Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

[Jolly_Penguin]

The independent vote is routinely overestimated by Democrats every time and it kicks them in the ass every time. You'd be saying exactly the same thing about Obama right now if Clinton ran against McCain and was beaten

The indie vote gave Obama Indiana and almost Montana.

Obama was a much much much better campaigner. Its night and day. Its hope and change vs politics as usual dialogue. Not that President Obama actually proved to be what candidate Obama promised.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hey Koy, I'm curious, if Bernie does win the Dem nomination, will you vote for him or for Trump?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The independent vote is routinely overestimated by Democrats every time and it kicks them in the ass every time. You'd be saying exactly the same thing about Obama right now if Clinton ran against McCain and was beaten

The indie vote gave Obama Indiana and almost Montana.

Obama was a much much much better campaigner. Its night and day. Its hope and change vs politics as usual dialogue. Not that President Obama actually proved to be what candidate Obama promised.

Obama also had a 4 year head start in '04. He was groomed for that run.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nonsense.



They lied and paid off veterans to lie about his record! Their strategy has even become a term of art ffs describing exactly that. Iow, they swiftboated him.

Could it be that he had no redeeming qualities other than his reputation

Wow. And, just for fun, how exactly did he get "his reputation" if he had no redeeming qualities?

But, more importantly, are you seriously suggesting that Bernie Sanders is a saint? Or that he's beyond being swiftboated? Love him or loath him, Eichenwald put it best:

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn't mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don't attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there's the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont's nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words "environmental racist" on Republican billboards. And if you can't, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,'' while President Daniel Ortega condemned "state terrorism" by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was "patriotic."

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don't know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

And that's just how he might fare against the Trump/GOP noise machine, leaving out the effect of the Russian clandestine warfare and barely touching on the negative effects on the 75 million Democrats who wanted Hillary, not Sanders had he ever had even a ghost of a chance in the primaries and miraculously won against her.

Or do you have it as part of your fantasy that all Democrats rose up against Hillary and everyone voted only for Sanders in the primaries?

Yes, the vast majority of Dems would have voted for him in the general in the unlikely event he had managed to beat Hillary in the primaries--because unlike turncoat Sanders' supporters, Hillary supporters followed their heads not their dreams because it's a fucking job interview, not Church--but there's no way in hell anyone could just say, "He would have received exactly the same number of votes--or MORE--than Hillary did, therefore he would have beaten Trump." She holds the third place record ffs, having almost matched Obama's 2012 second place record and having received more raw votes than any white President in US history.

Blacks, Hispanics, Women and untold millions of the exact middle class whites in the heartlands that Sanders bots think would have just automatically voted for him in droves in the same numbers they voted for Hillary (because they've convinced themselves that no one--not one single Dem--voted for Hillary without holding their nose--would be the exact ones targeted to either vote against Sanders or just not to vote at all and it would have been a VERY easy sell by simply painting Sanders as he comes across; a "New York Commie Jew" out to steal your money.

And that's before he started advocating that the Democratic party ignore blacks and hispanics and instead focus primarily on under educated white rural males and threw all Democratic women under the bus by seriously arguing that we dump abortion in order to attract pro-lifers!

Again, why do you think the Trump camp, the GOP and the Russians all supported Sanders against Clinton?

That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about who they thought would be the easier opponent to defeat in the general, but you always avoid addressing that simple fact.

You need to stop posting for a minute and admit to yourself that it's not "the electorate" or "the independents" who will have a problem with Bernie's socialism--it's you.

Jimmy has never struck me as someone who has a problem with socialism, but I most definitely have no problem at all with anything Bernie proposed--because, as I've pointed out many times previously--it's not socialism, it's just the DNC platform that we've always run. Regardless, if you can't comprehend how Sanders would have been attacked by the right--and how easy it would have been to defeat him accordingly--then you're just following your messiah and have left the planet.

And that's fine, vote for whoever you think represents your preferences.

WRONG! It's not about YOU, it's a fucking job! It was exactly that idiotic mindset that caused many slivers to fuck us all and take their vote OFF of the solution and onto Trump!

But by far, the most energized and militant sector of the Democratic base has zero problems with it and if they come out in the numbers that have been routinely packing every Sanders campaign event, and take their reluctant blue-ballot centrist friends with them, Trump is toast

Yeah, when have we heard that exact same tautology? Oh, right, in the 2015 primaries. How did that work out?

and the independents can go back to being the irrelevant political force they've always been.

Independents outnumber Dems.

Very true. Independents outnumber Dems and conservatives. According to the data (see link below), the amount of people self identifying themselves as liberal has dramatically increased. It's the fastest growing movement. Thank you Bernie. However, they still far lag behind people identifying themselves as conservatives and moderates! Liberals are currently at 26% of the vote; conservatives at 35% and moderates at 35%. So, the dems can't win unless we get enough moderates to vote democratic.



https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Independents outnumber Dems.

Very true. Independents outnumber Dems and conservatives. According to the data (see link below), the amount of people self identifying themselves as liberal has dramatically increased. It's the fastest growing movement. Thank you Bernie.

Um, yeah, no. Why do people post links and then not actually read their own sources? The very first thing written is (emphasis mine):

Continuing a quarter-century trend, the term "liberal" continues to catch up with "conservative" as Americans' preferred description of their political views.

That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. They even spell it out later (emphasis mine):

Almost all of the shift since 2001 toward the liberal label is the result of Democrats increasingly adopting the term. As a result, the Democratic Party has moved from a fairly mixed party ideologically at the start of the century to one that is now decidedly left-leaning.

In 2001, nearly as many Democrats identified as conservative (25%) as liberal (30%), while the largest segment, 44%, were moderate. Since then, the percentage of Democrats identifying as liberal has risen by about a point a year, reaching 50% this year for the first time.

A point a year since 2001. If Sanders had anything to do with that, we'd see greater spikes starting in 2015 and then progressing larger and larger through 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

However, they still far lag behind people identifying themselves as conservatives and moderates! Liberals are currently at 26% of the vote; conservatives at 35% and moderates at 35%. So, the dems can't win unless we get enough moderates to vote democratic.

No, again. Your source is referring to voters within the Democratic party self-assessing their Democratic stance relative to other Democrats; i.e., I am a "conservative Democrat" or a "moderate Democrat" compared to my hippie cousin, who is a "far left Democrat" or the like.

So they will ALL be voting Democrat.

What I was referring to are the Independents that are NOT affiliated with any one party; or at least consider themselves unaffiliated. Here's a better breakdown by the PEW Center:

Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics.

Among the public overall, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2018. These shares have changed only modestly in recent years, but the proportion of independents is higher than it was from 2000-2008, when no more than about a third of the public identified as independents.

An overwhelming majority of independents (81%) continue to “lean” toward either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Among the public overall, 17% are Democratic-leaning independents, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party. Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.
...
In a survey conducted last fall, shortly after the midterm elections, partisan leaners were less likely than partisans to say they registered to vote and voted in the congressional elections. About half of Democratic-leaning independents (48%) said they voted, compared with 59% of Democrats. The differences were comparable between GOP leaners (54% said they voted) and Republicans (61%).

Those who do not lean toward a party – a group that consistently expresses less interest in politics than partisan leaners – were less likely to say they had registered to vote and much less likely to say they voted. In fact, just a third said they voted in the midterms.

In addition, independents differ demographically from partisans. Men constitute a majority (56%) of independents. That is higher than the share of men among Republican identifiers (51% are men) and much higher than the share of men among Democrats (just 40%).

Among independents, men make up a sizable share (64%) of Republican leaners and a smaller majority (55%) of independents who do not lean. Democratic leaners include roughly equal shares of men (51%) and women (49%).

Independents also are younger on average than are partisans. Fewer than half of independents (37%) are ages 50 and older; among those who identify as Democrats, 48% are 50 and older, as are a majority (54%) of those who identify as Republicans.
...
As in the past, more independents describe their political views as moderate (43%) than conservative (29%) or liberal (24%). These shares have changed little in recent years.
...
Since 2000, there have been sizable increases in the shares of both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who identify as conservative. Today, more Republican-leaning independents describe themselves as conservatives (51%) than as moderates (39%) or liberals (8%). In 2000, GOP leaners included almost identical shares of conservatives (42%) and moderates (43%); 11% described their views as liberal.

Over the same period, there has been growth in the shares of Democrats and Democratic leaners identifying as liberal. Among Democratic-leaning independents, slightly more identify as moderates (45%) than as liberals (39%), while 14% are conservatives. But the gap has narrowed since 2000, when moderates outnumbered liberals, 50% to 30%.

By contrast, moderates continue to make up the largest share of independents who do not lean to a party. Nearly half of independents who do not lean to a party describe their views as moderate, while 24% are conservatives and 18% are liberals. These numbers have changed little since 2000.

There's much much more, of course, and I highly recommend a deeper dive, but for our purposes it's important to reiterate the following:

Among the public overall, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2018. These shares have changed only modestly in recent years, but the proportion of independents is higher than it was from 2000-2008, when no more than about a third of the public identified as independents.

An overwhelming majority of independents (81%) continue to “lean” toward either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Among the public overall, 17% are Democratic-leaning independents, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party. Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.

So, the relevant math on that is: 38% Indie out of the general public; 17% of that 38% lean Democrat. So the potential swing--the ones we want to target--are the 13% that lean Republican and the 7% that generally don't give a fuck.

Here's the breakdown in a graph:



So, not surprisingly, the largest block are evidently undereducated (i.e., college dropouts at best), white males aged 30-49. Sanders' appeal was primarily to college educated under 30 females who were black, believe it or not. Here's a snapshot of the YouGov poll from May of 2015:



If you add the "very favorable" and the "somewhat favorable" categories together the ideal Sanders voter turns out to be female (51%); under 30 (63%); black (64%); Democrat (68%; with a "liberal" ideology 77%); and working poor (52%).

But back to the idea that Sanders has had any impact at all among Independents, specifically, note also (emphasis mine):

The share of Americans who have a positive view of one party and a negative view of the other has increased since 2015 (from 58%). Over the same period, there has been a decline in the share expressing a negative view of both parties, from 23% in 2015 to 17% currently.

Independents who lean toward a party are less likely than partisans to view their party favorably. In addition, far more independents (28%) than Republicans (10%) or Democrats (9%) have an unfavorable opinion of both parties.

Still, the share of independents who view both parties negatively has declined in recent years. At one point in 2015, more than a third of independents (36%) viewed both parties unfavorably.

Most of the change since then has come among Republican-leaning independents, who feel much more positively about the GOP than they did then. In July 2015, just 44% of GOP leaners had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party; 47% had an unfavorable view of both parties. Today, a majority of GOP leaners view the Republican Party favorably (55%), while just 24% view both parties unfavorably.
...
Over the past two decades, Republicans and Democrats have come to view the opposing party more negatively. The same trend is evident among independents who lean toward a party.
...
Perhaps more important, intense dislike of the opposing party, which has surged over the past two decades among partisans, has followed a similar trajectory among independents who lean toward the Republican and Democratic parties.
...
The share of Democratic-leaning independents with a very unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party has more than quadrupled between 1994 and 2018 (from 8% to 37%). There has been a similar trend in how Republican leaners view the Democratic Party; very unfavorable opinions have increased from 15% in 1994 to 39% in 2018.

So, again, Sanders doesn't even blip in any of that. It started with Bill Clinton and the nascent poison of the "information superhighway" that piqued in 2016 as the now fully weaponized isolationist gaslighter highway we have today.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nonsense.



They lied and paid off veterans to lie about his record! Their strategy has even become a term of art ffs describing exactly that. Iow, they swiftboated him.



Wow. And, just for fun, how exactly did he get "his reputation" if he had no redeeming qualities?

But, more importantly, are you seriously suggesting that Bernie Sanders is a saint? Or that he's beyond being swiftboated? Love him or loath him, Eichenwald put it best:



And that's just how he might fare against the Trump/GOP noise machine, leaving out the effect of the Russian clandestine warfare and barely touching on the negative effects on the 75 million Democrats who wanted Hillary, not Sanders had he ever had even a ghost of a chance in the primaries and miraculously won against her.

Or do you have it as part of your fantasy that all Democrats rose up against Hillary and everyone voted only for Sanders in the primaries?

Yes, the vast majority of Dems would have voted for him in the general in the unlikely event he had managed to beat Hillary in the primaries--because unlike turncoat Sanders' supporters, Hillary supporters followed their heads not their dreams because it's a fucking job interview, not Church--but there's no way in hell anyone could just say, "He would have received exactly the same number of votes--or MORE--than Hillary did, therefore he would have beaten Trump." She holds the third place record ffs, having almost matched Obama's 2012 second place record and having received more raw votes than any white President in US history.

Blacks, Hispanics, Women and untold millions of the exact middle class whites in the heartlands that Sanders bots think would have just automatically voted for him in droves in the same numbers they voted for Hillary (because they've convinced themselves that no one--not one single Dem--voted for Hillary without holding their nose--would be the exact ones targeted to either vote against Sanders or just not to vote at all and it would have been a VERY easy sell by simply painting Sanders as he comes across; a "New York Commie Jew" out to steal your money.

And that's before he started advocating that the Democratic party ignore blacks and hispanics and instead focus primarily on under educated white rural males and threw all Democratic women under the bus by seriously arguing that we dump abortion in order to attract pro-lifers!

Again, why do you think the Trump camp, the GOP and the Russians all supported Sanders against Clinton?

That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about who they thought would be the easier opponent to defeat in the general, but you always avoid addressing that simple fact.

You need to stop posting for a minute and admit to yourself that it's not "the electorate" or "the independents" who will have a problem with Bernie's socialism--it's you.

Jimmy has never struck me as someone who has a problem with socialism, but I most definitely have no problem at all with anything Bernie proposed--because, as I've pointed out many times previously--it's not socialism, it's just the DNC platform that we've always run. Regardless, if you can't comprehend how Sanders would have been attacked by the right--and how easy it would have been to defeat him accordingly--then you're just following your messiah and have left the planet.

And that's fine, vote for whoever you think represents your preferences.

WRONG! It's not about YOU, it's a fucking job! It was exactly that idiotic mindset that caused many slivers to fuck us all and take their vote OFF of the solution and onto Trump!

But by far, the most energized and militant sector of the Democratic base has zero problems with it and if they come out in the numbers that have been routinely packing every Sanders campaign event, and take their reluctant blue-ballot centrist friends with them, Trump is toast

Yeah, when have we heard that exact same tautology? Oh, right, in the 2015 primaries. How did that work out?

and the independents can go back to being the irrelevant political force they've always been.

Independents outnumber Dems.

Very true. Independents outnumber Dems and conservatives. According to the data (see link below), the amount of people self identifying themselves as liberal has dramatically increased. It's the fastest growing movement. Thank you Bernie. However, they still far lag behind people identifying themselves as conservatives and moderates! Liberals are currently at 26% of the vote; conservatives at 35% and moderates at 35%. So, the dems can't win unless we get enough moderates to vote democratic.



https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx

In most of the rest of the first world things like universal health care and free education are moderate positions.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In most of the rest of the first world things like universal health care and free education are moderate positions.

And have been a part of the Democratic platform for several decades now. Indeed, it's because of Democrats that we already have "free education" (i.e., government subsidies for public education for those who cannot otherwise afford it) and any kind of universal health care at all.

It's so weird how Democrats/Liberals are the more intelligent voting block and yet so often ignorant of everything that came prior to their awakening into the body politic. If it isn't 100% perfect and/or magically imposed, it doesn't count.

I have to give Sanders that much. He's fooled many people into thinking that he alone came up with everything the real Democrats have been desperately fighting for over the last half a century or more, while he just whined ineffectually, glommed onto the DNC when it suited him and traded his vote for pet projects no matter what the bill might also entail.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders was a wake up call to liberals to stop selling out to corporations and to stop folding in to Republicans. He sparked a new wave of progressives pushing hard rather than giving in or selling out. The ideas are not new. But the push is. Obama didn't even TRY for single payer. It would have been one thing to push for it and fail, and settle for what you got, but he didn't even try for it. Hillary called what Sanders called for in 2016 "magical ponies" because she'd been beaten down and sold out long ago. What Sanders wanted in 2016 has now become part of the platforms of numerous Democrats running in this election for the nomination. He most definitely made a difference and should be credit for it, regardless of if he ever becomes president.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well considering he's now leading or tied with Biden in the first four primary states, he's got a shot. If he wins, it will be because (and only because) masses of people who don't usually vote decided to do so. That, in itself, is the basis of the political program he advocates. If those people are mad enough to vote, and stay mad, and get used to channeling their anger into organization, there's a real chance that the country will start to transform. That doesn't happen if Warren wins, because her voters are just your usual wealthier, whiter, more educated, comfortably middle class policy nerds who respond to superficial identity characteristics and slogans, and have only read the Harry Potter series of books. She's not terrible, but she's not an option if you want this country to change from the bottom up.

Which is why, despite Bernie having the largest polling gains of any candidate since the last debate and actually overtaking Biden in New Hampshire, all the mainstream news outlets are framing the next one like this:

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The ideas are not new. But the push is.

Oh, the push is what's new. Ohhhh, well, yeah, that makes all the difference in the world, because, before Sanders, nobody in Congress or the White House ever pushed anyone before.

Ok, got it! Thanks!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well considering he's now leading or tied with Biden in the first four primary states, he's got a shot. If he wins, it will be because (and only because) masses of people who don't usually vote decided to do so. That, in itself, is the basis of the political program he advocates. If those people are mad enough to vote, and stay mad, and get used to channeling their anger into organization, there's a real chance that the country will start to transform.

Yes, NEVER vote with your brain. Only your anger. Righteous anger! Gooooood. I can feel it....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sanders was a wake up call to liberals to stop selling out to corporations and to stop folding in to Republicans. He sparked a new wave of progressives pushing hard rather than giving in or selling out. The ideas are not new. But the push is. Obama didn't even TRY for single payer. It would have been one thing to push for it and fail, and settle for what you got, but he didn't even try for it.

I'm so tired of that bullshit line. They got ACA through by one vote in the Senate (filibuster) and 3 votes in the House, and it took a little creativity with parliament rules to do even accomplish that! Lieberman and Nelson along with a Wagstaff GOP ensured a single payer was never going to be on the table.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well considering he's now leading or tied with Biden in the first four primary states, he's got a shot. If he wins, it will be because (and only because) masses of people who don't usually vote decided to do so. That, in itself, is the basis of the political program he advocates. If those people are mad enough to vote, and stay mad, and get used to channeling their anger into organization, there's a real chance that the country will start to transform. That doesn't happen if Warren wins, because her voters are just your usual wealthier, whiter, more educated, comfortably middle class policy nerds who respond to superficial identity characteristics and slogans, and have only read the Harry Potter series of books. She's not terrible, but she's not an option if you want this country to change from the bottom up.

Which is why, despite Bernie having the largest polling gains of any candidate since the last debate and actually overtaking Biden in New Hampshire, all the mainstream news outlets are framing the next one like this:

Warren is the biggest rival, she has also improved the most in the national polls as exhibited here. The question is, who are the last two or so to fight it out. Right now, it is a three horse race, with Harris waiting to show people that she did well in the last debate, trying to make it a four horse race. Ultimately, it isn't Biden (77) or Sanders (79). They are just way too old for the job.

Warren (71), in my opinion is too old, but she is gaining steam. I remember how Hillary Clinton was allegedly in frail health. I can't imagine what they'll say about Warren.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well considering he's now leading or tied with Biden in the first four primary states, he's got a shot. If he wins, it will be because (and only because) masses of people who don't usually vote decided to do so. That, in itself, is the basis of the political program he advocates. If those people are mad enough to vote, and stay mad, and get used to channeling their anger into organization, there's a real chance that the country will start to transform. That doesn't happen if Warren wins, because her voters are just your usual wealthier, whiter, more educated, comfortably middle class policy nerds who respond to superficial identity characteristics and slogans, and have only read the Harry Potter series of books. She's not terrible, but she's not an option if you want this country to change from the bottom up.

Which is why, despite Bernie having the largest polling gains of any candidate since the last debate and actually overtaking Biden in New Hampshire, all the mainstream news outlets are framing the next one like this:

Warren is the biggest rival, she has also improved the most in the national polls as exhibited here.

National polls for a primary that's decided by a series of statewide votes. I'm more interested in the states, especially the early ones that have a windfall effect on everything afterward.

The question is, who are the last two or so to fight it out. Right now, it is a three horse race, with Harris waiting to show people that she did well in the last debate, trying to make it a four horse race. Ultimately, it isn't Biden (77) or Sanders (79). They are just way too old for the job.

That's... just not borne out by the data, I'm sorry. You start the paragraph describing what the poll results say, and end it with your preference of who should be the winner. This is a thread about media coverage. The news outlets should not be in the business of ignoring or undercutting candidates because they privately believe them to be too old. You can do that all you like, but it's simply disingenuous coverage.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders was a wake up call to liberals to stop selling out to corporations and to stop folding in to Republicans. He sparked a new wave of progressives pushing hard rather than giving in or selling out. The ideas are not new. But the push is. Obama didn't even TRY for single payer. It would have been one thing to push for it and fail, and settle for what you got, but he didn't even try for it.

I'm so tired of that bullshit line. They got ACA through by one vote in the Senate (filibuster) and 3 votes in the House, and it took a little creativity with parliament rules to do even accomplish that! Lieberman and Nelson along with a Wagstaff GOP ensured a single payer was never going to be on the table.

Obama didn't TRY. As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing. He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me. He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's... just not borne out by the data, I'm sorry. You start the paragraph describing what the poll results say, and end it with your preference of who should be the winner. This is a thread about media coverage. The news outlets should not be in the business of ignoring or undercutting candidates because they privately believe them to be too old. You can do that all you like, but it's simply disingenuous coverage.

And it isn't just Bernie that they do it to. They do it to anyone who their corporate bosses want to marginalize. Yang has been omitted multiple times from reporting on second tier candidates and omitted from charts showing where they stand, despite polling higher than some of those who are featured and included.

 

[laughing dog]

Sanders was a wake up call to liberals to stop selling out to corporations and to stop folding in to Republicans. He sparked a new wave of progressives pushing hard rather than giving in or selling out. The ideas are not new. But the push is. Obama didn't even TRY for single payer. It would have been one thing to push for it and fail, and settle for what you got, but he didn't even try for it.

I'm so tired of that bullshit line. They got ACA through by one vote in the Senate (filibuster) and 3 votes in the House, and it took a little creativity with parliament rules to do even accomplish that! Lieberman and Nelson along with a Wagstaff GOP ensured a single payer was never going to be on the table.

Obama didn't TRY. As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing. He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me. He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.

I was not present at the planning stages (and neither were you), so we don't know Obama did not even "try". I recall that a public option was discussed in the media, which suggests it was being mooted. But the idea that we would have a Public Option today as possibility is a testament to persistence of hopeful ignorance over the unpleasant political realities of the times.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The ideas are not new. But the push is.

Oh, the push is what's new.

Yes. It was a new push after the mainstream Democrats of the time, represented by Hillary, had caved into lobbying from corporations and to Republicans. People were sick of empty platitudes and politics as usual. That's a big reason why Trump won. And a big reason why Bernie was able to do so surprisingly well in 2016, and come out of nowhere and actually come into contention. His energy and push for progressive policy is in large part why you have AOC and the green new deal and all these Democrats on that debate stage making overtures to the progressive left. Even people like Harris and Booker (who are long time corporate democrats) feel the pressure to talk the talk for the progressive wing. Biden is hanging on by this nails against not one but two top tier candidates who are pushing far to his left (one more than the other other, but both are far to his left).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Obama didn't TRY. As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing. He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me. He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.

I was not present at the planning stages (and neither were you), so we don't know Obama did not even "try". I recall that a public option was discussed in the media, which suggests it was being mooted. But the idea that we would have a Public Option today as possibility is a testament to persistence of hopeful ignorance over the unpleasant political realities of the times.

You'll never know if you carry a defeatist "Magical Ponies" attitude and don't try.

 

[PyramidHead]

Obama didn't TRY. As I wrote above, trying and failing would be one thing. He didn't even try. That speaks volumes to me. He could have started with universal single payer and then bargained down from there. If he had, you may have the "Public Option" today that he instead decided to start with.

I was not present at the planning stages (and neither were you), so we don't know Obama did not even "try". I recall that a public option was discussed in the media, which suggests it was being mooted. But the idea that we would have a Public Option today as possibility is a testament to persistence of hopeful ignorance over the unpleasant political realities of the times.

Obama didn't need to ditch all the grassroots and ACORN support that got him elected and nominate the likes of Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder. He didn't have to go to the insurance companies and Washington elites instead of the people who were caught in the crossfire to marshal support for his plan.