

[Trumpocalypse]

71. They also gave a lot of airtime to Sanders in 16

even after it was clear that Clinton had won the nomination.

[yaesu]

18. MSM will pick the front runner they want, hedging the bet, & they will probably get their way nt

[Demsrule86]

27. They didn't pick a front runner.

[NYMinute]

40. Why not pump up Bernie and his socialism

instead of bashing the future POTUS?

Or is Sanders realizing again that a majority of people don't want his policies so the only way ahead is by going negative?

Comcast is not registered to vote.

[leftofcool]

5. So the grandpas are dueling?

[Demsrule86]

12. The candidates are dueling.

[highplainsdem]

65. Ageist and jealous much? The frontrunners are dueling. Or, rather, the one who's coming in

second in most polls is sniping at the real frontrunner, whose sights are trained on Trump.

[George II]

9. Sanders is getting nervous. There is no call for a Democratic candidate to attack....

....his opponents at this stage of the campaign. But the more he does (he started in his emails last week and yesterday on CNN) the less support he'll get from Democrats.

[NYMinute]

41. Sanders cannot get anywhere with his policy proposals.

They are tired and have been rejected by the electorate.

His only path forward is to smear other candidates.

If I were in that position, I'd drop out because I don't have a big ego.

[Demsrule86]

55. He will probably be trying to win with supers in the end ...don't see him giving up.

[iamthebandfanman]

16. Well

Yes. The attacks on Bernie are working. Do you see other democrats getting the same kind of scrutiny on a daily basis?
The media are corporations just like any other corporation. They wouldnt want Bernie to win, and its even more obvious the last couple of months.

[samnsara]

20. all of them are getting attacked. we just need to be very aware of where those attacks are actually

coming from...

[Demsrule86]

28. Yes, Biden was slammed.

[redstatebluegirl]

36. Bernie didn't get any scrutiny last time.

What you are seeing is the party finally vetting Bernie.

[nini]

90. Attacks or Vetting?

He's getting vetted this time. He can't hide behind his rhetoric anymore.

[samnsara]

17. i think this is just the waxing and waning of the the public opinion..

..we have a long ways to go yet.

[dalton99a]

19. "Biden, Get Off My Lawn!"

[honest.abe]

22. What poll is that?

Thanks.

[PatSeg]

23. Thanks

That is the question I had when I clicked on this thread, but the conversation got sidetracked!

[Demsrule86]

30. This mentions recent polls

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=101332. Quinnipiac is the one with 8 point drop.

[PatSeg]

31. Thank you!

[Demsrule86]

47. Welcome

[Demsrule86]

29. This show recent polling

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=101332
Quinnipiac is the one showing 8 point drop.

[honest.abe]

39. Got it thanks. Here are the details of that Q poll for anyone else interested in the actual numbers.

DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
Apr 30 Mar 28
2019 2019

Biden 38 29
Sanders 11 19
O'Rourke 5 12
Harris 8 8
Warren 12 4

[Demsrule86]

48. Thanks great post...

[mcar]

33. Didn't Sanders sign a pledge?

[George II]

38. Yes, but........................................

[spooky3]

35. O'Rourke has also lost points in this poll. Nt

[NYMinute]

43. Beto has barely begun his campaign nt

[spooky3]

59. I'm providing factual info in response to the claim that only Sanders lost points in this poll. nt

[LuvLoogie]

45. People are rallying around Joe and his call to arms.

Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie is a Senator from Vermont who disdains the Democratic label after gaining nomination as a Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

49. + 10000

[Clash City Rocker]

46. Negative campaigning doesn't work as well when the field is this large

It somewhat worked for him against Hillary, because she was just one candidate and many voters didn’t like her. But in a field this large, you have to make yourself stand out in a positive way.

[Demsrule86]

50. I agree. This sort of thing won't help Sanders.

[Cosmocat]

56. Its more than that

it was an open seat, and Hillary was skunked from decades of right wing slander, so democrats too easily ceded negative frames on her, and fart away the white house.

ALSO, it was Bernie's first go round as a national candidate.

Democrats are LASER focused on ousting 45s fat arse this go round, seeing it as life and death. They also are more attuned to the ubtle negative ways Sanders campaigns work, and have a lot less patience with it second go round and with the stakes clearly heightened.

[NYMinute]

60. +1

[Tiggeroshii]

53. This is meaningless 10 months from the first primary

Contest

[Demsrule86]

57. But when Sanders was the front-runner it was meaningful?

[NYMinute]

61. Boom! nt

[Tiggeroshii]

64. Not at all

[Cha]

74. It was to some.. we got

to read over and over again.

[Demsrule86]

86. Yes we did...

[Generic Brad]

88. And next week it will reverse

Too early to get excited one way or another. Yawn.