Forum Thread

The Left is Energized, but...

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 85 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The only reason there is not medicare for all and free education and all the other free benefits possible from a thriving economy is the Democratic Party abandoned the welfare of the working class for every and any cause the elitist wine and cheese culture could come up with.

    No! That is absolute bullshit and you know it.

    Your hatred of all things Clinton and Obama cloud your ability to have a rational and educated discussion. It's really quite, as Donald likes to say, SAD!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn did you make up. o "Yea, as Bernie likes to say - why pay for something when you can get it for free?" or can you source it if you didn't make it up? Whether you made it up or not is not important because it is a truism. Why would a normal person want to pay for something if it is free? Do you think free is bad ? Some people think free education is bad. They say if students have to pay for education then they will have some skin in the game. A lot of people are very content having poor people. Christ when questioned about money for the poor or him answered you will always have the poor. Bernie is the way and "anybody but Bernie" is a loser plan. It will elect a Republican.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The only reason there is not medicare for all and free education and all the other free benefits possible from a thriving economy is the Democratic Party abandoned the welfare of the working class for every and any cause the elitist wine and cheese culture could come up with.

    No! That is absolute bullshit and you know it.

    Your hatred of all things Clinton and Obama cloud your ability to have a rational and educated discussion. It's really quite, as Donald likes to say, SAD!

    Somebody let this happen and it is just the tip of the iceberg of how laws turned against the working class while just the opposite was true for the upper class. Grahams actions at the end of the Clinton presidency blatantly removed controls from Wall Street while legalizing illegal gambling a activities :

    " 1994-2005 Many states and cities try to protect their citizens by adopting state statutes and local ordinances to curb predatory lending, but preemption claims by the federal government impede their efforts. Numerous bills are introduced in Congress to protect consumers in a wide range of transactions, including rent-to-own, credit cards, payday lending, and predatory mortgage lending, but none of these bills makes it to a hearing."

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    How a Democrat Killed Welfare

    BY

    PREMILLA NADASEN

    Bill Clinton gutted welfare and criminalized the poor, all while funneling more money into the carceral state.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Not just me, answer this jaredsxtn:

    Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more | Robert Reich ...

    The Guardian › nov › democrats...


    Nov 10, 2016 · At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their .... Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hillary didn't lose because of 50000 voters. Hillary lost because "

    Democrats Have Done Virtually Nothing for the Middle Class in 30 Years ...

    Mother Jones › kevin-drum › 2014/03


    Mar 10, 2014 · Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties."

    I don't understand your radical position. The party needs to get back in touch with the people .

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst.

    On that point, nothing I write in this website seems to sway you one iota, but for others that might want to become members of this website I don't want them to think that your views continuously slamming the Democratic Party, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are a consensus view of the members on this website. For the benefit of others I'll address your prior posts in this thread.

    First, I checked out Premilla Nadasen's article on "How a Democrat Killed Welfare" published in the Jacobin magazine website that you cited as vindication of your attacks on Democrats. The by-line of the article reads, "Bill Clinton gutted welfare and criminalized the poor, all while funneling more money into the carceral state." Yes that's a headline that certainly would attract you Chet.

    So I can certainly understand why you would choose an article in the Jacobin, which is described by Caroline O'Donovan in NiemanLab as a "Marxist rag run on a lot of petty-bourgeois hustle." You can read about the Nieman Foundation for Journalism if you like in Wikipedia. I don't doubt the sincerity of Premilla Anderson. She sounds very bitter and is lashing out. But if she would have done her homework, she should have realized how the title of her article and it's contents can be so ridiculous and easily debunked. But it was okay for publication in the Jacobin...that "Marxist rag".

    You also cited a March 2014 article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones by entitled, Democrats Have Done Virtually Nothing for the Middle Class in 30 Years. I like many of the articles I read in Mother Jones, and appreciate David Corn's appearances on MSNBC. Most of the current journalism is directed against Donald Trump and his administration. Kevin Drum I was less familiar with, but I looked him up and read some of his current articles. He's an okay guy, but a self acknowledged avid Bernie supporter. He mostly likes to write about photography. That's okay. And he makes a lot of sweeping generalizations without regard to facts.

    His 2014 article is not one of his better literary pieces (the title is absurd) and exhibits much of the lashing out frustration that Democrats had at the time in 2014, including me, in Democrats' inability to make more inroads into the middle class electorate. And the reason for that is quite simple...Republicans are better at controlling the messaging, although Democrat's accomplishments and proposed programs to help the poor and middle class are far superior to those of the Republicans.

    You also cited an article by Robert Reich with the title, Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more. It was published on November 10, 2016 immediately after Clinton's loss. Now I like Robert Reich and I like the Guardian. So this article caught my attention more than the one in the "Marxist rag".

    Robert Reich served admirably as Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first term in office (1992-1996) and according to Wikipedia, "during his tenure, he implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), successfully lobbied to increase the minimum wage, lobbied to pass the School-to-Work Jobs Act, and to integrate all job-training and job-displacement programs so workers who lost their jobs could get access to all the help they needed to get new ones that paid at least as much as the old." I could not find anything that suggested an acrimonious relationship with Bill Clinton.

    After leaving the Clinton administration, Reich published his memoirs in a book, ''Locked in the Cabinet,'' in which he was criticized by the media for "embellishing events with invented dialogue." Most notably as reported by the New York Times, Reich in his book "described dramatic episodes and dialogue that did not match the record of C-Span tapes and transcripts of Washington meetings". In his later paperback version of the book Reich made revisions, explaining in a foreword that ''memory is fallible.'' Nevertheless, it tarnished his reputation, and I for one do not accept verbatim everything that Reich says because he is also a founding member of the union funded Economic Policy Institute and has to tow the union line.

    Anyway shifting back to the topic of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is easy cherry pick in 20:20 hindsight that some of the provisions in the law did not work out as expected in 1994. Yes the law has been a factor in the incarceration of African Americans and some at the time pointed it out. But to be clear the act was much more than a "prison act".

    It also included the Assault Weapons Ban, which "barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and Bayonet lugs as well as the possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition." Unfortunately, it had a 10 year sunset provision.

    The 356 page act also included such things as a Violence Against Women Act, a Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, and Community Oriented Policing Services and much more that was to the liking of the populace at the time. But the prison and incarceration part of the act has received the most negative publicity of late, and even Bill Clinton regrets how that part of the law turned out different than intended.

    Nevertheless in 1994 the Act had a populist appeal for that time. The act originated with Joe Biden in the Senate and after several rewrites ultimately passed 235-195 in the House with Bernie Sanders one of the "aye" votes. In the Senate it passed 61-38, with Democrats largely supportive and Republicans against because of the assault weapons ban. Notable 'aye' votes included Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.

    It's fair to say that the votes on both sides reflected less about the prison incarceration part of the legislation and more about the assault weapons ban. That was the popular mood of the nation in 1994. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    Bill Clinton and Hillary by association have now been attacked repeatedly by the left for Bill Clinton signing the act into law. However, if he would have vetoed it, what would the left be crying now? "Bill Clinton vetoed the assault weapons ban!!" Or perhaps something like "the Clintons don't care about violence against women and children" the part of the act that would have been cut with a Clinton veto. That's how ugly politics can get, but that's why we need clear thinking centrists who do their homework and are not just grabbing headlines to make their case.

    I lived the 2014 election up close knocking on doors, selling the Democratic Party proposed programs, and otherwise trying to educate the electorate on what we stand for...and on paper our view of the issues and practical solutions were far better than anything the Republicans offered at the time. But it was just so hard to change peoples' brains. So I absolutely disagree that Democrats don't care about the middle class or poor as you so often state, but I will agree that we don't know how to message like Republicans. This is what George Lakoff keeps harping about in his articles and I accept his criticism.

    San Francisco Magazine: Rewiring the Democratic Brain With George Lakoff

    We have much to learn, but attacking Democrats is not constructive to winning the 2018 midterm election.

    This is a long winded response to your "dump" of several articles that "proved" your case. I submit that whenever you or the far left writers that you cite state that Democrats do not care about the working class or the middle class or the poor, you have not done your homework. Hating the Clintons is an obsession with you Chet that is not unlike Trump's hatred of Barack Obama. Hate doesn't do anything for the party. It just helps elect people like Donald Trump.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst.

    On that point, nothing I write in this website seems to sway you one iota, but for others that might want to become members of this website I don't want them to think that your views continuously slamming the Democratic Party, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are a consensus view of the members on this website. For the benefit of others I'll address your prior posts in this thread.

    First, I checked out Premilla Nadasen's article on "How a Democrat Killed Welfare" published in the Jacobin magazine website that you cited as vindication of your attacks on Democrats. The by-line of the article reads, "Bill Clinton gutted welfare and criminalized the poor, all while funneling more money into the carceral state." Yes that's a headline that certainly would attract you Chet.

    So I can certainly understand why you would choose an article in the Jacobin, which is described by Caroline O'Donovan in NiemanLab as a "Marxist rag run on a lot of petty-bourgeois hustle." You can read about the Nieman Foundation for Journalism if you like in Wikipedia. I don't doubt the sincerity of Premilla Anderson. She sounds very bitter and is lashing out. But if she would have done her homework, she should have realized how the title of her article and it's contents can be so ridiculous and easily debunked. But it was okay for publication in the Jacobin...that "Marxist rag".

    You also cited a March 2014 article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones by entitled, Democrats Have Done Virtually Nothing for the Middle Class in 30 Years. I like many of the articles I read in Mother Jones, and appreciate David Corn's appearances on MSNBC. Most of the current journalism is directed against Donald Trump and his administration. Kevin Drum I was less familiar with, but I looked him up and read some of his current articles. He's an okay guy, but a self acknowledged avid Bernie supporter. He mostly likes to write about photography. That's okay. And he makes a lot of sweeping generalizations without regard to facts.

    His 2014 article is not one of his better literary pieces (the title is absurd) and exhibits much of the lashing out frustration that Democrats had at the time in 2014, including me, in Democrats' inability to make more inroads into the middle class electorate. And the reason for that is quite simple...Republicans are better at controlling the messaging, although Democrat's accomplishments and proposed programs to help the poor and middle class are far superior to those of the Republicans.

    You also cited an article by Robert Reich with the title, Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more. It was published on November 10, 2016 immediately after Clinton's loss. Now I like Robert Reich and I like the Guardian. So this article caught my attention more than the one in the "Marxist rag".

    Robert Reich served admirably as Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first term in office (1992-1996) and according to Wikipedia, "during his tenure, he implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), successfully lobbied to increase the minimum wage, lobbied to pass the School-to-Work Jobs Act, and to integrate all job-training and job-displacement programs so workers who lost their jobs could get access to all the help they needed to get new ones that paid at least as much as the old." I could not find anything that suggested an acrimonious relationship with Bill Clinton.

    After leaving the Clinton administration, Reich published his memoirs in a book, ''Locked in the Cabinet,'' in which he was criticized by the media for "embellishing events with invented dialogue." Most notably as reported by the New York Times, Reich in his book "described dramatic episodes and dialogue that did not match the record of C-Span tapes and transcripts of Washington meetings". In his later paperback version of the book Reich made revisions, explaining in a foreword that ''memory is fallible.'' Nevertheless, it tarnished his reputation, and I for one do not accept verbatim everything that Reich says because he is also a founding member of the union funded Economic Policy Institute and has to tow the union line.

    Anyway shifting back to the topic of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is easy cherry pick in 20:20 hindsight that some of the provisions in the law did not work out as expected in 1994. Yes the law has been a factor in the incarceration of African Americans and some at the time pointed it out. But to be clear the act was much more than a "prison act".

    It also included the Assault Weapons Ban, which "barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and Bayonet lugs as well as the possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition." Unfortunately, it had a 10 year sunset provision.

    The 356 page act also included such things as a Violence Against Women Act, a Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, and Community Oriented Policing Services and much more that was to the liking of the populace at the time. But the prison and incarceration part of the act has received the most negative publicity of late, and even Bill Clinton regrets how that part of the law turned out different than intended.

    Nevertheless in 1994 the Act had a populist appeal for that time. The act originated with Joe Biden in the Senate and after several rewrites ultimately passed 235-195 in the House with Bernie Sanders one of the "aye" votes. In the Senate it passed 61-38, with Democrats largely supportive and Republicans against because of the assault weapons ban. Notable 'aye' votes included Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.

    It's fair to say that the votes on both sides reflected less about the prison incarceration part of the legislation and more about the assault weapons ban. That was the popular mood of the nation in 1994. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    Bill Clinton and Hillary by association have now been attacked repeatedly by the left for Bill Clinton signing the act into law. However, if he would have vetoed it, what would the left be crying now? "Bill Clinton vetoed the assault weapons ban!!" Or perhaps something like "the Clintons don't care about violence against women and children" the part of the act that would have been cut with a Clinton veto. That's how ugly politics can get, but that's why we need clear thinking centrists who do their homework and are not just grabbing headlines to make their case.

    I lived the 2014 election up close knocking on doors, selling the Democratic Party proposed programs, and otherwise trying to educate the electorate on what we stand for...and on paper our view of the issues and practical solutions were far better than anything the Republicans offered at the time. But it was just so hard to change peoples' brains. So I absolutely disagree that Democrats don't care about the middle class or poor as you so often state, but I will agree that we don't know how to message like Republicans. This is what George Lakoff keeps harping about in his articles and I accept his criticism.

    San Francisco Magazine: Rewiring the Democratic Brain With George Lakoff

    We have much to learn, but attacking Democrats is not constructive to winning the 2018 midterm election.

    This is a long winded response to your "dump" of several articles that "proved" your case. I submit that whenever you or the far left writers that you cite state that Democrats do not care about the working class or the middle class or the poor, you have not done your homework. Hating the Clintons is an obsession with you Chet that is not unlike Trump's hatred of Barack Obama. Hate doesn't do anything for the party. It just helps elect people like Donald Trump.

    Trump should have been annihilated in the 2016 election by a billion dollar campaign against him. You guys didn't understand the plight of the people and still don't. You call attention to the background of the articles I sighted as if it discredits the truth. You in particular tried multiple times to silence me during the campaign silence me citing rules of the forum about about hindering a candidate. Well, everything I said turned out to be correct. You say that nothing you say seems to sway me one iota. Well since you were wrong about everything I would say that credits my judgement. Being swayed an iota seems to be a lesson to open your mind and be swayed. In your response you never once proved me wrong you only attempted to discredit the articles by citing your interpretation of the background of the writers but not once supplying contradictory evidence . 2018 might be compromised by no message from the Democratic Party. Trump was elected by the denial of reality . Confirmation bias is a pitiful stab. I came on this sight telling you how and why Trump would probably win and I was right. I didn't change a thing from the time I entered this forum and that totally discredits you accusation of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore I gave you a chance to prove Hillary's accomplishments and you told me to look at how she helped foster children. I did and found out that they age out, are given no substantial transitory help and significant numbers end up homeless. That is a delusional perception of giving aid to the foster children . Why don't you show me how Hillary helped foster children and I will be happy to acknowledge the accomplishment . I have been consistent and outspoken in all my beliefs. Unless you can sight confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance I think you need to retract those accusations.

    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst."

    Just sight one instance!!!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, You said "I for one do not accept verbatim everything that Reich says because he is also a founding member of the union funded Economic Policy Institute and has to tow the union line."

    The title of the thread talks about getting the vote. What you said above seems to be inconsistent with getting the vote. Do you think unions are at odds with the Democratic Party ? What could be wrong with "tow the union line"? What could unions want or do to cause you to discredit Reich?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    No I support Robert Reich on perhaps 95 percent of the issues he talks about. I just disagreed with what he said in the article you shared from 2014. And he admitted that his memory was fuzzy about his tenure in the Clinton White House. Now take a look at Reich's views on Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs. I agree with him 100 percent on that issue. And I was pleased that he went against the unions on this one for the reason Reich stated in the video clip.

    Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, on the other hand, stands firmly behind Trump on his steel and aluminum tariffs. He appeared on MSNBC to argue his case and also issued a statement in support of the tariffs.

    Richard Trumpka: Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Good for Working People

    Trumpka looks at issues only from the standpoint of his small demographic. If he had considered the bigger picture of how trade wars are bad for the American worker and consumer, he would be singing a different tune. Thankfully Robert Reich recognized that and shared his opposing views on the tariffs. Likewise, Reich has parted ways with the Economic Policy Institute on this issue as well. Quite predictably the EPI towed the union line.

    EPI: Trade remedies for steel and aluminum were long overdue

    The Democratic Party has historically supported unions, but on this issue of trade tariffs I would expect we'll be somewhat divided...some supporting the Trumpka position and others opposed for the reasons stated by Robert Reich. For me personally, I have never crossed a picket line in my entire life and have been a supporter of their union positions perhaps 95 percent of the time. But on trade and tariffs I am in disagreement with them.

    I'm still waiting on Bernie Sanders to chime in. I would expect based on his campaign rhetoric that he will be supportive of the Trump tariffs and trade war that will likely arise as a result. But no public statements yet, at least that I am aware of. Maybe today. Maybe he has to do some private polling first before he can decide what his position is..

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Trump should have been annihilated in the 2016 election by a billion dollar campaign against him. You guys didn't understand the plight of the people and still don't. You call attention to the background of the articles I sighted as if it discredits the truth. You in particular tried multiple times to silence me during the campaign silence me citing rules of the forum about about hindering a candidate. Well, everything I said turned out to be correct. You say that nothing you say seems to sway me one iota. Well since you were wrong about everything I would say that credits my judgement. Being swayed an iota seems to be a lesson to open your mind and be swayed. In your response you never once proved me wrong you only attempted to discredit the articles by citing your interpretation of the background of the writers but not once supplying contradictory evidence . 2018 might be compromised by no message from the Democratic Party. Trump was elected by the denial of reality . Confirmation bias is a pitiful stab. I came on this sight telling you how and why Trump would probably win and I was right. I didn't change a thing from the time I entered this forum and that totally discredits you accusation of cognitive dissonance. Furthermore I gave you a chance to prove Hillary's accomplishments and you told me to look at how she helped foster children. I did and found out that they age out, are given no substantial transitory help and significant numbers end up homeless. That is a delusional perception of giving aid to the foster children . Why don't you show me how Hillary helped foster children and I will be happy to acknowledge the accomplishment . I have been consistent and outspoken in all my beliefs. Unless you can sight confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance I think you need to retract those accusations.

    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst."

    Just sight one instance!!!

    Your post provides confirmation of my "diagnosis". I want to move onto what Democrats could/should do to help their chances in the midterm elections and not waste valuable time relitigating the 2016 election. You and Trump are the two people that are still dumping on Hillary.

    I still see lots of division in the Democratic Party...maybe even worse than in 2016. Not sure how that will translate into votes for the various state and local offices, but I'll have a better idea after our caucuses tomorrow (March 6th). Amongst other business we'll select our candidate for governor. The Colorado Democrats have some good candidates to choose from but my favorite based on my considerable research is Mike Johnston. I'll be curious about the turn-out and who we end up supporting. My precinct includes all the dorms for the UCCS campus. Should have a very young turnout.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Has it ever looked better and now the most nationally acceptable candidate is polling a double digit lead over the next Democrat::

    Will ideologues cost Democratic Victories?

    "And that same CNN poll showed Democrats taking a nearly unheard-of 18-point lead in the 2018 midterm generic ballot, becoming just the latest poll to show a very bad environment for not just Trump but his party, too."

    "4 days ago · Ted Cruz told supporters that Democrats would “crawl over broken glass in November to vote,” warning that Republicans “could get obliterated at the .."

    " Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll: Biden Holds Double-digit Lead Over Field of 2020 ...
    theharrispoll.com › harvard-caps-..."


    “Biden is now emerging as a very early front- runner — he beats handily even the celebrity candidates that have been floated,” said Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll co-director Mark Penn

    Everything is pointing toward Democrats. Can the ideologues read the writing on the Wall ?? Biden would not consider running before but will new polling help him decide? Will messaging become an asset from a good introspective examination ?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Everything is pointing toward Democrats. Can the ideologues read the writing on the Wall ?? Biden would not consider running before but will new polling help him decide? Will messaging become an asset from a good introspective examination ?

    I don't know, Chet. Can the ideologues read the writing on the wall? You're the one who said "Bernie is the way and "anybody but Bernie" is a loser plan."

    Far left ideologues cost Democrats victory in 2016 and they very well may cost us victory in 2018 and 2020.

    The House is so gerrymandered that it will take a concerted effort by Democrats to coalesce around ONE candidate in every one of the 435 Congressional districts in order to stand a chance of retaking the lower chamber.

    The Senate map is so depressing that it's going to take a damn miracle to win back the majority, let alone keep the number of seats we currently have. Democrats are defending ten seats in states won by Donald and we are also defending 26 seats compared to the Republicans 8, so a divisive primary season would be akin to shooting ourselves in both feet and then signing up for the Boston marathon.

    All I to do is look what just happened in California to be extremely worried about this year.


    I get it. You love Bernie. Bernie is your hero and "anybody but Bernie" is a loser, but it's actually Bernie who is the loser. Bernie lost the Democratic Primary by millions of votes. You can bring up any retort you want that tries to discredit the fact that he lost by millions of votes, but the fact of the matter is that he asked the Democratic Party for their Presidential nomination in 2016 and he was overwhelmingly denied the opportunity by the very people he asked to lead.

    What I took from Bernie's Huuuuge loss in the Democratic Primary is that the people heard him out and decided that they were going another route. Those same people gave Hillary Clinton an overwhelming popular vote victory in the 2016 Presidential election. The system - not the people - decided otherwise.

    What you and so many Bernie or busters took from that was that you just need to dig deeper. "All we have to do is PROVE that Bernie is Jesus reincarnate and then everyone will see the light!!!" (Note - when a source isn't given for a quote, it means the writer is being sarcastic.)

    And what Republicans (and Russia) took from it is that all they have to do is continue to pit the Democratic Party against itself to win election after election.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chuck Todd & Co. on Meet The Press sort of predicted Texas going purple in upcoming elections. Democrats need to pick up quite a few seats to gain a house and senate majority.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Everything is pointing toward Democrats. Can the ideologues read the writing on the Wall ?? Biden would not consider running before but will new polling help him decide? Will messaging become an asset from a good introspective examination ?

    I don't know, Chet. Can the ideologues read the writing on the wall? You're the one who said "Bernie is the way and "anybody but Bernie" is a loser plan."

    Far left ideologues cost Democrats victory in 2016 and they very well may cost us victory in 2018 and 2020.

    The House is so gerrymandered that it will take a concerted effort by Democrats to coalesce around ONE candidate in every one of the 435 Congressional districts in order to stand a chance of retaking the lower chamber.

    The Senate map is so depressing that it's going to take a damn miracle to win back the majority, let alone keep the number of seats we currently have. Democrats are defending ten seats in states won by Donald and we are also defending 26 seats compared to the Republicans 8, so a divisive primary season would be akin to shooting ourselves in both feet and then signing up for the Boston marathon.

    All I to do is look what just happened in California to be extremely worried about this year.


    I get it. You love Bernie. Bernie is your hero and "anybody but Bernie" is a loser, but it's actually Bernie who is the loser. Bernie lost the Democratic Primary by millions of votes. You can bring up any retort you want that tries to discredit the fact that he lost by millions of votes, but the fact of the matter is that he asked the Democratic Party for their Presidential nomination in 2016 and he was overwhelmingly denied the opportunity by the very people he asked to lead.

    What I took from Bernie's Huuuuge loss in the Democratic Primary is that the people heard him out and decided that they were going another route. Those same people gave Hillary Clinton an overwhelming popular vote victory in the 2016 Presidential election. The system - not the people - decided otherwise.

    What you and so many Bernie or busters took from that was that you just need to dig deeper. "All we have to do is PROVE that Bernie is Jesus reincarnate and then everyone will see the light!!!" (Note - when a source isn't given for a quote, it means the writer is being sarcastic.)

    And what Republicans (and Russia) took from it is that all they have to do is continue to pit the Democratic Party against itself to win election after election.

    Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll: Biden Holds Double-digit Lead Over Field of 2020 ...
    theharrispoll.com › harvard-caps-..."

    I was against Hillary because I didn't think she could win. Bernie was the only choice at the time . As I have stated before I didn't think he had a chance as an announced socialist but he had a message that could win and was the only Democrat with a winning message. The country is more conservative than anything else. That is certainly obvious by Biden being ahead as the poll above suggests. If he runs he will be virtually unbeatable. I have no problem supporting a Democrat that can win. The only negative Biden has is he is not Hillary. The Hillary or busters are alive and chomping at the bit. The Hillary or busters can see absolutely no negatives and think Hillary deserves the presidency . What they need to do now if they want her to be president is come out guns blazing last week. If they sit behind the scenes waiting til the last minute it will be a bitter horrible fight because the other candidates will have been building their support. So it is now or never Hillary or busters if they want to represent a unified party.