And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Karl Henning]

but things are free at the point of service.

In the U.S., that is pure Fantasy-Land

[JBS]

That's the point of tax money paid things. You pay taxes, but things are free at the point of service.

Any plan that comes out if Congress will not have "free at point of service".

That's something that if you actually understood American politics, you would not need being told,

[JBS]

Biden and Bernie look neck-&-neck-ish in Texas.

Bernie seems heavily favored in California.

In Florida (official voting day is March 17), the latest poll shows Biden and Bloomberg both at 25%, Sanders at 17% or 18%.

[71 dB]

In the U.S., that is pure Fantasy-Land

Yep, but not elsewhere. Are you sure you want your country to stay the same forever, never becoming anything better?

The X-Files time...

[71 dB]

Any plan that comes out if Congress will not have "free at point of service".

Not even fire department?

[JBS]

2016 should have taught everyone not to put too much faith in polling.

But anyway this is just polling today, and meaningless because we haven't yet started to see what dirty tricks and swiftboating the Trump team has planned for Sanders.

You're going to suggest that it will all be water off a ducks back to Sanders and he'll rise above it all beatifically. But no, its going to be ugly.

And with Sanders, Trump will merely need to run clips of Bernie speaking.   His "there's some good things about Castro" remark last week means he'll lose whatever chance he had of taking Florida, and maybe even New Jersey: there's a large Cuban presence there.

[JBS]

Not even fire department?

Would you like to see my property tax bill? A hefty part of it goes to the fire department.

[Mirror Image]

When I make a music related post it is often ignored. My political posts are not ignored. That makes me feel it's politics you want me to post about

Why? It's clear that most people here don't even agree with you. Give it up. Go home.

[71 dB]

And with Sanders, Trump will merely need to run clips of Bernie speaking.   His "there's some good things about Castro" remark last week means he'll lose whatever chance he had of taking Florida, and maybe even New Jersey: there's a large Cuban presence there.

Obama said the exact same things and nobody cared. Why? Because Obama is corporate enough

[71 dB]

Why? It's clear that most people here don't even agree with you. Give it up. Go home.

Go home? Where do you think I am?

[71 dB]

Would you like to see my property tax bill? A hefty part of it goes to the fire department.

Sure I don't know everything, but to my understanding you don't pay property tax unless you actually own a property. So, if you pay property tax it means you own property, right?

[SimonNZ]

Running Bernie Sanders Against Trump Would Be an Act of Insanity

[...]"As we now know, it was a good strategy to win the House. Democrats flipped 40 seats. Tellingly, while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts, not a single one of them prevailed in November. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6.* The failed technocratic 26-year-old bourgeoise shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party's House gains.

Had Democrats failed to win back the House, their left-wing critics would have claimed vindication. Instead, the entire debate sank below the surface without a trace. Indeed, what happened instead was something peculiar. The leftists chose to focus on a handful of left-wing candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who defeated center-left Democrats in deep-blue districts. The conservative media strategically elevated her in a bid to make AOC and her squad the party's face. The mutual interest of the two sides made AOC the narrative center of the election. The fact that the party had just run a field experiment between two factions, and the moderate faction prevailed conclusively, was forgotten.

At this point there is hardly any serious evidence to believe that the best strategy to defeat Trump is to mobilize voters with a radical economic agenda. Public satisfaction with the economy is now at its highest point since the peak of the dot-com boom two decades ago. Trump has serious weaknesses of issues like health care, corruption, taxes, and the environment, and a majority of the public disapproves of Trump's performance, but he does enjoy broad approval of his economic management. Therefore, his reelection strategy revolves around painting his opponents as radical and dangerous. You may not like me, he will argue, but my opponents are going to turn over the apple cart. A Sanders campaign seems almost designed to play directly into Trump's message.

Whatever evidence might have supported a Sanders-esque populist strategy for Democrats after the 2016 election, it has since collapsed. But in the ideological hothouse of the Sanders world, no setbacks have been acknowledged, no rethinking has taken place, and the skeptics are dismissed as elitist neoliberal corporate shills, as ever. The project moves forward even as the key tests of its viability have all failed. Once enough energy has been invested in a cause, it has too much momentum to be abandoned. For the socialist left, which has no other standard-bearer to choose from, Bernie is too big to fail. The question is whether the Democratic Party, the only political force standing between Donald Trump and his authoritarian ambitions, will risk failing with him."

[71 dB]

Trump happened after 2 terms of Obama. Gee I wonder why... 

What kind of "Trump" happens after Biden or Bloomberg? I don't want to know.

[SimonNZ]

Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.

[71 dB]

Predictions for Super Tuesday (just for fun  )

Joe Biden wins in Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia

Bernie Sanders wins in American Samoa, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Vermont

Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.

No. The article is nonsencical establishment propaganda. Leftist candidates are in systemic financial disadvantage and perform in elections well when this is taken into account. In many races losing progressive candidates came closer to winning than moderate candidates. Bernie Sanders is not in financial disadvantage: Small dollar donations to him are record breaking.

[SimonNZ]

You still haven't read it. You're still just arguing with the title.

Cite actual quotes and then demonstrate how they are specifically false. Particularly wrt the first two paragraphs in the quote above.

And, please, not just "they're false because Bernie is great".

[JBS]

Sure I don't know everything, but to my understanding you don't pay property tax unless you actually own a property. So, if you pay property tax it means you own property, right?

I own the 1300 square foot townhouse in which I live. Does that make me an oligarch?

[JBS]

No. The article is nonsencical establishment propaganda. Leftist candidates are in systemic financial disadvantage and perform in elections well when this is taken into account. In many races losing progressive candidates came closer to winning than moderate candidates. Bernie Sanders is not in financial disadvantage: Small dollar donations to him are record breaking.

If you read the article, you obviously didn't understand the point; in swing districts progressives lost across the board, while moderates generally won.  Swing voters will vote for moderates, and will vote for Republicans when their opponent is a progressive. This is especially so because the economic discontent is not as strong as it was in 2016.

[71 dB]

If you read the article, you obviously didn't understand the point; in swing districts progressives lost across the board, while moderates generally won.  Swing voters will vote for moderates, and will vote for Republicans when their opponent is a progressive. This is especially so because the economic discontent is not as strong as it was in 2016.

Because moderates are corrupt and have more money! That's the financial disadvantantage! Also, corporate media ATTACKS the left. It's name recognition. It's turnout. It's not a fair playfield, but lefties are trying hard to improve the country.

I own the 1300 square foot townhouse in which I live. Does that make me an oligarch?

So what's your problem? You own a lot more than many and you are clearly doing okay. I never said you are an oligarch. Instead I said you are part of the 99 %, because  1300 square foot doesn't make you a member of the 1 % club, does it?

[71 dB]

Is that supposed to be a response to the article I linked to above?

Did you even bother to read the text? I thought they made their point well.

Or are you just - as I would have expected - arguing with the title? (not that "gee I wonder why" counts as an argument.)

Try reading.

I don't want to waste my time debunking stupid corporate hit pieces for politically illiterate people. When lefties have money they do well. Bernie has money.