Why do we need Bernie, and not another Democrat?

Moot said:

That's what I'm afraid of, too.

Click to expand...

Don't be afraid, I personally have no problems with Bernie, I appreciate his honesty and candor. I voted for him in 2016 primary and unfortunately did not get the chance to vote for him in the general election becasue of that F___ED UP super delegate crap.

Will see if he recreates the mojo of 4 years ago. AOC is now backing him so he will get some additional juice.

Another thing that worries me is the age thing. personally, I do not care, unfortunately many people do care and 78 years old is scaring the living S___ out of many people. My wife is afraid to go to a rally for fear he will have another heart attack.

If he makes it thru this primary, great, if he does not, I am sure he will get behind another candidate and give his support to them.

Honestly, I think Clinton would have won by a landslide if Bernie would have volunteered to be the VP.

Bullseye said:

Oops, here's the graph I meant to attach

View attachment 67266589

Click to expand...

That is one depressing graph. No one should be looking forward to the next recession.

Drawdown said:

LOL. If he hadn't sold his endorsement to Hillary, I would agree. As is, nope.

Click to expand...

Are you saying he should have endorsed Trump? :lamo

Let me paraphrase... are you saying he should not have done everything possible to avoid getting that Trump maniac around the nuclear button?

Bullseye said:

Oops, here's the graph I meant to attach

View attachment 67266589

Click to expand...

Again, unweighted means that it's not adjusted for inflation nor does median wage growth tell the whole picture like real wage growth does....

charliebrown said:

Don't be afraid, I personally have no problems with Bernie, I appreciate his honesty and candor. I voted for him in 2016 primary and unfortunately did not get the chance to vote for him in the general election becasue of that F___ED UP super delegate crap.

Will see if he recreates the mojo of 4 years ago. AOC is now backing him so he will get some additional juice.

Another thing that worries me is the age thing. personally, I do not care, unfortunately many people do care and 78 years old is scaring the living S___ out of many people. My wife is afraid to go to a rally for fear he will have another heart attack.

If he makes it thru this primary, great, if he does not, I am sure he will get behind another candidate and give his support to them.

Honestly, I think Clinton would have won by a landslide if Bernie would have volunteered to be the VP.

Click to expand...

I voted for him in the primary, too. If he wins the nomination I will vote for him. But no matter who wins they'll still be a 1000x better than Trump.

Sanders age worries me, too...as does Biden's. Warren not so much...but there's just something about her that bugs me.

Moot said:

I voted for him in the primary, too. If he wins the nomination I will vote for him. But no matter who wins they'll still be a 1000x better than Trump.

Sanders age worries me, too...as does Biden's. Warren not so much...but there's just something about her that bugs me.

Click to expand...

Be gratful this is a long process and we have options. Hopefully we will keep our collective options open long enough that if you identify what bugs you about Warren - or any candidate for that matter - there will still be another viable choice whatever your ideology for awhile. Lets not be in a rush to shove any candidate out early. If nothing else these minor candidates can be useful as foils in the debates while we keep listening and watching.

All we had left was two after Iowa last time. That means there was nothing on the menu but a grilled cheese, and a hamburger from New Hampshire forward. In effect the Democratic party shut down the primary system, as though we had an incumbent President and a token opponent , when there wasn't an incumbent, and there wasn't a healthy debate on direction or ideology or even a legitimate primary system to speak of, from 2008 (Obama first win) through now. We need to take full advantage of the time we have through next April.

btthegreat said:

Be gratful this is a long process and we have options. Hopefully we will keep our collective options open long enough that if you identify what bugs you about Warren - or any candidate for that matter - there will still be another viable choice whatever your ideology for awhile. Lets not be in a rush to shove any candidate out early. If nothing else these minor candidates can be useful as foils in the debates while we keep listening and watching.

All we had left was two after Iowa last time. That means there was nothing on the menu but a grilled cheese, and a hamburger from New Hampshire forward. In effect the Democratic party shut down the primary system, as though we had an incumbent President and a token opponent , when there wasn't a healthy debate on direction or ideology or primary system to speak of from 2008 (Obama first win) through now.

Click to expand...

Speaking of options, it's not too late for a better candidate to step up to the plate. Bobby Kennedy didn't get into the race until February. But I think I understand what you mean.

Moot said:

Speaking of options, it's not too late for a better candidate to step up to the plate. Bobby Kennedy didn't get into the race until February. But I think I understand what you mean.

Click to expand...

I am fine with that too. Our system is designed to starve our candidates before they even have a chance to open their eyes and grow some mammalian coat. Way too many a good candidate calculates how much in debt he will go into, when he does not have any real prayer of getting even a 5 state early state ground presence and viable top level staffing and sufficient name familiarity to get cash.

btthegreat said:

I am fine with that too. Our system is designed to starve our candidates before they even have a chance to open their eyes and grow some mammalian coat. Way too many a good candidate calculates how much in debt he will go into, when he does not have any real prayer of getting even a 5 state early state ground presence and viable top level staffing and sufficient name familiarity to get cash.

Click to expand...

True. But I think a lot of candidates run so they can get their issues heard and/or get name recognition. I don't think a lot of people knew who Bernie was before he ran in 2016 or who Yang and Castro were. Of course, they all hope they'll win but they also hope for the name recognition and all the benefits that come from being a former presidential candidate. Some people even seem to make a career out of it. IE: Newt Gingrich.

Moot said:

True. But I think a lot of candidates run so they can get their issues heard and/or get name recognition. I don't think a lot of people knew who Bernie was before he ran in 2016 or who Yang and Castro were. Of course, they all hope they'll win but they also hope for the name recognition and all the benefits that come from being a former presidential candidate. Some people even seem to make a career out of it. IE: Newt Gingrich.

Click to expand...

And that is not a bad thing at all. We all benefit from access to those ideas, and journalism simply refuses to cover ideas outside those already mainstreaming the two party spectrum. Third party platforms and candidates get no attention whatsover for 3.5 years and are treated like an animal act at Vegas every fourth. If Sanders wanted America to read and hear how things are done in Europe to solve some of these same problems, his only logical choice was to act like a Cuckoo bird and plant his offspring in another nest full of well watched debates, for incubation rather than build a nest of his own in the Green or American workers party. I give him great credit for -rebranding his version of socialis democracy for a new generation to learn and keeping his promise to support the nominee of our party. he is a decent committed honorable man, who I voted for in the primary, but he is not a Democrat, and he only grows that plumage for 15 months every now and again. The Democratic party was not about to pick as its champion, its standard-bearer someone who has zero loyalty to its party with the risk that a 'socialist' label involves. . I can't blame them for that.

That means we did not have a contest between two Democrats in 2016 past Iowa when O'Malley dropped . How can I keep supporting a party if does that to its members time and time again? Its a question I will be asking if we end up with no real debate among candidates before Super-Tuesday ends.

The actual fact is---------the country does NOT need a socialist/commie for a president.

btthegreat said:

Be gratful this is a long process and we have options. Hopefully we will keep our collective options open long enough that if you identify what bugs you about Warren - or any candidate for that matter - there will still be another viable choice whatever your ideology for awhile. Lets not be in a rush to shove any candidate out early. If nothing else these minor candidates can be useful as foils in the debates while we keep listening and watching.

All we had left was two after Iowa last time. That means there was nothing on the menu but a grilled cheese, and a hamburger from New Hampshire forward. In effect the Democratic party shut down the primary system, as though we had an incumbent President and a token opponent , when there wasn't an incumbent, and there wasn't a healthy debate on direction or ideology or even a legitimate primary system to speak of, from 2008 (Obama first win) through now. We need to take full advantage of the time we have through next April.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the DNC is setting up rules to eliminate candidates from debates based on fund raising ability. Amazes me that the politicians keep wanting to alleviate big money from the process while at the same time alleviating small money candidates from the process.
What really kills me is the media is giving Clinton more attention than the young, intelligent, energetic DEM candidates who are the future, not the bitter past.