2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

A quick google search shows Bernie made 571K in 2018 and donates 18k to charity. Does that strike you as someone giving back to the poor?

The amount he is paying to charity is almost the exact amount he wants people in his income bracket to pay more in taxes. He put his money where his mouth is.

His tax plan is publicly available to view. He isn't asking for people making $500k a year to pay 70%.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

He does say billionaires shouldn't exist. And Bernie was also very critical of millionaires, until he became one.

I don't agree with that but I don't see anything under his policies that would eliminate billionaires. It seems like billionaires would still be billionaires.

There is an argument to be made that they have benefited financially from our nation infinitely more than other people, so they should have to pay a much higher cut.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He is not saying you can't be rich or make money. He is just saying you have to pay more in taxes and play by the rules. I see nothing in his plan that personally exempts him from that.

It's just a dumb argument people make when they can't really argue the policy.

He said "No billionaires". So perhaps I am making what you would call a lazy or dumb argument but I will go back to why Bloomberg responded about his 3 houses. I never even said it would win points in a debate based on logic but definitely points out he is a hypocrite. The homeless man living on the streets probably feels the same way about millionaires with 3 houses that Bernie feels about billionaires.

[GrantDawg]

Molson, I think it may be that you haven't really looked into Sanders, and you are just saying the impression he gives you. It is really not fair to characterize him as insincere or just saying whatever to get elected. His views have been consistent for decades. He didn't just wake up and decide health care is a human right yesterday.
There is many problems with Sanders, but inconstancies and people pleasing are not among them.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, I'm not a huge Bernie fan as I noted earlier, but I don't think you have to live like a monk to advocate for the less fortunate, just like I don't think Al Gore should have to ride a bike everywhere to advocate for the environment.

[Arles]

My ranking after watching (and I haven't digested much from the talking heads):

1. Buttigieg

2. Biden
3. Warren

4. Klobuchar
5. Sanders



(dead last) Bloomberg

Bloomberg was awful. I agree with the notion that he is surrounded by a bunch of "Yes" men - all telling him how great he would be (with no one really challenging/preparing him). There's a lot of Trump in that setup. As the debates keep going, I just really like Mayor Pete. He doesn't have nearly the experience, but he is great in these debates. The line that of the two front runners, one wants to "buy the presidency" and the other wants to "burn it down" was great. If he were the governor of Indiana, I think he could have a chance - but not as the Mayor of South Bend.

I thought Warren did really well, but she went a little too much into the Bernie sob stories on policy responses. Still, I like her more than I did going in.

I thought Biden, Klobuchar and Pete made some really good points when they said that just because they aren't willing to go full M4A doesn't mean they are the status quo. Increasing the coverage umbrella, providing options for pre-existing conditions and looking at ways to reduce cost is better than what we have now. Bernie acts like there two doors: a public option or the worst system in the history of mankind. Bernie has to understand there is zero chance of M4A (not even a majority of democrats want it), but there is a good chance of expanding the current system we have and moving the "median point" left for the debate in 3-4 years. Of course, you can't burn everything down to make that happen, you have to make gains in the senate and sell a plan that doesn't negatively impact union workers who have negotiated great health care plans and people with above average employer subsidized care (again, not that hard to do if you are willing to compromise up front).

My hope is we get one of Biden/Amy/Pete, but I'm not sure they can beat the Bernie head start. I think it's still a joke that two caucuses and one of the smallest (and whitest) states in the union will provide 70% of the momentum for the dem primaries - but it is what it is. As I said earlier, Warren is someone I think I could consider given she isn't a "my way or the highway" zealot Bernie is on this stuff. I think she would take a 20-30% win on many of these issues while I think Bernie would stand on his principles and get nothing done.

The best Bernie parallel I can think of is the story of the business owner who goes into an inner city school. He walks into the 8th grade class of 40 kids and tells the teacher he will provide 25 full-ride scholarships to the students. The teacher thinks about it and then says "Thank you, but I don't think that would be fair to the 15 who didn't get one". That's Bernie to a tee. Come up with a plan that could help 40% of the people struggling? Not good enough, let's stay at 0 until it gets so bad (in his mind) that we finally do 100%!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Warren is someone I think I could consider given she isn't a "my way or the highway" zealot Bernie is on this stuff. I think she would take a 20-30% win on many of these issues while I think Bernie would stand on his principles and get nothing done.

Unfortunately, saying that has gotten her trashed by the Bernie fans all over social media.

[Arles]

That's really a shame because progress isn't built all at once. Taking small wins is how things get better over time. But this is also why the best chance Trump has to continue is more and more Bernie (and his supporters) out front and center

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Molson, I think it may be that you haven't really looked into Sanders, and you are just saying the impression he gives you. It is really not fair to characterize him as insincere or just saying whatever to get elected. His views have been consistent for decades. He didn't just wake up and decide health care is a human right yesterday.
There is many problems with Sanders, but inconstancies and people pleasing are not among them.

I think he's sincere in his values, I don't think he's sincere in the manner in which he is trying to connect with voters. Maybe populism is the right word - I know the definition of these terms is changing all the time. But it's that emotion-based moral pandering, us v. them, we have to take down the establishment, sign up with me and you're better than the "others", that doesn't have a basis in reality and creates toxicity on the fringes. Like with Trump, and European candidates pandering to nationalism-based anger.

Maybe I just like my candidates boring and pragmatic.

[Swaggs]

Unless someone steps up, this is probably going to be the first time I vote against a presidential nominee rather than for one. I started on Biden, but he just doesn’t seem into it. I don’t want Bernie or Warren - I think either of them guarantees a GOP president, House, and Senate by 2024. And that would be devastating if the nomination of judges continues to go hard right. Klobaucher seems okay most of the time, but then seems petty and mean some times.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think he's sincere in his values, I don't think he's sincere in the manner in which he is trying to connect with voters. Maybe populism is the right word - I know the definition of these terms is changing all the time. But it's that emotion-based moral pandering, us v. them, we have to take down the establishment, sign up with me and you're better than the "others", that doesn't have a basis in reality and creates toxicity on the fringes. Like with Trump, and European candidates pandering to nationalism-based anger.

Maybe I just like my candidates boring and pragmatic.

But Bernie's positions weren't popular at one time. He opposed the Iraq War (and almost every conflict in the Middle East) when it was unpopular. Same for M4A, climate change, bank regulation, etc.

I don't think he's latching on to new issues because they are suddenly popular. Seems like the public somehow came around on a lot of issues he has supported for decades.

People may not like him or his ideas, but they seem genuine. That is opposed to someone like Clinton who let polls decide what she stood for.

[RainMaker]

Some of the swing states. Is Wisconsin a red state now?

Michigan GE @QuinnipiacPoll:

Sanders 48% (+5)
Trump 43%

Bloomberg 47% (+5)
Trump 42%

Biden 47% (+4)
Trump 43%

Warren 45% (+2)
Trump 43%

Buttigieg 45% (+1)
Trump 44%

Klobuchar 45% (+1)
Trump's 44%https://t.co/5ONn73G9L2…

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 20, 2020

Pennsylvania GE @QuinnipiacPoll:

Biden 50% (+8)
Trump 42%

Klobuchar 49% (+7)
Trump 42%

Bloomberg 48% (+6)
Trump 42%

Sanders 48% (+4)
Trump 44%

Buttigieg 47% (+4)
Trump 43%

Warren 47% (+3)
Trump 44%https://t.co/5ONn73G9L2…

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 20, 2020

#Florida General Election Poll:

Bloomberg 50% (+6)
Trump 44%

Biden 49% (+1)
Trump 48%

Sanders 48%
Trump 48%

Warren 47%
Trump 47%

Trump 48% (+4)
Klobuchar 44%

Trump 49% (+4)
Buttigieg 45%@UNFPORL/@FCN2go 2/16-18https://t.co/HyoVRbNuiG

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 20, 2020

North Carolina @SurveyUSA GE Poll:

Bloomberg 49% (+6)
Trump 43%

Sanders 50% (+5)
Trump 45%

Biden 49% (+4)
Trump 45%

Trump 46% (+1)
Buttigieg 45%

Trump 46% (+4)
Klobuchar 42%

Trump 48% (+4)
Warren 44%

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 19, 2020

[RainMaker]

This is registered voters nationally.

#National @ABC/WaPost GE Poll:

Biden 52% (+7)
Trump 45%

Sanders 51% (+6)
Trump 45%

Bloomberg 50% (+5)
Trump 45%

Buttigieg 49% (+3)
Trump 46%

Klobuchar 48% (+2)
Trump 46%

Warren 48% (+1)
Trump 47%

Among "Registered Voters"https://t.co/zXvxfMNoBi…

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 19, 2020

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Unless someone steps up, this is probably going to be the first time I vote against a presidential nominee rather than for one. I started on Biden, but he just doesn’t seem into it. I don’t want Bernie or Warren - I think either of them guarantees a GOP president, House, and Senate by 2024. And that would be devastating if the nomination of judges continues to go hard right. Klobaucher seems okay most of the time, but then seems petty and mean some times.

Which candidate's policies do you agree with most? You somehow failed to mention any in the paragraph above.

[RainMaker]

Also want to report if I suddenly start supporting Bloomberg....you know why.

Bloomberg to Pay Hundreds of People $2,500 a Month to Praise Him on Their Personal Social Media Feeds: Report

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also want to report if I suddenly start supporting Bloomberg....you know why.

Bloomberg to Pay Hundreds of People $2,500 a Month to Praise Him on Their Personal Social Media Feeds: Report

Shit, how do I get one of those jobs?

Edit: Nevermind. Sounds like a shitty job. I thought I could just blast away pro-Bloomberg stuff and collect a check.

[GrantDawg]

The Wisconsin numbers are staggering. Trump is up by big numbers. All of these numbers really mean little, because once you are the actual candidate, the numbers always drops. But that Trump can still be up so big in a must win state like Wisconsin is really troubling.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Which candidate's policies do you agree with most? You somehow failed to mention any in the paragraph above.

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Which candidate's policies do you agree with most? You somehow failed to mention any in the paragraph above.

I typed a longer response but it got eaten up somehow.

Basically, I value pragmatism and judicial appointments as my top priority. And, in seeing how much damage Trump has done, I would add in foreign relations in this election, as well. I think everyone, aside from maybe Bloomberg (need to see/hear more from him), will be fine with the appointments.

I don’t see Bernie as pragmatic or realistic. I don’t particularly mind moving toward some of his key policies, but don’t think it’s realistic or wise to make such drastic changes at one time. I think Warren appears similar, given her approaches during debates and find her tone condescending. They are also older than I would like. I can’t see myself voting for either in my primary. If Bernie wins, I can easily see him not delivering on free tuition (I don’t like this policy) or universal healthcare (I’m in healthcare + small business owner and would probably lose income, but I’m 100% for this, but it needs to done over a long period of time, or it will have a tremendous effect on the economy from job loss and damaging middle class retirements/401Ks). Once he fails with those, his following will go back to being disinterested/disillusioned and I think the dems will then take a bath in the house and senate with the party so fractured.

I really want to like Klobaucher, but I question her temperament. There had been rumors and then, I see her saying things like she said to Pete last night about “not everyone can be perfect like you.” I think Pete was trying to raise issues and draw contrasts pretty cleanly and thought she was way over the top with that and didn’t like it. Bloomberg looks like a guy that is easily annoyed and hasn’t been challenged in a long time, so I question his temperament, as well. If these guys are going to build consensus and work with world leaders, they need to be better than that and not look like Trump. I made the original, quoted comment because I was thinking Amy sounded good last night and then she made that unnecessary remark that sounded petty.

Biden and Pete are both fairly acceptable, but I worry about Joe’s age and health and Pete’s ability to be credible in dealing with more experienced leaders. These two are sort of “good enough,” I guess. I’d still consider Klobaucher, too. I’m just not feeling excited about any of them and can actually see myself being undecided up until it’s time to vote.

[Front Office Midget]

The way the questions in the debates have been framed have served the "People just support Bernie because they want free stuff" narrative. They have spent an INSANE amount of time on health care- like 25% of every debate at least (it seems). Why do they do this? My (berniebro) theory is that, more than other issues, it might make Bernie look unwilling to compromise, bring in the "S" word, and be all about higher taxes.

Hard to imagine Medicare for All passing, given the situation in the Senate. The people who I know who support Bernie (most people in my circle) do so because they perceive him as less corrupt, less entangled in the military industrial complex, willing to make correct decisions that are unpopular (Iraq War), his positions on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs, environmental policy, labor rights, and corporate accountability.

Why have the questions in the debates been so consistently about healthcare policy which is unlikely to pass regardless of who wins the Presidency? Why has so little been spent on foreign policy, judges, executive orders, etc?

Bloomberg invoking "communism" and Pete saying Sanders wants to "burn it down" is getting a little ridiculous. I realize that I inhabit a bit of a leftist bubble, but Bernie's positions are definitely mainstream within that bubble (18-39 liberal arts/artsy/music/literary communities) and it's laughable to see the other candidates try to deride him as a radical.

Ultimately, the challenge is going to be working with Republicans in the Senate to get anything passed. The debates have done a poor job of framing it that way. They have also done a poor job of asking about foreign policy (probably because Bernie's general worldview including having been against the Iraq War will resonate too much /conspiracy).

Politically, would it eventually make sense for 2 of Klobuchar/Biden/Pete to drop out to support the other?

[ISiddiqui]

It's obvious why they focus on Health Care, because there is an obvious difference of opinion. Sanders wants Medicare for All. Warren wants a gradual 3 year build up to Medicare for All. While Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar all say Medicare for All would cost too much (and piss off too many people) and think a Public Option to the ACA is the way to go.

Obviously there are differences on college debt and tuition, but that's more of a spectrum than a delineated 2 sides. And on a lot of other things the candidates agree a lot.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's obvious why they focus on Health Care, because there is an obvious difference of opinion. Sanders wants Medicare for All. Warren wants a gradual 3 year build up to Medicare for All. While Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar all say Medicare for All would cost too much (and piss off too many people) and think a Public Option to the ACA is the way to go.

Obviously there are differences on college debt and tuition, but that's more of a spectrum than a delineated 2 sides. And on a lot of other things the candidates agree a lot.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Are they really saying anything new in debate #9, where health care has already been a main topic in debates 1-8? They have all talked about their plans and argued about them ad nauseum at this point. There are many more significant differences between these candidates and their political worldviews and potential policies than whether they're for Medicare for All or "Medicare for All who want it" or "Medicare for All who wish the Senate was controlled by Democrats", but they keep repeating the same debate every time.

With over 10 debates, they should have had plenty of time to talk about trade deals, carbon tax, ICE, border policy, prison reform, the war on drugs, middle east policy, European policy, South American policy, space policy, reproductive privacy, the voting rights act and fighting voter suppression, military spending, detailed tax plans, infrastructure proposals, the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm, whether FOF 8.3's passing stats are realistic, or whatever. But a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on rehashing the same healthcare debate.

[molson]

I'd like to hear them talk about what their priorities are, assuming a concession that they won't be able to fulfill all of their promises. If they're able to push through say, only half of one or two of their major objectives, which one would they spend that political capital on? What objectives do they feel they can enact without opposition, with executive powers or otherwise, if any? In other words, what would their presidency actually look like, and what is their plan to accomplish that in a challenging political climate?

Edit: Also, here comes the Russians! Curious if we can get a read on who they'd like to see oppose their guy in November.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The Wisconsin numbers are staggering. Trump is up by big numbers. All of these numbers really mean little, because once you are the actual candidate, the numbers always drops. But that Trump can still be up so big in a must win state like Wisconsin is really troubling.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wisconsin is so fucking weird.

Voted twice to elect Obama.

Voted twice to elect Baldwin.

Voted to elect Trump.

After that, elected Tony Evers and kicked Walker to the curb.

After THAT, elected a conservative to replace a liberal on the state Supreme Court.

The numbers are weird, and Wisconsin is kind of an "anything goes" state right now, but it's been so all over the place in the last ten years that I'm not sure I'd trust any particular set of numbers. Any given election, Wisconsin'll put its thumb in your eye.

[GrantDawg]

In every single survey I have seen of Democrats, they list health care as the number 1 issue by a wide margin. It would be very strange if that is not a main issue brought up in debates.

I do wish they had done some themed debates on issues, so they had to really dig into subjects.

[Edward64]

Warren is going to be an issue for Bloomberg. He needs to get some legit dirt on her (and everyone else) and be prepared to answer the NDA issue better next time.

The tax return is a non-issue to me (yeah, he's got complicated taxes), the NDA and all the possible insinuations is more of a threat.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/polit...nda/index.html

Elizabeth Warren on Thursday urged her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg to sign a contract the senator wrote herself that would release people who have made allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior against Bloomberg from nondisclosure agreements.

"I used to teach contract law," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a CNN town hall in Nevada. "And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it -- I'll text it -- sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

In every single survey I have seen of Democrats, they list health care as the number 1 issue by a wide margin. It would be very strange if that is not a main issue brought up in debates.

Depending on how the survey is worded, I've seen "beat Trump" at #1 but yes, Healthcare is definitely a top 1-2 priority.

I do wish they had done some themed debates on issues, so they had to really dig into subjects.

Agree on this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Front Office Midget

With over 10 debates, they should have had plenty of time to talk about trade deals, carbon tax, ICE, border policy, prison reform, the war on drugs, middle east policy, European policy, South American policy, space policy, reproductive privacy, the voting rights act and fighting voter suppression, military spending, detailed tax plans, infrastructure proposals, the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm, whether FOF 8.3's passing stats are realistic, or whatever. But a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on rehashing the same healthcare debate.

They have talked about trade policy (USMCA to be specific) and border policy (especially when Castro and Beto were still in it). They all basically agree on reproductive privacy, prison reform, and fighting voter suppression. The biggest difference in their tax plans is health care costs. Even spent a few early debates talking about climate change (though seems to have gone a bit by the wayside after Inslee dropped out).

[molson]

The differences in their personal ideal healthcare plans is kind of irrelevant. The best real-life scenario is something more moderate than even the most moderate proposal pitched.

So I think even for moderate democrats, the real question is which candidate will succeed in enacting the most progressive healthcare legislation. Which is a completely different question than who is promising the most stuff, or who has the pitched most desirable theoretical healthcare plan. The latter is just an academic school assignment.

[ISiddiqui]

Though I think it's fair to say the health care plans indicate how far the compromise will go. Starting at let's do a public opinion vs. starting at M4A may end up leading to a different result after negotiations are completed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though I think it's fair to say the health care plans indicate how far the compromise will go. Starting at let's do a public opinion vs. starting at M4A may end up leading to a different result after negotiations are completed.

True, the old, "start high" negotiation tactic.

But there's also more to enacting legislation. If Sanders wants 10 and Mayor Pete and Klobuchar and Biden want 7, who is more likely to get 4 or 5? Sanders just because he started higher? Then why not start at 20? Or would it be those more willing to compromise on other things, who can forge better relationships, can selectively use executive power in productive ways, etc. I have no idea. They don't talk about this much.

[ISiddiqui]

Seems like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden would be happy with 3, tbh. Warren would be better with 5. Sanders may not take anything less than 8, though. Although some people say when he was Burlington's mayor he compromised quite a bit, so who knows.

[JPhillips]

What's it matter if the GOP stays at 0?

edit: There's so much energy being used to argue policy purity when nobody is going to be able to get much accomplished. What's worse is that the person who promises the most will be punished the most for his/her failure come the mid-terms.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

True, the old, "start high" negotiation tactic.

But there's also more to enacting legislation. If Sanders wants 10 and Mayor Pete and Klobuchar and Biden want 7, who is more likely to get 4 or 5? Sanders just because he started higher? Then why not start at 20? Or would it be those more willing to compromise on other things, who can forge better relationships, can selectively use executive power in productive ways, etc. I have no idea. They don't talk about this much.

Well, it's not like this is happening in a vacuum. Obama got us to about a 2 or a 3 and the GOP has spent close to a decade trying to whittle it down to a 1.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well, it's not like this is happening in a vacuum. Obama got us to about a 2 or a 3 and the GOP has spent close to a decade trying to whittle it down to a 1.

And yet all the candidates act like it's a foregone conclusion, not worth discussing, that they can definitely deliver 7 - 10, and they only need to debate whether 7 is better than 10 or vice versa.

[JPhillips]

And some of them are arguing they can get 10 when the policy is unpopular with the general electorate. It's madness.

Pick popular things that are achievable and go win. Why is nobody yelling cheap insulin every ten minutes?

[QuikSand]

Dems gonna Dem

[ISiddiqui]

Well this isn't good...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...a77_story.html

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

[Edward64]

This could be a good move or it could blow up.

Mike Bloomberg says he will release women from non-disclosure agreements

Mike Bloomberg announced he would release women from three non-disclosure agreements if they wanted to speak publicly about sexual harassment while working at his media company.

“I’ve had the company go back over its record and they’ve identified 3 NDAs that we signed over the past 30-plus years with women to address complaints about comments they said I had made,” he announced on his website on Friday afternoon.
:
:
“I’ve done a lot of reflecting on this issue over the past few days and I’ve decided that for as long as I’m running the company, we won’t offer confidentiality agreements to resolve claims of sexual harassment or misconduct going forward,” he wrote.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Seems like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden would be happy with 3, tbh. Warren would be better with 5. Sanders may not take anything less than 8, though. Although some people say when he was Burlington's mayor he compromised quite a bit, so who knows.

Actually, even in the Senate he would compromise. The only time he refused to go along with a slightly flawed legislation is when his vote wouldn't have mattered anyway. Heck, the ACA is the perfect example. He didn't like it at all, but he still voted for it. His record is actually way more compromising than some (including most of his supporters) would have you believe.

[RainMaker]

I can understand people voting Pete or Kobuchar. But why would Biden get thrown into that group? The guy has been wrong on so much over 30 years. Shouldn't your actions over 30+ years matter?

Lumping him in as a "realist" or "pragmatist" is comical considering he always makes the wrong decision.

Why do Democrats have such low standards?

[GrantDawg]

Bernie was briefed that the Russians are trying to support his campaign. Of course the difference between him and the President, he openly condems it. This is no surprise. It happened four years ago as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[molson]

Maybe the conspiracies for and against Bernie will all balance out.

[Brian Swartz]

My guess is a lot of the attraction with Biden is the lifetime of service, with him you know what you're getting, etc. I don't think it's strange for people disgusted with Trump's incompetence to value proven competence highly. I'm far from a Biden fan, but he's a moderate with a long track record. Even if you don't like what's in it, there's nobody else in the race that really occupies that space.

[GrantDawg]

"Pod Saves America" had a good post debate episode, and made some good points on Bernie. If he would just cut "Democratic Socialist", and sold his philosophy as fulfilling the American dream as proposed by Roosevelt, he would be better received. When he compared everything to Scandinavian/European socialism turns people off. Is it the same thing? Sure, pretty much. It is all in how you sell it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Looks like Bloomberg is trying to do some damage control

Mike Bloomberg says he will release women from non-disclosure agreements

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

"Pod Saves America" had a good post debate episode, and made some good points on Bernie. If he would just cut "Democratic Socialist", and sold his philosophy as fulfilling the American dream as proposed by Roosevelt, he would be better received. When he compared everything to Scandinavian/European socialism turns people off. Is it the same thing? Sure, pretty much. It is all in how you sell it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

These Obama guys sure know what the people want to hear.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Bernie was briefed that the Russians are trying to support his campaign. Of course the difference between him and the President, he openly condems it. This is no surprise. It happened four years ago as well.

One day before the Nevada caucus. What poor timing!

[GrantDawg]

Those guys who won two national elections know nothing about winning elections. Right.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Those guys who won two national elections know nothing about winning elections. Right.

Guys who lost every ounce of power the Democratic Party had and got practically nothing accomplished while in power. Just a masterclass in success.

[GrantDawg]

They also knew how to beat Hillary, unlike Bernie.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk