That is why you hire good peopleI think it's all he could do. He didn't have or want to employ any other strategy because he believed that he didn't need to change but every one else does.
That is why you hire good peopleI think it's all he could do. He didn't have or want to employ any other strategy because he believed that he didn't need to change but every one else does.
Or maybe he can stay in and keep fighting until Biden has enough delegates to say he's won? Biden's already adopted one of Sanders policies, maybe if he stays in he can get him to adopt a few more.Bernie needs to drop out after Tuesday. Seriously. He already doesn't have a chance but Tuesday should be the final moment.
They just don't want to pay more taxes. Medicare for all is not radical, free college is not radical, we just have to chip in a bit more to make it happen. Reaganomics really fucked up this country and our whole fuck you got mine mentality.
I didn't say anything about communism. I'm not arguing that China is communist, they're not. But state ownership of companies is a politically far left position.do you even understand what state capitalism is? it's in the name
the left to right scale is not determined by public ownership of the economy and nothing else
most petro states have a large part of their economy dominated SOEs but that doesn't make them communist
it's a total mislabeling
Or maybe he can stay in and keep fighting until Biden has enough delegates to say he's won? Biden's already adopted one of Sanders policies, maybe if he stays in he can get him to adopt a few more.
And who knows what can happen. It seems impossible for Sanders to win, but things are so crazy in the world right now I would say nothing is impossible.
I don't care if you think Biden is a liar, which he pretty much is. The man just said he wants to put a black woman on the supreme court
this all happened because i brought up that international context from the left is important and you referenced china. since you seemed to use them as an example if not communism i assumed you thought they were indeed far leftI didn't say anything about communism. I'm not arguing that China is communist, they're not. But state ownership of companies is a politically far left position.
But, I doubt that anyone is arguing state ownership of companies does make China much further to the left than Sanders.
I would argue that China is closer to state capitalism than any sort of mixed socdem. That makes them far to the left of 99% of countries in the world.this all happened because i brought up that international context from the left is important and you referenced china. since you seemed to use them as an example if not communism i assumed you thought they were indeed far left
state owned enterprises are more common in mixed social Democratic economies, but they are not an exclusive or even signature feature of far left politics since they are also large parts of authoritarian or one party governments which are decidedly not left win. (Stalinism without socialism is not leftist, it's just a flavor of totalitarianism )
Despite the way you undercut your own argument before even posing it it's worth remembering that Biden's idea of a black man on the SC is Clarence Thomas. And as you all remember by the way he responded to Anita Hill, he was instrumental in making that appointment happen.
I'm not necessarily the sort of person to be inherently cynical about representation, but it's easy to see given the possibilities open to us (at least in theory) that this appointment is not going to be representative of black communities. Biden is acting as a gatekeeper here -- I mean, obviously, that's inherent in the nature of appointments. The thing is I can't be excited about this appointment in theory because I do not share Biden's politics.
you are totally conflating definitions but i can see this getting off-topic so i'll leave it here.I would argue that China is closer to state capitalism than any sort of mixed socdem. That makes them far to the left of 99% of countries in the world.
My argument is against framing politicians and comparing them to any thing but their political and economic system (most of the time).
Is there a Sanders surrogate pushing this narrative? This is the 3rd time I've seen this on ERA from Sanders supporters.
You all keep wanting results, but the best chance of results comes with a full democrat-controlled government. Biden gives you the best chance at the Senate and it isn't even close.
You all keep wanting results, but the best chance of results comes with a full democrat-controlled government. Biden gives you the best chance at the Senate and it isn't even close.
OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
Biden has consistently been polling better in the red/purple swing states where we need to flip the Senate states.OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
Stealing this. This is good.There's a lot of coordinated anti Biden spin coming from the fauxgressives, I assume that's the ultimate source.
Biden's VP will running on this "My administration was the one to beat Trump. Let's not risk losing all that we built by running such a risky candidate/ progressive after the 2020 primary showed they don't bring out the numbers to win."
It's a never ending cycle.
Biden's coalition is the one that brought the House back to Democrats in 2018. I don't think it's a stretch to think that coalition is the one most likely to win Senate races, as well.OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering bullshit.
Actually it is based on polls. Hell Bullock got into the Senate race after Biden started doing well. The astronaut dude is doing well but he does even better with Biden at the topOK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering headlines that have been constantly pressed as a narrative with nothing to back up the idea that a "Sanders ticket" wipes out chances for the Senate and/or keeping the House majority.
Hmmmmm
Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years
“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.theintercept.com
Biden's VP will running on this "My administration was the one to beat Trump. Let's not risk losing all that we built by running such a risky candidate/ progressive after the 2020 primary showed they don't bring out the numbers to win."
It's a never ending cycle.
Lol do you know what he did during the hearings?
Biden has consistently been polling better in the red/purple swing states where we need to flip the Senate states.
Biden's coalition is the one that brought the House back to Democrats in 2018. I don't think it's a stretch to think that coalition is the one most likely to win Senate races, as well.
Winning a state's primary and how you perform in the general election there aren't correlated whatsoever. Also, "Bernie polled better until the actual election happened where he lost" is not the good argument you think it is. You're inadvertently pointing out that Bernie is underperforming his polls!Bernie won Colorado and consistently polled better than Biden in Maine until the actual primary happened, and those are two of the most important Senate seats that we have to win and he consistently led in Arizona up until Super Tuesday. And Bernie was also very much catching up in NC until SC happened, so it wasn't like he was ridiculously behind there either. Those are the 4 that we pretty much have to win and also have the best chance of winning, with Montana only coming into play because Bullock entered the race (Which meant Montana wasn't really in play from a Senatorial perspective for either candidates). Bernie also basically won Iowa alongside Buttigieg while Biden positively cratered, so not much hope on the reach for Iowa either.
Georgia is fair, but much like Iowa, it's a reach state... so like, perhaps this isn't the clear cut "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate narrative"
But that coalition is anti-Trump almost through and through. They were most likely going to vote against Republicans and Trump no matter what is what I'm saying. That coalition was largely going to be the same for any of the potential nominees. So, that coalition was always going to put the Senate back in play.
If Bernie had won SC by the same margins as Biden did I have no doubt the tables would be turned right now. Most Democrats support Sanders keystone M4A proposal, but exit polls show they are voting for Biden purely because they think he's the best shot at beating Trump.OK, where does "Biden gives us the best chance at the Senate" even come from? There's nothing to point to that at all. Yes, the increased voter turnout went for Biden and not Sanders, but that does not mean that those people were just going to sit at home and not vote for Sanders. People are voting "anti-Trump" more than they're voting for candidates, so like this whole "Biden gives us a better shot at the Senate" is just based in fearmongering headlines that have been constantly pressed as a narrative with nothing to back up the idea that a "Sanders ticket" wipes out chances for the Senate and/or keeping the House majority.
But then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?If Bernie had won SC by the same margins as Biden did I have no doubt the tables would be turned right now. Most Democrats support Sanders keystone M4A proposal, but exit polls show they are voting for Biden purely because they think he's the best shot at beating Trump.
"confidence he can beat trump" is such a weird metric and response on that is going to be based on a variety of people who know more direct polls like "Who are you going to vote for likely voter?" and those that don't follow the numbers.Who Won The Biden-Sanders Debate?
How Democratic primary voters felt about presidential candidates Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders before and after the Democratic debate on March 15, 2020projects.fivethirtyeight.com
Biden won the debate. Bernie should drop out after Tuesday night if he loses by double digits in every state.
Lowkey, the only thing that stopped bernie from winning was Bernie. Folks had thoroughly dismissed Biden until his SC win. But Bernie had to hire Ted Devine againBut then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?
That is also telling on what is the primary concern of the electorate as well.
Biden has enough delegates to say he's won? Biden's already adopted one of Sanders policies, maybe if he stays in he can get him to adopt a few more.
He hired Ted Devine AGAIN?Lowkey, the only thing that stopped bernie from winning was Bernie. Folks had thoroughly dismissed Biden until his SC win. But Bernie had to hire Ted Devine again
This. Sanders could have won. He deliberately took every opportunity to do exactly the opposite of the things you need to do to win a Democratic primary in both 2016 and 2020.Lowkey, the only thing that stopped bernie from winning was Bernie. Folks had thoroughly dismissed Biden until his SC win. But Bernie had to hire Ted Devine again
Exit polls showed that most voters in SC voted based on who Clyburn endorsed. Let's not pretend like Joe won SC because of his superior policy proposals or anything like that. Honestly neither Sanders or Biden put much effort to campaign in SC from what I'm aware of.But then it wouldn't be the same Sanders running this current campaign, right?
That is also telling on what is the primary concern of the electorate as well.
Winning a state's primary and how you perform in the general election there aren't correlated whatsoever. Also, "Bernie polled better until the actual election happened where he lost" is not the good argument you think it is. You're inadvertently pointing out that Bernie is underperforming his polls!
Bernie was only doing "well" in the polls because of the split field where he was "winning" with 30% of the vote. His team thought they could get away with that and that the race wouldn't condense to a 1 v 1. They were wrong, and because Bernie had been getting approximately 0.01% of voters who didn't vote for him in 2016 while he was retaining ~70% of his 2016 voter share, he started getting blown out bad starting on Super Tuesday post-Voltron.
My bad, Devine got caught up in some Russia shit, Jeff Weaver was the one I was thinking ofHe hired Ted Devine AGAIN?
Wasn't last time enough?
He can't hire competent people for once?
Yeah, Bernie did vote for the Hyde Amendment when it was attached to other bills, pretty much everyone in congress has. That thing gets fucking everywhere. Only reason it's rated half true was because of how Bernie worded his response. And there's a lot of those "because of how they worded it" bits in there.Politifact has its fact check of the debate up.
PolitiFact - Fact-checking the Sanders-Biden primary debate
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders debated alone for the first (and maybe last) time Sunday on a closed Washington televisionwww.politifact.com
Spoiler, some of the things people claim Biden was lying about were truthful, and both of them fudged things here and there.
But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.Exit polls showed that most voters in SC voted based on who Clyburn endorsed. Let's not pretend like Joe won SC because of his superior policy proposals or anything like that. Honestly neither Sanders or Biden put much effort to campaign in SC from what I'm aware of.
Let's be clear, does that make any difference that hired one loser over the other at this point?My bad, Devine got caught up in some Russia shit, Jeff Weaver was the one I was thinking of
So Bernie has young voters, college educated leftists, and Latino voters as his coalition, while Biden has some white working class voters, old voters, suburban women, and black voters. (Feel free to argue I'm wrong about that grouping.) In that perspective, I would say that Bernie's voters would be the most anti-Trump voters through and through, while Biden's are less so. I would also say that Bernie's voters are less reliable to show up to vote, as you kind of pointed out with the fact that Bernie polled well in Maine and still lost.But that coalition is anti-Trump almost through and through. They were most likely going to vote against Republicans and Trump no matter what is what I'm saying. That coalition was largely going to be the same for any of the potential nominees. So, that coalition was always going to put the Senate back in play.
This. Sanders could have won. He deliberately took every opportunity to do exactly the opposite of the things you need to do to win a Democratic primary in both 2016 and 2020.
You know as I was typing, I was thinking the same thing. But I want to be factual. The fact they ran the same campaign with the only adition was to try to gamne a split field says it all. They went in wanting to lose less than everyone else.But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.
No one really gives a shit about policies unless it's to justify after the fact.
That's true for the general as well.
That's why Biden is winning right now as well.
Let's be clear, does that make any difference at this point?
Ahh yes, a popularity contest, the foundation of a healthy democracy.But it's a presidential election, despite all claims to the contrary it's a popularity contest.
No one really gives a shit about policies unless it's to justify after the fact.
That's true for the general as well.
That's why Biden is winning right now as well.