td11 wrote:

Grotewold wrote:IDK, I'm kind of warming to the candidate with conviction who's right about everything

The funny thing is that most ppl’s objections to sanders are usually about his personality (too loud, rude, antagonistic), that his supporters online are too mean, and that he’ll never get anything through the republican held senate. It is rarely the case that the person actually disagrees with things like universal healthcare, free college, taxing billionaires. At least that’s my sense of it

Also, msnbc needs to put Chris Matthews and Nicole wallace on suicide watch. They were irate and downright depressed on tv all evening yesterday

azrider wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Squire wrote:Recognizing that I'm not a Sanders supporter, the one logic that is escaping me is that somehow Bernie hurts down ballot races? I don't even get the theory behind that? That his supporters hate the Dem establishment so much that they would turn out and ONLY vote for Sanders?

The concern is that DNC types will hold their nose and vote for Bernie, but then vote GOP down ballot to ensure he doesn’t achieve any legislative success. I think this fear is based on emotion, rather than evidence.

Especially in these divisive times I don’t see many Dems voting for anyone with an (R) next to their name.

Bernie would be wise to remind voters that this election is largely about preserving RBG’s seat and underscore how crucial having the majority in the Senate will be to ensure his nominee to fill her spot is approved.

a sanders nomination is a mcsally victory here in az. probably her only chance to win, to be honest.

Augustus wrote:

td11 wrote:

Grotewold wrote:IDK, I'm kind of warming to the candidate with conviction who's right about everything

The funny thing is that most ppl’s objections to sanders are usually about his personality (too loud, rude, antagonistic), that his supporters online are too mean, and that he’ll never get anything through the republican held senate. It is rarely the case that the person actually disagrees with things like universal healthcare, free college, taxing billionaires. At least that’s my sense of it

Also, msnbc needs to put Chris Matthews and Nicole wallace on suicide watch. They were irate and downright depressed on tv all evening yesterday

They do disagree with those things. It’s just that they (establishment Democrats, elite media) don’t want to show their ass by arguing against them, so they bring up the other stuff. Lot of people out there who like to pat themselves on the back for being “progressive,” and they don’t like Bernie and the left wing of the party challenging that. They want credit for being pro-gay marriage and having a black friend. When questioned about their support for a foreign policy that kills innocent people all over the world or a health care system that bankrupts people, they bring up Bernie people being mean online.

td11 wrote:someone else mentioned the usual "how will we pay for it" question. pacino has said it in here before but that question is never ever asked of Congress when they are passing tax cuts for the wealthy, or record military budgets, or subsidies for corporations. there is already socialism for the rich and powerful in this country. hell, trump continues to never explain how anything will be paid for and gets away with it. no one in congress gives a #$!&@ about the "exploding" deficit anymore. we had folks providing us regular updates on how bad the deficit was during the obama years. a lot of mainstream media, and especially "liberal" strongholds like NYT and MSNBC, is extremely guilty for constantly leading with that framing when it comes to Bernie's agenda.

we can afford all these things, it is a matter of political will (and taxing the #$!&@ out of the ultra rich)

Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Mike Rogers said the plan to bring coronavirus patients to Alabama has been cancelled.

Shelby tweeted he had been informed by the president the evacuees from the Princess Cruise ship won’t be coming to the Anniston-based Center for Domestic Preparedness.

“I just got off the phone with the President. He told me that his administration will not be sending any victims of the coronavirus from the Diamond Princess cruise ship to Anniston, Alabama. Thank you @POTUS.”

PSUsarge wrote:

td11 wrote:someone else mentioned the usual "how will we pay for it" question. pacino has said it in here before but that question is never ever asked of Congress when they are passing tax cuts for the wealthy, or record military budgets, or subsidies for corporations. there is already socialism for the rich and powerful in this country. hell, trump continues to never explain how anything will be paid for and gets away with it. no one in congress gives a #$!&@ about the "exploding" deficit anymore. we had folks providing us regular updates on how bad the deficit was during the obama years. a lot of mainstream media, and especially "liberal" strongholds like NYT and MSNBC, is extremely guilty for constantly leading with that framing when it comes to Bernie's agenda.

we can afford all these things, it is a matter of political will (and taxing the #$!&@ out of the ultra rich)

I don't necessarily disagree with this but besides the "taxing the #$!&@ out of the ultra rich" part that isn't Bernie's plan, unless I am missing something big.

da_bad_ass wrote:[cutting back military spending and ending corporate welfare are definitely part of bernie's plan

Warszawa wrote:The anti-bernies point to the recent election in the UK where the liberal guy got smashed by the trump-like boris. I didn’t follow it but I’m sure there must be differences?

td11 wrote:The funny thing is that most ppl’s objections to sanders are usually about his personality (too loud, rude, antagonistic), that his supporters online are too mean, and that he’ll never get anything through the republican held senate. It is rarely the case that the person actually disagrees with things like universal healthcare, free college, taxing billionaires. At least that’s my sense of it

jerseyhoya wrote:

Squire wrote:Recognizing that I'm not a Sanders supporter, the one logic that is escaping me is that somehow Bernie hurts down ballot races? I don't even get the theory behind that? That his supporters hate the Dem establishment so much that they would turn out and ONLY vote for Sanders?

I think the theory is Sanders has relative strengths and weaknesses vs. a generic Democrat, and where he is relatively weak are places the Democrats have vulnerability on the House side and where most of the opportunities are on the Senate side.

He is stronger among young voters so may run up the score in cities and may be better positioned than some to win Obama/Trump voters in more rural or white working class areas. But is likely to be weaker among the upper middle class suburban swing voter type where the Democrats built their House majority in 2018. A lot of freshmen represent districts that were very close in 2016, so the fear is if Trump is winning their suburban districts by more than a point or two, he'll pull the Republican challenger along with him.

Also regionally in the country I think there's a presumption he'll do better in the rust belt Pennsylvania to Wisconsin stretch that's important to the electoral college, but less so to the Senate map this year. And there's a presumption he'll be relatively weaker in the sun belt, which is where more of the potential Dem takeovers are (NC, GA x2, AZ) that they'll need if they want a majority.

Conventional wisdom has not batted 1.000 over the past five years so maybe his actual performance won't match it, but that's the theory.

jerseyhoya wrote:You were posting about not voting for Bloomberg, no?