So its the Russians fault that Americans are dumb?

The problem with those seat comparisons is that they start at the wrong time. The right time is before Obama was elected, because as the guy at the top of the ticket he is partially responsible for leading the party to the 2008 gains. He had a lot of help from the political situation at the time, but still starting from after he was elected ignores those gains. From that vantage point the House was lost, but the Senate basically didn't move hardly at all.

Then there's also the fact that this just happens. As in pretty much always. It has happened exactly once in the past 70 years that a party has won the presidency three times in a row. The typical pattern is for the out-of-power party to make gains. The same comparisons show Bush losing seats over his tenure in office. Same for Clinton. Obama would have to have been a unicorn for this to NOT happen.

So which Den candidate do you think will lead the blue wave to control of both houses, and overcome resistance to pass meaningful progress legislation? I'd like to know myself, but like I said before, the candidates don't talk much about such things.

I don't know. Just wouldn't be taking advice from those grifters.

The Russian thing has always been a dumb conspiracy theory. Yes, Russia meddled in our election in some fashion. But it was small on the grand scale of things. Some ad buys online and social media chicanery. There are dozens of dark money groups that played a much larger role.

When all is said and done, it was just some propaganda being spread. No votes were changed, no major events to close down polling stations, etc. We have far worse figures in our own country fighting against any semblance of democracy.

But it became a great excuse for Democrats who fucked up. It'll be another excuse by establishment candidates to target anti-establishment figures. Whether that's used by someone like Bloomberg against Bernie or a never-Trumper against Trump.

The true power the president has is going to the people and sounding passionate about a plan. That's how Obama got ACA moving. Sanders strikes me as a very reluctant compromiser. If he goes hard for M4A and gets shot down (as expected), how hard would he really be pushing for expanding the ACA or making small improvements after that major setback? Wouldn't it be better to have someone like Biden, Amy or Pete going hard for the small improvement from the start?

The ACA passed only because there were 60 Dem senators and even then it took compromises for more conservative Dems. There's nothing that any president could do to get a handful of GOP senators to vote for M4A.

Are you Matt Taibbi?

No fucking shit and I like Taibbi. I don't understand him on this at all.

And it went much further than some ads. The Mueller Report lays out a pretty extensive conspiracy between at least Stone, Assange, and the Russians. There were numerous contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign. While it's true we have no evidence of votes being changed, we do have evidence of Russian hacking into registration databases.

And most importantly, the hacks into Podesta and the DNC were done by Russians.

I have compared the Bernie Bros to MAGA people, didn't realize that they also deny the Russians attempt to influence the elections.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Dont rip me.

How is this so called Russian interference any different than Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions to win an election?

Spending isn't a crime.

Foreign spending on an election is a crime.

Hacking emails is a crime.

Hacking into registration databases is a crime.

Ive decided you are either Bizarro tarcone or the Anti-tarcone.

I get this. But is the Russian "interference" really interference, or it just a bunch of propaganda the Russians launched to influence an election? And is that any different than soviet interference or american interference in foreign elections?

Why is spending millions of dollars to influence an election okay? Well it is in the good ol' USA. So dont bring that commie crap int my elections unless it is Bernie Sanders commie crap.

They aren't Americans, why do they give a shit about our laws? And considering that Stone and others are likely to get pardons (and have already had the DOJ run out to protect them), it doesn't appear we give a shit about our laws either.

It's espionage. They do it, we do it. Don't get me wrong, I think we should have a harsh stance against it. But I also don't think it's the biggest issue facing our country.

Here are some things that are so much worse than Russians buying some Facebook ads, creating troll accounts, and hacking the DNC.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1VV09J

400 Bad Request

$1.4 billion and counting in spending by super PACs, dark money groups - OpenSecrets News

But let's keep chasing the Russia boogeyman as Republicans close down polling stations, shut down early voting, and purge the rolls of voters in areas that hurt them.

Russians spending a few million in ads on Facebook to influence an election is bad. Multinational hedge fund funneling money anonymously to another anonymous group to run negative ads against a candidate is good. Don't ask me why, it apparently just is.

Also when we influence elections around the world (which we do all the time) it's good.

We don't have to ignore any of this. Why do you think it's one or the other?

And the "why do they give a shit about our laws" approach would legitimize assassinations. They don't have to give a shit about our laws, but we should. Trump pardoning people also doesn't mean we should all just decide to ignore our laws from now on.

Funny how you're leaving out the crimes part of things.

Again, it's much more than social media ads.

Bernie Bros much like MAGA people only like facts that fit their world view. Theirs is the only right way, and even those that almost agree with them, but disagree on the most minor of points, must be purged in fire. Only the pure that have sworn allegiance to St. Bernie are basking in the light of truth and righteousness.

This is the reason Bernie is problematic. Imagine Trump's campaign playing snippets of this video over and over again on every form of media.


(Drunk and Shirtless) Bernie Sanders sings "This Land is Your Land" with Soviets 1988 - YouTube

Holy crap, that's hilarious.

I don't think this will impact the Bernie supporters now but I can see it impacting the general election.

grab 'em by the pussy

It is illegal to show dissent toward the Chinese government. Do you feel obligated to follow their law? Do you feel it would be rightful for them to come and arrest you?

We should arrest people who break out laws. I have nothing against that. I'm saying it is so far down the list of issues with our elections and democracy.

Also the "bad guys want this candidate to win" schtick has been going on forever. Especially with Russia. I think Al-Qaeda was pushing for Kerry in 2004 if I remember the old ads right.

Sanders by a mile so far. Then Biden, Buttigieg, Warren.

Biden better show up for SC and Super Tuesday.

I love that they are showing some 13-14 thousand votes.. and Gabbard has 8.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

CBS is saying that Nevada is feeling the Bern

Everyone has called it for Bernie, and it looks like it will be a big win. Of course, we won't actually have the results till some time next year.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

They ought to ban caucuses and replace those with a ranked choice voting primary. The Democrats clearly complicated them way too much with three "totals"

Klobuchar needs to throw in the towel. Bernie is definitely benefitting some from voters having to split votes between four candidates if they are not voting for him.

So I am wondering how much of this Sanders support is just R’s going and voting for Sanders since they feel strongly he is the easy win for them in the general?

That seems like it would be a pain in the ass at a caucus.

Yeah I agree that it might not be as easy in the caucus scenario.

It is quickly becoming no chance anyone but Sanders can win a majority, and very slim chance (single digits percentages) for anyone else to win a pluaralty. No one looks like they dropping out, at least until after South Carolina. By Super Tuesday, this will probably be all over.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

At that point I wonder if Bloomberg would run independent. Not sure what the deadlines are but he certainly has the money and to me would be viable to Sanders and Trump. Not sure if that would hand the election to Trump but IMO nominating Sanders hands the election to Trump.

Bloomberg as an independent would be a fascinating scenario. I think he might draw votes close to evenly from Trump and the Democrat nominee. As for Sanders, I don't see how he can put together an Electoral College to get to 270.

I can see Sanders winning the general and don't get why everyone says he can't. Seems a lot like people saying Trump could never win. And some of the socialist attacks I don't think work as well anymore. A lot of the old conventional thinking should have been thrown out the window in 2016. People want authenticity more than ideology or experience and that's Bernie's biggest strength, he's been saying the same thing for 30 years.

I can't see Bernie losing any of the states Hillary won. Nevada, CO and VA are becoming more blue. New Hampshire is his neighboring state. His message plays well in Michigan, PA and Ohio. Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa seem like they're getting more red so then the Dem would have to pick up one of Florida, Arizona or NC. Texas is still probably too big of a reach. Latinos seem to love him, though.

Personally the capitalism is broken message in this economy with this unemployment rate seems like a losing strategy. I agree with the get rid of Trump message, and agree with some of the other candidates on fixing health care and the environment but Bernies message is so extreme and easy to defeat. Again IMO before somebody comes in with the rich keep.getting richer. They elected Donald Trump not sure the electorate cares about that at all.

And one side already fears the "evil Soviets" and the other just spent the last 4 years telling us Russia wants to destroy us and our democracy. So you play some videos of Moscow Bernie...

This seems insane by the Dems.

We badly need multiple moderates to drop out so that the moderate vote can consolidate.

I agree that I can't see a Sanders Electoral College win. I think an Electoral College win was going to be 50-50 for most of the Democratic Candidates. I think it is probably 60-40 against Sanders. I do think Bernie probably gets the most actual votes, maybe even by a wider margin than Hillary. The Electoral College just works too hard against him.
That said, at this point I just hope I am totally wrong. I think it is going to take something extraordinary to happen for there to be a mass exodus of Trump support. Even looking at 2018, the House was won back by largely suburban, mostly women voters. Suburban women voters are not the most progressive group, hence why they voted for Trump in the first place, even after "grab them by the pussy."

Also, on the Bloomberg run. I don't think he splits the vote even close to evenly, and it would be a Trump landslide.

The most likely results of a Sanders presidency are... very little. The Senate will block everything. No new taxes. No M4A. No free college. etc.

So if you see that as more threatening than Trump, you were Trump curious the whole time.

It also means no hardcore conservative judges either.

Stunning landslide result for Nevada, which is much more representative of the rest of the country than Iowa or New Hampshire. Like it or not, Bernie is building a multi-racial, multi-generational coalition. And all the polling shows he's just as electable, if not more, than any of the other Dems in the general. I was right about Buttigieg as he got something pathetic like 3% of the African American vote. He is toast with those numbers.

And here's the thing. The more moderate, older, lifelong Democrats who have voted in every election are far less likely to sit out in apathy or a protest vote than the younger generation vote and minority vote. They're going to vote no matter what. And in Bernie we're seeing a candidate who is inspiring youth turnout, and building a coalition of latino and black support (still a work in progress, but if you look at the numbers, he's gaining substantially on both fronts) whom if there was a candidate those demogaphics felt little connection to -- say Buttigieg with minorities, Biden with youth and Bloomberg with all of the above -- they'd easily sit out and turnout would be low and it'd be a disaster of a general election. So the older, moderate vote will have a choice to get on board or vote for Trump, and I hope it's the former. And once they realize their medicare and social security is at stake under Trump, hopefully they will.

And to all the naysayers saying Bernie won't get EVERYTHING he says done in office: we know that. Answer me this: What President has? But you have to aim high, and then compromise for less. Not aim low and compromise for nothing like all of the other candidates. And you have to shift the dialogue and move the needle and that's what Bernie is doing. It's a movement. People are inspired by the movement, more so than even the candidate. And on that point, lets not forget that Sanders HAS been productive in office: Passing more amendments than anyone, getting billions for community health centers & passing landmark veterans legislation.

We shouldn't coronate him yet of course, but it'll be interesting who Bernie's VP would be if he gets the nomination. Lot at stake on and on the line with that. Do you go with someone with less national experience like Nina Turner, or Stacey Abrams, for the identity politic appeal? Or someone slightly more moderate to assuage the center like Liz Warren? For those worried about Bernie or on the fence, what VP pick would give you a little more faith in the ticket, I'm curious?

James K Polk

OK so we have to go back to 1840, and 30+ Presidents to find one who achieved his full platform in its entirety. Point made.

None. Nevada has closed caucuses. They’d have to switch party registration to Democrat.

Nina Turner would be a complete disaster. I think she would turn off more people than she could pull in. Stacey Abrams would be a good pick, but would it turn off Bernie supporters that she is a bit more moderate than Bernie? Liz fits more philosophically with Bernie, but would she be interested?



I would think a minority woman that has more establishment ties would be best. Any woman over a man should at the very least be a preference. Someone who can reach the suburban moms. Also, they need to be younger. Bernie age is already troublesome. Someone in there 50's, no more than mid-60's.

Agree on all points!

Well if Trump isn't enough motivation for the young voters than FUCK THEM! They'll get what they deserve. Day after the election they better not have the balls to be out in the streets protesting like last time.

The younger vote has a choice too... Get on board with whoever the nominee is or live with 4 more years of Trump. I hope it's the former.

As a 50 year old lifelong Democrat I hope your right. Even though I fall more moderate left of center I would be happy to give Sanders a shot over King Cheatio. I would like to see him throw mods a bone and pick a moderate VP like Stacy Abrams, Kamala H , Cory Booker or Pete B. I would not be very positive to him picking Liz W and would probably have me go third party for a Bloomberg type person.

Yeah, but that's another, "you were always leaning towards Trump," point.

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer Bloomberg over Sanders? I agree with your VP suggestions, any of them would be good picks if Sanders gets the nod.

If Trump wins with a smaller share of votes again I'm sure there will be protests and I'm pretty sure it will end in violence.

I remember in the Obama years I used to argue here that it didn't seem like the Dems were really trying to compromise, they just were willing to get half of what they wanted. That's not really compromising. The Senate isn't going to pass half of what the Dems want without getting something in return. And that's assuming they'll be willing to pass ANYTHING in a Bernie presidency, which is questionable, considering they positioned Obama as this huge threat, even though he came in wanting to unify, and to deal, and to find common ground, and is described by some here as being middle-right, etc. What will the opposition be to Sanders, and how will that impact not only what he is promising to get done, but congressional election turnout?

Clinton got legislation passed that is now very unpopular among Dems. Because at that time Dems understood that to pass legislation to had to actually give something up - not just be willing to get half of what they wanted. We'll never hear the candidates talk about what Democratic talking points are they not willing to just settle for less on, but actually give the Republicans something. Like, progressive healthcare legislation at the cost of slashing social security.

I know it'd be silly for them to talk about what specifically the'd bend on, but I'd just like to know how generally they plan to avoid the mistakes Obama made, and how they expect to be more effective them him.

It's easy enough to say that the goal is just have a liberal president and then the house and senate will get swept up in that blue wave, but, that doesn't really happen historically.

The idea that Sanders is desirable because he's starting from the highest point and there's the most room to negotiate down is just bonkers to me. I don't get how the Republicans are more likely to cave on healthcare on anything just because the other party wants more. They're going to give more out of the goodness of their hearts to Sanders because he started further to the left than they would someone who started closer to them? That makes no sense. In the questionable event they work with anybody, it will be about how much THEY get, not how much the other side is willing to stand down from their campaign promises. It's not a value to them in a negotiation that the other side is willing to get less than what THEY want.

Plus that mindset just turns the primary into a promise contest, who can promise the most free stuff. Which, I guess is where we are.

If Sanders was a Republican I think we'd be hearing a lot more about his age and health too. It's kind of amazing that a 78-year old guy who just had a heart attack is this close to the presidency.

Not that it has ANYTHING to do with your larger point, but I think Clinton was able to pass a ton of legislation not so much based on the basis of any kind of compromise, or expectation of quid pro quo, so much as plenty of Clinton's legislation aligned with GOP values in the first place. Personally, I'm not looking to recapture any kind of that magic.

Not wanting hardcore conservative judges is leaning towards Trump?

I don't get your line of thinking.

True, especially on the criminal justice stuff, it wasn't a compromise for Clinton personally - but it was for many Dems who voted for the legislation.

But I think that supports my point in that - what Republican policies does Sanders support that he'd be willing to get behind legislation for, if that's what it took to get any progressive legislation passed? I think the answer is nothing. So what exactly is the mechanism for him to be effective if not common ground? Sit around and hope for super-majorities in both houses? Hope that the Republicans will just be all excited about a public option because Sanders started with a goal of medicare for all?

I can't really argue against any of that except to say that I haven't ever seen what a principled/stick-in-the-mud (depending on your prospective) progressive Democratic President would do, but I have seen every Democratic President in my life try to run the moderate compromise gauntlet and fail.

My original point had to do with Never Trumpers that are now saying they'll vote for Trump over Sanders. Given that Sanders is very unlikely to be able to get much of anything accomplished if he's the president, switching now to Trump means they were always Trump curious.

I also think it's worth noting/arguing that Bernie already succeeded at moving the needle to some degree, without passing any legislation. I think you could argue that his efforts to just put a lot of these progressive ideas on the collective table in the last couple election cycles has radically transformed what Democratic policy & candidates look like in general, and I would like to think that getting elected would be even more powerful in moving the political & cultural needles towards the left, even if he doesn't end up passing much legislation.

That said, I think American politics is obviously pretty pendulous & reactive and a (relatively) radical progressive could be just as likely to set off some kind of transformative reaction on the right as well.

This isn't what the party needs right now:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/polit...ses/index.html

Obama gave the GOP the tax cuts they wanted and reduced the overall total expenditures in the stimulus act. It got only a handful of GOP votes.

Obama was willing to start from a GOP health plan. After a year of discussions, the GOP said no and offered no deal for Obama to take.

Obama offered to cut Social Security and Medicare. The GOP bailed after initially agreeing.

A bipartisan group of Senators wrote an immigration bill with compromises made by both sides and it passed the Senate almost 2-1. The GOP controlled House refused to even discuss it.

Obama made compromise offer after compromise offer, but the GOP agreed that the best strategy was to provide as few GOP votes as possible regardless of what was offered. That plan worked, too. They were able to cast Obama as a failure that couldn't achieve the bipartisan deals he promised.

Maybe if Obama started with more ambitious promises the right would have caved. That's literally the plan?

Shrug. That still sounds like a better plan than "Maybe THIS time compromising will work in our favor!" to plenty of folks. As ridiculous as a Democratic policy of starting high and not compromising might sound to you, the results are at least unknown, and it's certainly proven to be an effective strategy for the GOP. We've seen results of the Dems trying to meet in the middle for something close to the last 50 years.

No. As long as the GOP has the votes to stop things, they will. This doesn't change until either the GOP has no power or they decide to change. That sucks, but it's the truth.

When they won't budge after the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression and then again after children were massacred, there's really very little chance of them ever budging.

Personally, I wish the Dems would be much more radical in terms of process, pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, gerrymander GOP reps out, etc. I really think the only solution to this situation is mutual assured destruction.

edit: What do you think the Dems can accomplish with enough compromise?

We will all be dead before the 2016 primary ends.

FFS Pete, it's over. Move on with your life.

It all comes down to congress. Right now, very few in the House or Senate would go along with any of Bernie's plans. If that doesn't change, the only hope for Bernie would be massive concessions to get things passed. I can't really see him doing it, so I expect four years of gridlock and very aggravated Sanders. I could see the "divide" and drop in civil discourse getting even worse with Sanders.

Don't disagree with that at all.

The point though was, if young people don't vote because Bernie didn't get the nomination then they should stay home after Trump wins.

I also expect violence if Trump loses by a small number. It is a sad time and something I never expected to see in this country.

What concessions could he make to pass anything he’s running on? The GOP has figured out total opposition works. My guess is if they hold the senate they’ll refuse to seat any SCOTUS nominee and block tons of other court picks.

This is why all the policy purity fights have been so ridiculous.

Trump tweeted his congratulations: “Looks like Crazy Bernie is doing well in the Great State of Nevada. Biden & the rest look weak. Congratulations Bernie, & don’t let them take it away from you!”

Sanders on 60 Minutes tonight praising the Castro regime. That is a great way to win Florida.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

In good Bernie news, Marianne Williams endorsed Bernie. There are dozens of Williams supporters. Dozens!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

PEte is annoying me. He seems like a republican plant at this point. A potato perhaps

So I came across on this on Twitter, which...

rob delaney on Twitter: "Oh my God.… "

So now Sanders fans are spreading the idea that Warren is a moderate? What in the world is going on?

I have no idea, that's what I've been asking about, since the candidates won't talk about it.

So if I'm someone that wants this country to work towards universal health care, the options seem to be:

1. Start "high" and the Republicans will cave halfway.

2. Ugly politics where this can be accomplished with, ideally, a majority in both houses, and REAL sacrifices to the to other side - Social security cuts, defense spending, execution of drug dealers, whatever (knowing that this had mixed results under Obama, but perhaps could be accomplished with a more skilled president and legislature)

3. Playing dirty. Expansive use of executive power, changing the rules in Congress, whatever it takes.

4. Hope for the blue wave of a super-majority in both houses.

I don't think #4 will happen with a Sanders presidency. #1 makes no sense to me. So the pathway to success for me would be some combination of #2 and #3. I hope Sanders can lead that, he wouldn't be my choice of the most likely to, but he looks like the guy, so I hope for the best.

My #1 priority for a candidate personally is the environment and climate change - I think that is a goal more accessible through executive power than healthcare, but I don't have a great sense of which candidates would consider that THE priority (now that Inslee is long gone).

How is Steyer polling at 18% in SC? That has to be inaccurate?

Brilliant. I was hoping the Democratic Party would learn from Hillary's "Let's ignore the Midwest", not follow it up with "Let's treat Florida like Ohio and lose by 7 points."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/u...-carolina.html

Florida is a red state now. Castro was also a huge improvement over Batista.

Tough to get worked up over this considering the company our country keeps.

They bond over their tiny fingers.

Yup, good call. Make good use of your time.

I'm still kinda rooting for you.

Bloomberg postpones CNN townhall for debate prep | TheHill

Bloomberg is spending huge money right now to start the attacks on Sanders. Maybe the early carpet-bombing of Sanders will weaken the later GOP carpet-bombing in the general? Or will the attacks now weaken both him and Bloomberg and make way for Biden to sail through?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A lot of this stuff has to come out now. If it's all kept quiet and then explodes in the general, it has the possibility of really depressing turnout.

They need to play that Bernie commie musical over and over again.

Pretty sure if there was some crazy dirt on Bernie, Hillary would have found it and used it.

Hillary Clinton went very easy on Bernie. Especially after Super Tuesday it was easy to see he was done. For example, this thing about Castro is something I've never seen before and while its fairly tame Florida Republicans are already running with it.

I really don't think the Castro thing is a big deal. Florida was likely not in play and he basically just said things were better with Castro over Batista, which is true.

Maybe if Florida isn't a swing state we don't have to maintain our disastrous foreign policy with that country.

Obama won in 2012 by .8%, Clinton lost by 1.2% in 2016, Nelson lost by .53%, Gillam by .4% and Dems moved the House delegation from 16R-11D to 14R-13D in 2018. Florida is the very definition of a swing state. Sanders is an imbecile if he's giving it away in February..

Especially given the re-enfranchisement for convicted felons.

They won a Senate seat and Governor in a midterm year that saw historic discrepancy between Democrat and Republican voters. If Democrats couldn't win a state seat in 2018 with popular candidates in Florida, why would anyone think they have a chance in 2020?

Outside of 2012, Republicans have dominated that state. It's a state of old white people.

Remember that Republicans are fighting to add a poll tax for them. Also they've been trying to close early voting centers and polling stations in minority areas of the state for a decade now. No way that's slowing down with full control of the state and the Voting Rights Act stripped.

Sorry, maybe Biden has a shot in Florida but that state is all Trump.

Hispanics have gone from 10 to 16 percent of registered voters in FL in just 12 years. Walking away from Florida would be a terrible decision.

It's 29 electoral votes that's been within 1-2% in every Presidential election this century except 2004. Running up the score in California and New York are moral victories where we can cry about the popular vote. Where are the EV's to push Trump out of the White House?

Not sure what he can do. He made a factual statement that Castro was better than Batista many years ago. Denounced the authoritarianism of his regime.

Forget the side show. Bernie needs to start selling rich vs. poor. Tap back into the us vs the 1% crowd. Get on college campuses.

There is a way for Bernie, But he is going to have to work his ass off.

Yes! Dirty Harry for Bloomberg.

Maybe he should spend his energy figuring the cost of his healthcare plan rather than praising the authoritarian regimes in Cuba and China.

He did explain how he would pay for it. Although it is funny that people now care about the deficit.

His stance on other regimes seems tame compared to others. Bloomberg has called China a democracy and forced journalists who dared say otherwise in his media outlet. Trump says he loves Xi, is friends with Kim Jong-Un, and has his face permanently attached to Saudi ass.

But I guess that is better than saying some dead regional leader set up a literacy program 60 years ago. Priorities definitely in check.