Opinion Bernie Sanders is going to win the Dem nomination in 2020, and become President

[Trotsky]

Why is it silly? Are you not paying attention to how fast the right can get on the same page with right wing media outlets and get messages out via social media? Shit, Trump speaks to Hannity every night (not joking).

I also think you're mistaken if you don't think right wing strategists were ready with attacks on Bernie in the event he won.

I think it's silly to think it would be feasible, like I said, to foment in 3 months what took decades for Clinton.

Cop-out? At the core there is no way to sustain our economy or society without a market unless you're proposing socialism, and we know were that leads. Now of course I'm taking your comment to an extreme to illustrate that market-based solutions are definitely not a "cop-out" as you call them.

Now, neo-liberal as I understand it means a preference to market-based solutions not entirely market-based solutions. You can probably come up with lots of examples where the market does a shit job of addressing the problem and I'll very likely agree with you.

It's a "cop-out" because neoliberal doesn't just mean "market-based solutions." That would be idiotic, since the market economy has existed throughout US history, yet the neoliberal era did not begin until the 1970s. Neoliberal entails the relegation of middle and lower class interests to beneath net profits: that benefits for the middle cannot come at any expense to the top and can only come from mutual (and sequentially secondary) growth.

Also, I do not understand what dichotomy you're meaning to present between socialism and market economies, since they are not remotely exclusive of one another.

A good example of a difference of opinion where you and I probably disagree which highlights the differences on the left is healthcare. I personally prefer something like Obamacare if we can fix the problems with it. That would represent a market-based solution. You likely prefer some form of universal healthcare which I see lots of big hurdles (aside from political) and think the ACA can address a lot of the same things. To say the ACA is a cop out isn't fair given it's undeniably a big step in the right direction and could be quite good if our politics weren't so tribal and broken.

Fucking yikes.

You and @Jack V Savage will have to explain how you think the ACA is remotely sustainable as an apparatus for universal coverage, let alone effectively preferable to (and less regressive than) existing single and multipayer systems.

 

[Cajun]

"Plotting and scheming" can mean anything. There was no sabotage.

Well according to the Times they were musing about pushing the narrative... so looks as though they were actively doing something. Anyway, it was not the point of my original post or this thread. I think the DNC was probably worried about him not doing well as a socialist and I think it would still give him issues in the general election. But considering Trump is constantly at war with the media and can do nothing right... probably would win the general imho.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You and @Jack V Savage will have to explain how you think the ACA is remotely sustainable as an apparatus for universal coverage, let alone effectively preferable to (and less regressive than) existing single and multipayer systems.

I don't know how the ACA would NOT be sustainable. We just saw the attempt to repeal it go down in flames, though the GOP was able to make it worse. I don't know that it is preferable to a well-designed single-payer system. The point is to approximate the benefits of single payer in a way that is politically workable. I think further steps would be to expand Medicaid up the income ladder a little and Medicare down the age ladder, plus allow people to buy into one of the two.

Well according to the Times they were musing about pushing the narrative... so looks as though they were actively doing something.

"Musing about pushing the narrative" sounds like actively doing something?

Anyway, it was not the point of my original post or this thread. I think the DNC was probably worried about him not doing well as a socialist and I think it would still give him issues in the general election. But considering Trump is constantly at war with the media and can do nothing right... probably would win the general imho.

The issue is that they can't really give him issues. The state committees are more powerful, and even they can't stop a popular candidate from winning. The national committee would throw it's full support behind him in the general.

 

[kpt018]

I think it's silly to think it would be feasible, like I said, to foment in 3 months what took decades for Clinton.

It didn't take decades, they just had decades. Look how fast Trump took over the Republican party.

It's a "cop-out" because neoliberal doesn't just mean "market-based solutions." That would be idiotic, since the market economy has existed throughout US history, yet the neoliberal era did not begin until the 1970s. Neoliberal entails the relegation of middle and lower class interests to beneath net profits: that benefits for the middle cannot come at any expense to the top and can only come from mutual (and sequentially secondary) growth.

I didn't say it just meant market-based solutions, but a preference to them.

Who is relegating interests of regular folks to profits on the left? Your implication is Hillary is a neoliberal and according to your comments here her actual policy positions are the opposite. Maybe you have specific examples of why Democrats are a cop-out?

Also, I do not understand what dichotomy you're meaning to present between socialism and market economies, since they are not remotely exclusive of one another.

I'm just trying to understand your position by pointing out potential differences of opinion between us, but you're quite slippery.

Fucking yikes.

You and @Jack V Savage will have to explain how you think the ACA is remotely sustainable as an apparatus for universal coverage, let alone effectively preferable to (and less regressive than) existing single and multipayer systems.

The ACA accomplished it's policy goals of getting millions of people healthcare that didn't previously have it and it helped curb healthcare cost growth. YIKES THE HORROR!!!!

 

[kpt018]

I have more to add on the ACA but Sherdog is or my computer is crashing right now.

 

[Cajun]

I don't know how the ACA would NOT be sustainable. We just saw the attempt to repeal it go down in flames, though the GOP was able to make it worse. I don't know that it is preferable to a well-designed single-payer system. The point is to approximate the benefits of single payer in a way that is politically workable. I think further steps would be to expand Medicaid up the income ladder a little and Medicare down the age ladder, plus allow people to buy into one of the two.



"Musing about pushing the narrative" sounds like actively doing something?



The issue is that they can't really give him issues. The state committees are more powerful, and even they can't stop a popular candidate from winning. The national committee would throw it's full support behind him in the general.

I would agree if he was the nominee they would support him of course. As for what they were trying to do doesn't really matter at this point. We will see what happens in the next election. I don't see Hillary running again but I'm wondering if the socialism aspectaspec still gives the DNC heartburn and if they would try to put up another candidate. And this past election I think Republicans were in a similar spot. I don't think they really wanted Donald Trump of course and probably thought he would lose by a landslide. I'm sure there was some colluding behind the scenes of the Republican party as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would agree if he was the nominee they would support him of course. As for what they were trying to do doesn't really matter at this point. We will see what happens in the next election. I don't see Hillary running again but I'm wondering if the socialism aspectaspec still gives the DNC heartburn and if they would try to put up another candidate. And this past election I think Republicans were in a similar spot. I don't think they really wanted Donald Trump of course and probably thought he would lose by a landslide. I'm sure there was some colluding behind the scenes of the Republican party as well.

The national committees don't put up candidates and really can't do much to influence elections. Bernie definitely won't be the only candidate, but there isn't a strong favorite yet. Bernie is the front-runner, but not to anything close to the extent that Clinton was in 2016. I don't think anyone is more likely to win than he is, but I also don't see him winning. You can kind of look at Bernie (more his movement) as the Walder to Hillary's Robb. Can't see Walder being the King of the North.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I have more to add on the ACA but Sherdog is or my computer is crashing right now.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't think anyone is more likely to win than he is, but I also don't see him winning.

Would you give Biden better odds than Bernie in a head to head with Trump?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Would you give Biden better odds than Bernie in a head to head with Trump?

I have no idea, really (I don't have confidence in people's ability to answer questions like this). Probably not much of a difference. I think Bernie beats Biden in a primary, but I don't think Biden will run.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think Bernie beats Biden in a primary, but I don't think Biden will run.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is moving closer to a 2020 run for president, with close aides telling Politico that they are preparing for a number of scenarios ahead of a possible campaign announcement.

Politico reports that a close circle of Biden aides is preparing for several 2020 scenarios, including Biden announcing his candidacy early enough to set the field of challengers around him or late enough to skip the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Another option could reportedly be running on the promise of a one-term presidency.

The former vice president is “thinking through a million unconventional options, because there is an acknowledgment that this could be an unconventional campaign," one person close to the discussions said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377556-biden-aides-prepping-for-2020-run-report

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm. I still have trouble seeing it. But maybe. I think both he and Bernie would do a better service to the country by endorsing someone early.

To add to a point I made in passing, here are three things I pretty strongly believe:

1. No one really knows what wins elections or how to predict how candidates (as opposed to parties) will do other than by using polls from shortly before the election.
2. People who maybe kind of have some idea are probably working on campaigns and making millions of dollars.
3. But many people who work on campaigns don't know anything either.

Despite that, people love to confidently opine on the issue, and their views can rarely if ever actually be tested so they never lose confidence.

 

[HomerThompson]

Hmm. I still have trouble seeing it. But maybe. I think both he and Bernie would do a better service to the country by endorsing someone early.

To add to a point I made in passing, here are three things I pretty strongly believe:

1. No one really knows what wins elections or how to predict how candidates (as opposed to parties) will do other than by using polls from shortly before the election.
2. People who maybe kind of have some idea are probably working on campaigns and making millions of dollars.
3. But many people who work on campaigns don't know anything either.

Despite that, people love to confidently opine on the issue, and their views can rarely if ever actually be tested so they never lose confidence.

Well, I have a can't miss, proprietary formula that I use for just such occasions.

However, due to the complex nature of it; I can't share it with you, or make any predictions about the 2018 elections yet.

 

[Madmick]

You've lost this debate too many times to count.

 

[Bloodworth]

His fantasy rape writings go too far.

By that alone he is sick

 

[*Z*]

I don't like Bernie running. I won't vote for him and I think Trump beats him.

 

[12ga.]

DLC democrats will stop his agenda though. They are basically republicans. Both parties are creations of the corporate state that practice what sheldon woldin calls inverted totalitarianism. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism/

Why do you think when democrats are in ful control - they do HC bill which amounts to welfare for hospitals and insurance companies. They dont address minimum wage. Hordes of homesless. They war just as much as republicans. Our democracy has been hijacked by neo-liberlism since at least the 1980s and you don't get in office unless you are in with the Goldmans, the Ratheons, Israel and so forth.

 

[m52nickerson]

I can't come up with an excuses for any of the so called "examples of socialism failed". Nobody has done it. There is always use censorship to mitigate dissent and hold on to authoritarian power, these practices have nothing to do with Socialism.

They have nothing to do with Socialism, but somehow always show up. Funny how that works.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You've lost this debate too many times to count.

You love that video.

 

[VivaRevolution]

And let the fake news hitjobs begin.

Vermont newspaper editorial board: 'We beg' Bernie Sanders not to run in 2020

The editorial board for The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, a newspaper in Vermont, is urging Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) not to run for president in 2020.

"Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to," the editorial board begins in a piece published on Saturday.

The editorial board, which endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, goes on to say that they have more reasons to be concerned than excited about another Sanders run for the White House. It writes about its fears that a Sanders run for president could divide "the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote."

"There is too much at stake to take that gamble," the board continues. "If we are going to maintain a two-party system, the mandate needs to be a clear one. There is strength in numbers, and if anything has been shown in recent years, it is that unless tallies are overwhelming, there can always be questions or challenges raised over what 'vote totals' really mean: popular vote vs. Electoral College results.

"For us, this comes down to principle over ego. It is one thing to start a revolution, but at a certain point you need to know when to step out of the way and let others carry the water for you."

The board adds that Sanders has developed a loyal following because of certain progressive policies he's championed. But it says that Sanders has become "exhausting" as a candidate and that his personality is "abrasive."

"He can be dismissive and rude in his arrogance. You are either with Bernie Sanders or you are not," the board writes, before charging that his "no-nonsense approach" is comparable to President Trump's.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-we-beg-bernie-sanders-not-to-run-in-2020?amp