What will the Clintoncrats do if Bernie wins nomination?

[Ford]

No, the Democratic Party is destroying itself, by becoming republican lite.

I disagree.

The difference between the Republicans and the Democratic Party is that the former has become a "lockstep" party while the latter is still a "big tent." And that - in the current climate - is a bit of a weakness. There are still moderate or even mildly conservative Democrats that are welcomed into the party. Everything from fiery populists like Bernie to calm technocrats like Mayor Pete. They're all a different flavor of Democrat, but they all still fall on the liberal side of things.

Bernie supporters seem to be saying "the party must veer as far as possible to the left" and since Sanders is that guy, the entire party should pivot and get behind that sort of candidate (preferably Bernie). While I understand the appeal, I'm not so sure that veering to the left and focusing on "the base" (as the GOP has done) is the correct long-term strategy.

We support the policies instead of blindly supporting the party. Unfortunately with the system the way it is an actual independent is unlikely to get anywhere, so he has to work within a party. No one forgot he has been around Washington forever. But it is only recently that people have gotten to know about him and realize how good his proposals are. And talking points? Politicians kinda have to talk in talking points, because the news tends to tune out when you try to get detailed. Pathetic reality unfortunately

To the first point, you (and others in this thread) seem to be saying "we support the policies, and if the party isn't behind the policies of Bernie (or maybe Warren), then fuck them...the party is wrong." One of the things that stood out in the debate tonight (for me) was when Mayor Pete said that the party can't be exclusive...it has to be inclusive. A millionaire like Yang or a billionaire like Steyer deserve a place at the table alongside him and Biden and Bernie. And in a time where the other side happily accepts every penny of financial support from every conservative billionaire on the planet (including Russia), then going into the fight with hands tied behind their backs by denying donations or support from wealthy liberals is simply daft.

The term "Clintoncrats" used in the OP is divisive, and falls into the conspiratorial thinking that somehow a party conspiracy denied Bernie his rightful place at the top of the ticket in 2016, AND it plays into the GOP narrative, dividing the Democratic Party into the "establishment" and everyone else. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and it works. The right wing has been beating the "Hillary Clinton is evil" drum so loudly and for so long that a lot of progressives have actually bought into that characterization.

Finally, as for talking points, I'm gonna once again point to Pete Buttigieg. Yes, he has prepared remarks that he repeats. However, if you watch closely, you'll notice something different. When your typical politician is asked a question in a forum like tonight's debate or a town hall, they'll say "that's a good question" and proceed to launch into a speech that might have something to do with the question asked, but isn't really an answer. Pete actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking point form? Yes, but he has an answer.

It reminds me of McCain. Part of my job in the aftermath of 9/11 was editing pieces of interviews to put them on the air. The trick was to get a sound bite that fit into a time frame that served the purpose of whatever was being broadcast that day. The ideal was 30-40 seconds. After a very short time, I realized something about McCain (whom we interviewed quite a bit since he was our Senator): He spoke in 30-40 second sound bites. It was eerie. I rarely had to edit his answers for time. Later I brought that up to someone who had worked on his campaign, and asked if that was on purpose. She said it absolutely was. He'd practiced, and had a clock in his head. Not that every word was rehearsed, but that he was always aware of time, and was able to condense his thoughts into a concise point.

I think Pete has that skill.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If Bernie wins the nomination, what will the corporate Democrats (Clintoncrats) do next? Do you think they will stick with the drum beat of Trump-worst or do you predict movements for Trump over Bernie by them? I am uncertain. They have suffered a fake populist, but would their interests survive the real thing?

I see two options for them:

1. Awkwardly pretend they were Bernie fans all along, and make ostentatious attempts to "correct" or "contextualize" his more socialist-ish statements.

2. Run either Bloomberg or Clinton herself as a third party candidate, sacrificing the nation to Trump for the sake of a Pyrrhic victory on behalf of the moneyed classes.​

I hope they pick number one.

Or a third option, vote for the lessor evil. I've never understood why this is such a hated option. I'm a moderate. But I'll vote for the democratic nominee. Most democrats will rally and support the nominee to beat Trump. Everyone to the left of hard core conservative needs to come together and beat Trump. There are too many headwinds for us to be fucking babies. The electrical college, voter suppression, foreign bots, local county voting districts incompetence, and etc. all give republican incredible advantages. I think that our democracy is in great peril if we continue to allow a minority of conservatives to rule the country because the left can't come together.

 

[marc]

A millionaire like Yang or a billionaire like Steyer deserve a place at the table alongside him and Biden and Bernie. And in a time where the other side happily accepts every penny of financial support from every conservative billionaire on the planet (including Russia), then going into the fight with hands tied behind their backs by denying donations or support from wealthy liberals is simply daft.

Everyone can have A seat at the table. The problem is currently the billionaires and corporations buy up Every seat at the table, becoming the only voices heard by those politicians. We see it when someone is for healthcare reform, then those reforms get watered down after donations from insurance companies. It is possible to run for office without big money donations. Not going to claim it is easier, but there is a lot of interest in politicians who are not already bought off

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am for Yang this time around but anticipate joining you in pushing for Bernie once Yang drops out (though Hope springs eternal that Yang will pull off a miracle). I respect the hell out of Bernie for his principles and determination and persistence. The man isn't bought and is truly about the people.

 

[Ford]

A millionaire like Yang or a billionaire like Steyer deserve a place at the table alongside him and Biden and Bernie. And in a time where the other side happily accepts every penny of financial support from every conservative billionaire on the planet (including Russia), then going into the fight with hands tied behind their backs by denying donations or support from wealthy liberals is simply daft.

Everyone can have A seat at the table. The problem is currently the billionaires and corporations buy up Every seat at the table, becoming the only voices heard by those politicians. We see it when someone is for healthcare reform, then those reforms get watered down after donations from insurance companies. It is possible to run for office without big money donations. Not going to claim it is easier, but there is a lot of interest in politicians who are not already bought off

The system needs to be reformed, of course. Getting rid of Citizen's United is necessary. Public funding of campaigns is a possibility. Shortening the election process so that the campaigns don't last a year or more (which costs millions) is also appealing. Yet if reform is self-imposed by one party and ignored by the other, that's a recipe for failure. The billionaires and corporations will throw ALL of their money at one side, and will purchase the seats at the table for their own choices. Plus, what with the rising income inequality, the wealthy will continue to gain power. The remaining Koch brother, pharmaceutical industry, and other big donors have essentially unlimited funds to throw at campaigns. For middle and working class individuals, money is increasingly tight. A single mom trying to feed her kids can't compete with someone who won't bat an eye at dropping 2 grand for a plate at a fundraising dinner.

And it goes beyond the election. Money buys access. Bob the grocery store clerk might be able to call his Congressman's office, but he's not going to actually talk to him. Bob the board member of the grocery store chain? He gets a photo op and a sit down with the Representative to "discuss his concerns." The plebes might get an opportunity to ask a question at a packed town hall meeting, but a big donor will get a one on one meeting. And the legislation that the Congressman introduces will be written by a lobbying firm that has big money donors.

A plucky, principled politician who only takes small donations from regular people is unlikely to get the chance to make a dent in that edifice, let alone tear it down. For the time being, Democrats taking money from wealthy liberal donors remains a necessary evil. Several of the Democratic candidates have said that they'll work to rectify the situation. Sanders (obviously), Warren, and Yang have all said this, but whomever the nominee is, they're gonna need about half a billion dollars to take on the Trump/GOP juggernaut. I'm not convinced that kind of money can come from individual donors who are already tapped out.

 

[Toni]

If Bernie wins the most votes, but not the majority, he will be sidelined at the convention. If and when that happens, that will be the end of the Democratic party. And honestly, if that's all that comes out of this, I will still count it as a win.

What is with all this negative bullshit?! It is like you want the Democrats and Sanders to lose.

What I want is for the Democratic party as it exists to be demolished and replaced with one that actually functions and is responsive to the needs of the working class, and that is going to happen whether Bernie Sanders is the nominee and makes it happen or whether he is denied the nomination and the party implodes as a result. The third option would be if Bernie loses the nomination convincingly, which would not trigger the same outcome, but it might trigger a mass exodus of progressives and leftists to a third party (also a good outcome). So, as much as I have a disdain for electoral politics as a solution for anything, I'm actually pretty optimistic about the future.

Then start a party.

If your cause is righteous, you don't actually need to tear down other people's parties in order to start your own.


I realize that it is a lot harder to build something than to tear something down.

 

[laughing dog]

A millionaire like Yang or a billionaire like Steyer deserve a place at the table alongside him and Biden and Bernie. And in a time where the other side happily accepts every penny of financial support from every conservative billionaire on the planet (including Russia), then going into the fight with hands tied behind their backs by denying donations or support from wealthy liberals is simply daft.

Everyone can have A seat at the table. The problem is currently the billionaires and corporations buy up Every seat at the table, becoming the only voices heard by those politicians. We see it when someone is for healthcare reform, then those reforms get watered down after donations from insurance companies. It is possible to run for office without big money donations. Not going to claim it is easier, but there is a lot of interest in politicians who are not already bought off

The system needs to be reformed, of course. Getting rid of Citizen's United is necessary. Public funding of campaigns is a possibility. Shortening the election process so that the campaigns don't last a year or more (which costs millions) is also appealing. Yet if reform is self-imposed by one party and ignored by the other, that's a recipe for failure. The billionaires and corporations will throw ALL of their money at one side, and will purchase the seats at the table for their own choices. Plus, what with the rising income inequality, the wealthy will continue to gain power. The remaining Koch brother, pharmaceutical industry, and other big donors have essentially unlimited funds to throw at campaigns. For middle and working class individuals, money is increasingly tight. A single mom trying to feed her kids can't compete with someone who won't bat an eye at dropping 2 grand for a plate at a fundraising dinner.

And it goes beyond the election. Money buys access. Bob the grocery store clerk might be able to call his Congressman's office, but he's not going to actually talk to him. Bob the board member of the grocery store chain? He gets a photo op and a sit down with the Representative to "discuss his concerns." The plebes might get an opportunity to ask a question at a packed town hall meeting, but a big donor will get a one on one meeting. And the legislation that the Congressman introduces will be written by a lobbying firm that has big money donors.

A plucky, principled politician who only takes small donations from regular people is unlikely to get the chance to make a dent in that edifice, let alone tear it down. For the time being, Democrats taking money from wealthy liberal donors remains a necessary evil. Several of the Democratic candidates have said that they'll work to rectify the situation. Sanders (obviously), Warren, and Yang have all said this, but whomever the nominee is, they're gonna need about half a billion dollars to take on the Trump/GOP juggernaut. I'm not convinced that kind of money can come from individual donors who are already tapped out.

The DNC can fund raise the necessary cash instead of the candidates to make up the difference. The candidates know this, so their promise is sort of an empty one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What I want is for the Democratic party as it exists to be demolished and replaced with one that actually functions and is responsive to the needs of the working class, and that is going to happen whether Bernie Sanders is the nominee and makes it happen or whether he is denied the nomination and the party implodes as a result. The third option would be if Bernie loses the nomination convincingly, which would not trigger the same outcome, but it might trigger a mass exodus of progressives and leftists to a third party (also a good outcome). So, as much as I have a disdain for electoral politics as a solution for anything, I'm actually pretty optimistic about the future.

Then start a party.

If your cause is righteous, you don't actually need to tear down other people's parties in order to start your own.

In your two party system it makes much more sense to change one of the parties than to create additional ones. You don't own the party. The members do together and they can change it even as the Clintoncrats bemoan losing control of it. And if Sanders and other progressives transform it away from corporatism and corruption, good for them. Good for you all

And if you prefer a party that isn't progressive, you can always join the Republicans.

 

[southernhybrid]

Compared to the Republican Party, every Democrat is a progressive. Some are more progressive than others.

Compromise isn't something the Democrats want to do. It's something that they must do, if they want to accomplish anything progressive.

I really don't understand why some people don't get it.

If somehow Sanders becomes president, he's not going to get a fucking thing done unless he compromises. For that reason alone, none of us should be afraid to vote for Sanders or whoever becomes the nominee.

I am so fucking sick of people criticizing Obama. He was quite progressive, but when he became president, he learned that if you want to get any type of progressive legislation passed, you must compromise. I personally know so many people, including my own husband, who would never have had insurance if it wasn't for the ACA. Of course, the ACA was imperfect and needed to be improved and a lot of us were idealistic enough to think that the Republicans would help improve it. But no! Instead they've done everything possible to destroy it. Obama met with obstruction for the last 6 years of his presidency. He could barely get enough Democrats to pass the ACA. How in the world do Sanders supporters think he would be able to get much done, should he becomes president? Btw, I don't think he has a chance of beating Trump, but I will vote for him if he becomes the nominee, and I will hope that my prediction is wrong. I will vote for any Democrat, even the most conservative one, if it helps us defeat the most dangerous, unhinged president ever.

I can see a case for Medicare for All if everyone paid premiums based on income. Medicare isn't free and current Medicare recipients do pay premiums based on income to some extent. The poorest get M'caid to supplement their M'care. Those who are poor but not poor enough for traditional M'caid, get their Part B premium paid for by M'ciad. Most of us pay about 144 per month for Part B. Unless we have an Advantage Plan, which are btw, all private insurance plans, we also pay for a Part D for drugs and a supplement to help with copays. Those who are above a certain income pay more for Part B. I don't know the exact amount but it's over 200 per month. But, even that type of Medicare for All most likely would be impossible to pass into law considering the current political climate in the country.

Bernie promises that everything will be totally free including dental, vision, hearing and long term care without explaining a realistic way to pay for it. He makes many promises that aren't realistic, just like Trump did. Trump got his tax cuts for the wealthiest and he appointed a lot of conservative judges. That's pretty much all he has accomplished. Bernie might be able to raise taxes on those with the highest incomes and appoint more liberal leaning judges, but I doubt he could accomplish much more without serious compromise.

I have no idea what a Clintoncrat is supposed to be. Anyone who supports programs that are heading toward making progress is a progressive. Hillary wanted UHC back in the early 90s, but the idea was harshly criticized by those on the right. She may not be as progressive as someone like Sanders, but she is progressive. I voted for her because the alternative was Trump. I wish we had a fresh, newer, younger candidate in 2016. We didn't. I am an open minded, compromising progressive. You can't redefine the term progressive to suit yourself. Anyone who is left of center is a progressive. That includes people who are left of center, center life and far left. We are ll progressives and we should work on becoming more united. The way things are going now makes me feel as if we are screwed.

Imo, there is nothing more dangerous and destructive than absolutism. Absolutism of any kind is a negative. It either leads to totalitarianism or fascism. One iis the result of leftist absolutism and one is the result of rightest absolutism. Both are incompatible with democracy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The irony to all of this is that it’s actually Sanders who is “veering” to the center. He has been his entire “career.” Sanderscrats are just too blinded by their religious fervor to see it.

And as to Sanders being the only one who understands a “protracted, massive political struggle,” what planet do you live on? It’s a given, not some special magical insight, so you’re arguing that Sanders’ main selling point is that he alone knows that 2+2=4.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bernie promises that everything will be totally free including dental, vision, hearing and long term care without explaining a realistic way to pay for it. He makes many promises that aren't realistic, just like Trump did. Trump got his tax cuts for the wealthiest and he appointed a lot of conservative judges. That's pretty much all he has accomplished. Bernie might be able to raise taxes on those with the highest incomes and appoint more liberal leaning judges, but I doubt he could accomplish much more without serious compromise.

He does explain how to pay for it, and quite well I might add. It doesn't fit into sound bites and commercials but it's out there for all to see.

Those options include, but are not limited to:

• Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first
$29,000 in income for a family of four;

• Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $2
million in payroll to protect small businesses;

• Eliminating health tax expenditures;

• Making the federal income tax more progressive, including a marginal tax rate of up to
70 percent on those making above $10 million, taxing earned and unearned income at the
same rates, and limiting tax deductions for filers in the top tax bracket;

• Making the estate tax more progressive, including a 77 percent top rate on an inheritance
above $1 billion;

• Establishing a tax on extreme wealth;

• Closing the “Gingrich-Edwards Loophole”;

• Imposing a fee on large financial institutions; and

• Repealing corporate accounting gimmicks.

These are just some of the policies that could provide revenue to finance Medicare for All. Under
every single one of these options the average American family will save thousands of dollars a
year because it will no longer be writing large checks to private health insurance companies.

I would add making FICA a flat tax instead of it being wildly regressive as it is today.

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file

 

[Politesse]

So all of you who think Sanders is a dangerous absolutist who will never compromise on anything, what would be some specific examples of his doing this on the Senate?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So all of you who think Sanders is a dangerous absolutist who will never compromise on anything

Who has said anything like that?

 

[Elixir]

So all of you who think Sanders is a dangerous absolutist who will never compromise on anything

Who has said anything like that?

The same people who talk about MFA being more expensive than for-profit health care? Just a guess... carry on!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's the two faces of Bernie Bros. Otoh, his devotees insist that he's the only one talking about the exact same policies that Democrats have been desperately trying to push through for decades, and yet, somehow, magically, their tunnel vision only sees Sanders as the one to ever have even mentioned such "radical" policies. They love him for his refusal to compromise, while out of the other side of their mouths, whenever any practical question is asked about how he's going to succeed with the exact same proposals that Democrats were not able to push through, suddenly Sanders is the magical compromiser, who can work deals like no other.

Iow, I don't see anyone itt thinking any such thing; we all know he won't ever get anything done and will have to compromise on every single policy he's been talking about, precisely because they are unrealistic. It is precisely the point we've always been pushing. What is the practical not the religious fervor?

The same aspirational religious bullshit that appeals to the Bernie Bros is the same reason why he would be a horrible POTUS and would easily be shut down at every turn, but because he's running on the messiah complex strategy, he won't ever be to blame. It was the extreme radical leftist progressive miraculous vision of a visionary messiah that was just too much for the corporatist blah blah blah horseshit.

Sanders has never gotten anything done in the forty years he's been mooching off the Democrats and shitting on the Democrats and pretending to not be a Democrat, when in fact every fucking thing he says is identical to every other Democrat to have run--including Bill Clinton--for the past forty years at the very least.

He did nothing in Congress but trade his vote for pet projects. In the rare instances he actually tried to push through a bill of his own, he failed far more often than he succeeded, precisely because (as Hillary noted) no one liked working with him, because it was all self-righteous aggrandizement and no meeting of the minds.

So, again, it's not about anyone itt thinking one thing or another about him (that I can see at least); it's his own two-faced narcissism and the cult of personality that he engendered that is of concern.

He literally stated that he was submitting his MFA proposal to "start a conversation" not to try to get it actually passed, because he conceded he knew it couldn't be. That "conversation" has been going on for forty years and he didn't start it nor has it ever stopped, which means what he did was a completely empty bit of carnival to make it LOOK like he's in the vanguard when in fact he's decades behind.

He's like the last kid in the class to smoke pot and when he finally does, he won't stop insisting that everyone else smoke it too! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! IT'S GREAT! Yeah, we do. We have all been smoking it for years. NO! NO! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!

Fuck you, we do, shut the fuck up.

Only it just happened that when he started smoking, a whole new class of undergrads showed up, didn't know everyone else's history and thought he was the first one who ever smoked pot, so there's a whole group of ignorant freshmen who think he's the shit when in fact all the upper classmen know he's full of shit.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders has a better chance of making it happen because he actually wants to make it happen, and it isn't just a talking point for him to get votes and advance his own political career. He's not a sell out like most of the others. He's genuine and that's rare. He may or may not succeed, but at least he will genuinely try and not just blow smoke up your ass.

 

[Toni]

What I want is for the Democratic party as it exists to be demolished and replaced with one that actually functions and is responsive to the needs of the working class, and that is going to happen whether Bernie Sanders is the nominee and makes it happen or whether he is denied the nomination and the party implodes as a result. The third option would be if Bernie loses the nomination convincingly, which would not trigger the same outcome, but it might trigger a mass exodus of progressives and leftists to a third party (also a good outcome). So, as much as I have a disdain for electoral politics as a solution for anything, I'm actually pretty optimistic about the future.

Then start a party.

If your cause is righteous, you don't actually need to tear down other people's parties in order to start your own.

In your two party system it makes much more sense to change one of the parties than to create additional ones. You don't own the party. The members do together and they can change it even as the Clintoncrats bemoan losing control of it. And if Sanders and other progressives transform it away from corporatism and corruption, good for them. Good for you all

And if you prefer a party that isn't progressive, you can always join the Republicans.

There are more than 2 parties in the US. You know how I know? I am a US citizen who is registered to vote and I vote. And when I read the ballot, I see candidates affiliated with several different parties.

Time was when the Republicans were the progressive party in the US. Parties do change. Bernie and his bros aren't interested in changing the Democratic party and making it 'more progressive.' They are interested in cashing in on the fundraising that the Democratic party has built and using its name. That's not the same thing as moving the party left.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to US politics and the political system.

If you're actually interested in participating in the US political system, then you can apply immigrate, apply for a green card, become a citizen and then you can vote.

 

[Toni]

Sanders has a better chance of making it happen because he actually wants to make it happen, and it isn't just a talking point for him to get votes and advance his own political career. He's not a sell out like most of the others. He's genuine and that's rare. He may or may not succeed, but at least he will genuinely try and not just blow smoke up your ass.

He has zero chance of making anything happen. Hell, he doesn't even have much of a chance of surviving his first term, if elected, in sufficiently good health to do anything at all. I don't write this to make fun of him but because I actually have seen what 4 years as POTUS does to a much younger, much healthier person than Bernie Sanders has been for the past 30 years or so.

That's not even addressing the question of whether Bernie Sanders could actually make good on ANY of his promises. Because he can't and he couldn't even if he were good at working with other people--which he is not. He himself acknowledges this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are more than 2 parties in the US.

But only two that matter, that have power in the first past the post system, that are propped up by the lobbyists they bow to and the media they control (including debate schedules etc, and the purposeful locking out of third parties). Yes, you could run third party, but as I just wrote and you just quoted me writing, its much more efficient to change one of the big two. And you don't own it and if you don't like it changing, you can try to cling on to the corruption and corporatism with the Clintoncrats, or you can join the Republicans.

Time was when the Republicans were the progressive party in the US. Parties do change. Bernie and his bros aren't interested in changing the Democratic party and making it 'more progressive.'

Yes they are. Its all they ever talk about. They are policy wonks. They don't speak in vague platitudes that they have no intention of honouring. They speak in politician speak and weasel words, leaving room for them to claim they never made the promises that they did.

Why do you think the Clintoncrats refuse to move for medicare for all, and instead for medicare for "all who want it", creating a 2 tiered system that is sure to crash the public health care before it can get off the ground? Could it be because they, just a little less than the Republicans, are in the pockets of the insurance industry?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sanders has a better chance of making it happen because he actually wants to make it happen, and it isn't just a talking point for him to get votes and advance his own political career. He's not a sell out like most of the others. He's genuine and that's rare. He may or may not succeed, but at least he will genuinely try and not just blow smoke up your ass.

He has zero chance of making anything happen. Hell, he doesn't even have much of a chance of surviving his first term, if elected, in sufficiently good health to do anything at all. I don't write this to make fun of him but because I actually have seen what 4 years as POTUS does to a much younger, much healthier person than Bernie Sanders has been for the past 30 years or so.

That's not even addressing the question of whether Bernie Sanders could actually make good on ANY of his promises. Because he can't and he couldn't even if he were good at working with other people--which he is not. He himself acknowledges this.

He certainly won't be able to if you and your fellow "liberals" don't make any effort to make the change with him. The president alone doesn't have the power to make the change. It will depend on you. And if you stick with "why bother trying" then it will never change. Learned helplessness is a sad thing to observe.

Its like your nation's optimism all died with Obama's administration. He spoke of hope and change and it won you the election. Hillary's response to "Make American Great Again" was "America's Already Great". Her response to Bernie's bold vision was "No magical ponies" and "No, we Can't" instead of Oabma's "Yes we can" and her response to Trump was "I'm not him; He's bad so vote for me to avoid him". She lost for it.

To win the left needs a message of something to vote FOR. Bernie provides that. Yang provides that. Warren provides that. The clintoncrats like Biden, no so much.