Bernie Formally Announces 2020 Campaign He Began in August 2016.

annielou

Don’t feel good about this, at all


author

Well it's a good thing I still have my "Fell the Bern"   T shirt from last time round.

Of course it shows some wear and tear but then again so do I.  "Once more into the fray"


oots

ugh


too old

too many running

democrats will self destruct


Morganna

As I watched this morning's announcement, my first thought was, "Will Bernie get his own thread?" And here we are. Well, I guess the first six months after roll outs are all about fundraising. So does Bernie cancel out Tulsi Gabbard or a possible Beto run?

I think many of the messages will sound the same, so will personality be the decision maker?

I'm assuming that the other campaigners will fall into a centrist category. Actually will there by a center, a right and a left in one party? I'm confused but engaged.


annielou

Don’t be confused. It just foretells another four years of Trump


ml1

another indication of how Democrats and liberals tend to worry about trivial matters.  Did the Republicans and their voters care that there were 17 candidates in their clown car in '16?  Of course not.  And they won the election.  With the worst human being possible as the nominee.

And not for nothing, but it remains a myth that Sanders cost Clinton the election. I can't count how many times I've posted this but here goes again -- Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.  No candidate ever gets all the voters who participated in his/her party's primary process.

take a deep breath folks, there's still a long way to go before November, 2020, and almost none of what you are worrying about today will be relevant then.


Nancy

He's very very popular and has unique qualities not found in most other candidates, so I don't see why many are acting like he has no business running for President.  Usually when someone gets such high marks they think they would be a good candidate.  Who else has 30+ years of saying the same things consistently and a terrific platform including Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, and does not take corporate money so you know he is fighting for voters, not donors? Who else also directly takes the billionaires and corporations on directly? Trump would never be able to beat him. If you are saying "ugh" about this then you need to check where you get your news from and maybe question the motives of those that convinced you of that. He is old and white, but you should base your choice on platform first  (and how truthful based on past) and then funding.  Personality, age, race and looks should be secondary.  Otherwise we might have all voted for Sarah Palin or Herman Cain.


tjohn

I don't want free college for all.  I want free college for those who earn it.  Consider Essex County College.  Large numbers of students arrive at ECC in need of remedial courses in subjects like math.  So, why would we spend money on college when the public schools aren't preparing kids for college in the first place?


BG9
tjohn said:
I don't want free college for all.  I want free college for those who earn it.  Consider Essex County College.  Large numbers of students arrive at ECC in need of remedial courses in subjects like math.  So, why would we spend money on college when the public schools aren't preparing kids for college in the first place?

 I agree there is the serious issue of public schools failing us. I find it ridiculous that colleges are offering remedial courses.

I also agree what needs to be done is set up standards as is done in many countries. That is, if you're good academically, you get into college which would be free.


author
nan said:
He's very very popular and has unique qualities not found in most other candidates, so I don't see why many are acting like he has no business running for President.  Usually when someone gets such high marks they think they would be a good candidate.  Who else has 30+ years of saying the same things consistently and a terrific platform including Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, and does not take corporate money so you know he is fighting for voters, not donors? Who else also directly takes the billionaires and corporations on directly? Trump would never be able to beat him. If you are saying "ugh" about this then you need to check where you get your news from and maybe question the motives of those that convinced you of that. He is old and white, but you should base your choice on platform first  (and how truthful based on past) and then funding.  Personality, age, race and looks should be secondary.  Otherwise we might have all voted for Sarah Palin or Herman Cain.

 Two T shirts for you.


Jamie

70% of people want Medicare for All.  80% like it because it sounds easy to accomplish (last percentage was my guess)

It's a great buzzword - but it also could jeopardize a program that is currently working for people who need it.  


BG9

So now that wonderful Bernie is running will we be having the same issues? That is, if Bernie does not get the Democratic nomination, will Bernie supporters sit out the election, ensuring a Trump win in tight critical states?


DaveSchmidt
ml1 said:

I can't count how many times I've posted this but here goes again -- Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.  

Approximately as many times as I’ve noted that there’s no way to know this for a fact. 


annielou

America will not vote for Bernie, or AOC, or anyone else who specifically identifies as a Socialist. I have personally espoused Socialist concepts for years, but have also come to the conclusion that Americans are just not sophisticated enough to care about it. The general electorate still believes that every morsel of our existence must be “earned“, whether or not that is a fallacy.


bub

Everybody likes the idea of free stuff, including me.  What's not to like?

But there is always the question of how stuff is paid for as well as the misallocation of resources when people have zero skin in the game in making decisions.


ml1
DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:

I can't count how many times I've posted this but here goes again -- Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.  
Approximately as many times as I’ve noted that there’s no way to know this for a fact. 

how do we know anything then if we don't believe poll results?  

At least there are polls that indicate this.  There's no evidence that Sanders cost Clinton the election.


nohero
DaveSchmidt said:


ml1 said:

I can't count how many times I've posted this but here goes again -- Sanders' primary supporters voted for Clinton at a higher rate than Clinton supporters voted for Obama in '08.  
Approximately as many times as I’ve noted that there’s no way to know this for a fact. 

 I know Mr. Ml1 eats statistics for breakfast, but I have to agree with Mr. DaveSchmidt on this one.

I will add that the statistic is also meaningless, given how many voters are NOT part of the primary process, but ARE influenced by what prominent supporters (or, non-supporters) do in the general election.


ml1

I suppose if no one here believes any of the post-election polling, there's no convincing anyone of anything.  But there isn't any post hoc analysis of the election that I've seen that indicates Sanders candidacy was a major factor that cost Clinton the presidency.  If anything cost her the most, it was people of color who had voted for Obama but stayed home in '16.  I don't know if those folks were influenced by Sanders, but they certainly don't fit the "Bernie bro" stereotype.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Of course when the result was essentially a coin flip in three states, ANY factor that boosted Trump a little or detracted from Clinton a little could be pointed to as a critical factor in the outcome.


DaveSchmidt
ml1 said:

how do we know anything then if we don't believe poll results?  
At least there are polls that indicate this.  There's no evidence that Sanders cost Clinton the election.

We don’t have to know everything, and just because we have data doesn’t mean it’s useful. Indeed, it can be the opposite of useful. 

A secret ballot and the imperfections of polling, especially when conducted through exit polls and self-reported surveys, conspire against drawing accurate conclusions about which groups voted which way. I’m fine with that.


DaveSchmidt
ml1 said:
I suppose if no one here believes any of the post-election polling, there's no convincing anyone of anything.  

Heh. That’s funny.


nohero

Let me phrase it another way.

The people who cheered as Bernie delegates marched off the convention floor in protest in 2016, received the result they wanted in the 2016 election.


Nancy
jamie said:
70% of people want Medicare for All.  80% like it because it sounds easy to accomplish (last percentage was my guess)
It's a great buzzword - but it also could jeopardize a program that is currently working for people who need it.  

 The current program is not sustainable due to cost.  People only have good healthcare if they happen to work at a place that provides it and subsidizes it at a reasonable cost. Even then, costs are still going up--few people have good, inexpensive insurance now.  If they lose their job, they are screwed.  If they get divorced they are screwed.  If they get sick and can't work anymore they are screwed.  Only one way to have it work and lots of ways to get screwed out of it=not a good system. 


mrincredible
ml1 said:
I suppose if no one here believes any of the post-election polling, there's no convincing anyone of anything.  But there isn't any post hoc analysis of the election that I've seen that indicates Sanders candidacy was a major factor that cost Clinton the presidency.  If anything cost her the most, it was people of color who had voted for Obama but stayed home in '16.  I don't know if those folks were influenced by Sanders, but they certainly don't fit the "Bernie bro" stereotype.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Of course when the result was essentially a coin flip in three states, ANY factor that boosted Trump a little or detracted from Clinton a little could be pointed to as a critical factor in the outcome.

 African American voters were directly targeted by Russian operatives using social media. The goal was to discourage them from voting for Clinton.  Just one factor among many that has us living in a banana republic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_XMosjgAhWBiOAKHW3dCRgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Frussians-took-aim-at-black-voters-to-boost-trump-reports-to-senate-find-11545066563&psig=AOvVaw34ZF4O3qVvSJu5AI0qkdYo&ust=1550681961201078&cshid=1550595558808



author

Medicare by the way is not a free item granted us by the Federal Government.   As a recipient I know.

In my opinion it is a very good form of medical insurance but it does cost me out of pocket $1,200

or $1,300. a year as well as a 20% deductible on some charges.   I am sure the insurance lobby will fight tooth and nail not to have their cash cow taken away by the Federal Government in the form of

Medicare for All.


Nancy
mrincredible said:


ml1 said:
I suppose if no one here believes any of the post-election polling, there's no convincing anyone of anything.  But there isn't any post hoc analysis of the election that I've seen that indicates Sanders candidacy was a major factor that cost Clinton the presidency.  If anything cost her the most, it was people of color who had voted for Obama but stayed home in '16.  I don't know if those folks were influenced by Sanders, but they certainly don't fit the "Bernie bro" stereotype.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Of course when the result was essentially a coin flip in three states, ANY factor that boosted Trump a little or detracted from Clinton a little could be pointed to as a critical factor in the outcome.
 African American voters were directly targeted by Russian operatives using social media. The goal was to discourage them from voting for Clinton.  Just one factor among many that has us living in a banana republic.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_XMosjgAhWBiOAKHW3dCRgQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Frussians-took-aim-at-black-voters-to-boost-trump-reports-to-senate-find-11545066563&psig=AOvVaw34ZF4O3qVvSJu5AI0qkdYo&ust=1550681961201078&cshid=1550595558808



 I think that was part of this:

Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’


Jackson Fusion
annielou said:
America will not vote for Bernie, or AOC, or anyone else who specifically identifies as a Socialist. I have personally espoused Socialist concepts for years, but have also come to the conclusion that Americans are just not sophisticated enough to care about it. The general electorate still believes that every morsel of our existence must be “earned“, whether or not that is a fallacy.

  oh oh  oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh


Dennis
nan said:



 I think that was part of this:
Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’

 Surprise...A piece by Dan Cohen, a correspondent at RT America, catches nan's eye.

Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @DanCohen3000.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Latest Jobs

Sponsored Business

Find Business