Bernie Sanders for President

Postal workers for socialism:
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/12/us-postal-workers-union-endorses-bernie-sanders-for-president-in/21263925/

Sanders is going to lose the nomination.

I watched the second half of the Democratic debate last night -- forgot it was coming on -- and Sanders refuses to / is unwilling to / doesn't know how to capitalize on his only strength.  When a moderator lobbed a perfect softball question to him -- "A black teen recently asked me, why should I care about the election?" -- instead of giving a short poignant answer which would have won him the presidency, Sanders went off into pol-speak and breakupthebigbanks and taxtherich and economicinequality.

All he needed to say was, "I would tell this young man that Black Lives Matter.  Black Lives Matter because if something isn't right, he has the power to vote the bastards out.  Elections aren't won by who has the most money.  Elections are won by who gets the most votes."

I just sent Bernie's campaign $50.

I'm flush with cash, and I've been looking for a way to contact his campaign and explain why his message is wrong.  I signed up for his mailing list a couple weeks ago, but that didn't provide any access.  This morning I got a spam offering me "free" bumper stickers if I contributed -- so I did.

As hoped, at the end of the process there was a dialog box, asking "Why did you contribute to Bernie's campaign?"

Here's what I submitted:

Quote :

We need to take back our country.

Bernie has a chance to win this election, if he adjusts his campaign message.  He needs to talk less about "income inequality" -- everyone expects entrepreneurs to do well -- and instead talk about the power of the vote.  Billionaires can buy advertising but they cannot buy votes (legally).  Even the poorest registered voter has one vote.  If enough of these "one votes" unite we can take back our country.

I doubt this will have any effect either, but I feel good about trying.

I plan to take the "Bernie 2016" bumper sticker and plaster it on my neighbor's SUV, which currently sports two placards, one that says just "1/20/2017" and another huge one that says "We need a president with integrity."

Incidentally, that last one still puzzles me - integrity? Really? What has Obama done which indicates a lack of integrity? The other day on FNC I heard a commentator say something about "Obama's huge ego" and I said, really? What's he done to deserve that? I just don't get it.

He's black and thinks he's just as good as a white man. Such an ego.

Latest polling shows Bernie and Hillary almost neck-and-neck, with Bernie doing a much better job of obliterating whatever Republican is on their ticket.

Bernie polls well ahead of Hillary in under-35 voters.  Hillary is ahead in over-35s.  Myself, I think the youth vote is the future, and very powerful if you harness it.

Back in November I predicted that Bernie would not get the nomination, because he hadn't learned to lead with his strength.

I hadn't counted on Hillary's campaign self-destructing at the first sign of competition. I now wish to revise that prediction.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

Sisters and Brothers -

Here is what I believe: the greed of the pharmaceutical and health care industries in this country is killing Americans. It is a national disgrace that, despite great gains made under the Affordable Care Act, 29 million of our neighbors are still without care.

That is why I am, frankly, a bit surprised that with less than three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, the Clinton campaign is attacking our belief that health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege, for every man, woman and child in our country. We cannot wait to realize that goal, and the best way to get there is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.

Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton's several super PACs took aim at us, saying our plan would "require tax increases on working families."

It would be a terrible setback for our shared values and for our movement to reform a corrupt political system if we lost because a super PAC scared voters into thinking our plan would take away people's coverage or cost them more money. Help make sure that doesn't happen.

Did I mention I signed up to attend a Bernie event in my neighborhood Saturday? It's a video address to his supporters.

Ordinarily I wouldn't get this involved in politics -- my vote is my voice -- but the choice this election cycle is so stark and the stakes so high, that I feel I cannot stand by and let events play out.

I'd be okay with a Hillary candidacy, but I really feel the conversation in this country has shifted SO FAR from reality and common sense that we need radical change to return us to the center. Hillary is not radical enough.

I sometimes worry that Bernie is TOO RADICAL but that's only because his views, which have not changed in decades, are now so out of fashion with the mainstream media. If he gets elected, I fully expect his views will be seen to be less radical than they seem, his reforms will be welcomed as they begin to show real results, and the vast majority of voters will come to understand, if they don't already, that what Bernie represents is mainstream American values.

Meh. Standard stump speech. Didn't really expect anything else I guess.

Bernie's policies do not diverge from the desires of the great majority of Americans. The problem is that the country lives off bumper sticker news. All the Republicans have to say is "Socialist" and half the country will run, without knowing why. I guess it comes down to the stupidity of the electorate. History would certainly indicate such.

At the beginning of Bernie's address, he said that many many voters agree with his agenda but consider him unelectable. He said by winning Iowa and New Hampshire, he will prove that he is electable and the floodgates of support will open up.

It could be. I dunno.

I *may* have even said the same thing myself 18 months ago.

Quote :

Two of America’s most famous ice cream makers are supporting presidential candidate Bernie Sanders with a deliciously socialist proposal.

Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream incited voters break up and eat America’s concentrated wealth today — at least in ice cream form.

Yesterday, Cohen debuted the new ice cream flavor “Bernie’s Yearning” — a mint and chip ice cream where all the chocolate is concentrated in a solid layer at the top, while the rest of the ice cream has none.

Robert Reich addresses Bernie's "electability problem"
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1142259599119968/

I like Robert Reich as much as I like Bernie. I have thought about Reich being Bernie's running mate, but I doubt that Reich would sign on.

I do think that he will wind up in the Sanders cabinet. "He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century."

It's scary. From eighteen months ago, when a Sanders candidacy seemed like an outrageous pipe dream, to today when he leads Hillary in some polls and wins against whichever candidate the Republicans choose to put forward, his trajectory has been awe inspiring.

One might even begin to believe it could happen.

If I had any confidence in the American people, I would consider Sanders a shoo-in.

I don't know how he would handle a lot of the bullshit a president has to put up with (or up with which a president has to put ), but his economic and social policies are good enough for me (and Bobby McGee).

He would (will?) face enormous opposition, if Clinton and Obama thought their presidencies were defined by the opposition against them I can only imagine what the billionaires will do to him once he starts talking about 90% taxes* over $2.5 million.

But it's part of the process.  I think it has to happen.

* - Or whatever it ends up being:

Quote :

During the second Democratic presidential debate on Saturday evening, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said he would not try to raise the top tax rate to 90 percent if elected.
Moderator John Dickerson asked him exactly how high he would raise the rate, given that Sanders has previously said he would increase it from its current level of 39.6 percent to above 50 percent. “We haven’t come up with an exact number yet,” he responded. “But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent.”
“I’m not as socialist compared to Eisenhower,” he added.
The remarks clarified a question raised by statements he made earlier in the campaign. In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, he said that he didn’t think a top rate of 90 percent would be too high, also citing the fact that it was around that level under Eisenhower. Indeed, it was 92 percent in the 1950s, but since the 80s it has fallen far below that.
While Republicans are often fond of saying that lower tax rates spur economic growth, the evidence doesn’t point in that direction. Historically, post-war growth has been higher when the top marginal tax rates were higher and lower when they were substantially lower. Under Eisenhower and with a more than 90 percent rate, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. With a rate closer to 35 percent in recent history, it’s averaged less than 2 percent a year.
Economists have also found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from earning more is actually about 95 percent on the richest 1 percent. A 90 percent rate on that group was also found to significantly reduce income and wealth inequality and improve everyone’s wellbeing.

I know polls don't mean fuck all, but this national poll has Hillary at 49% and Bernie at 43%.

That's the smallest gap in that poll. Last week it was 53-41 in favor of Clinton.
I have very little confidence in on-line polls.

Bernie's fundraising letters occasionally raise interesting questions.

Jeff Weaver wrote:

While Bernie is campaigning in Wisconsin and New York, the Clinton campaign is traveling to places that have already voted like Colorado, Virginia, and Florida to collect massive checks, including one event where couples can contribute $353,000 to sit with George Clooney.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with George Clooney. Everybody loves George Clooney. We’ll even plug his new movie, “Money Monster” that appears to be about the destruction caused by the greed, recklessness, and fraud on Wall Street.

But that $353,000 is an outrageous sum of money. And one of the great questions of this campaign is whether people coming together can overcome the electoral influence of a small number of millionaires and billionaires who are buying our elections.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Bernie just won Wyoming. That makes eight of the last nine primaries.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Back in November I predicted that Bernie would not get the nomination, because he hadn't learned to lead with his strength.

I'm officially declaring Bernie's candidacy dead today.

When he got shellacked in his birth state of New York it looked bad, and I think today's primaries are going to put the final nails in his coffin (ooo, that sounds more harsh than I meant).

I really believe he had a chance to pull this thing off, but his message was too narrow and too focused on "wealth redistribution" which scares people. If he had just talked about getting dark money out of politics he could've won. If he had just focused on bringing disenfranchised voters back into the system he could have won. If he had just called out Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton on being too cozy with Wall Street he could have won.

Jeff Weaver blew it.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention.

"Very narrow" indeed.  From this point forward Sanders is running to make a point, and to influence the DNC platform at the convention.  Winning the nomination is out of the question.

Howard called it two years ago:

_Howard wrote:

As much as I would like it, Bernie doesn't have a chance.

Sanders is doing much better than anyone I know had envisioned.
If he can move the worthless Democratic Party to the left where it belongs, he will have done more than the last few Democratic presidents.

Sanders won Indiana tonight, unexpectedly, but that does nothing to the dismal story of the delegate math.  His speech said he'll swing superdelegates -- but they're entirely party operatives, and go where the money is.  I don't see it.