The problems in Houston are well documented:
That’ll earn you a warning, CarnalK. You should know better than to insult another poster.
Well, Bernie has a chance now, but he’s really gonna have to hustle to even come close to winning.
So by “has a chance” you mean it’s theoretically possible?
Put it this way: A bet on Bernie to win is still long odds, but no longer the sucker-bet it would have been two weeks ago.
Two weeks ago people thought they were close in Iowa and Sanders would win New Hampshire. Are you saying that actually happening changed things or something else?
The margin of his win in NH gives his campaign a lot of momentum. Likewise, the broad range of classes and age groups and genders where he found support.
If you say so. The bit you quoted above certainly doesn’t.
Why have Medicaid, then? Or Medicare?
In any case, you can probably guess how much I care what suits today’s American so-called conservatives. Your side lost all credibility in the Hastert/DeLay/W years. What suits you best is not having power. 
I’m curious if a Sanders fan can address something that’s been nagging me. It’s seems to be taken as a given that Sanders is good at working out deals and generally being bipartisan, after all he’s an independent. That should make it easier to bridge the divide. And certainly on certain issues, he can find support from different quarters. He can find Republicans who’ll back his gun stances, Tea Party members who’ll back his bank ideas and Dems who’ll be with him on climate. But beyond that, on the whole, he appears quite partisan. Whenever I look at sources that track voting records, he does poorly. For instance:
The Lugar Center ranks him 217 out 225 on their bipartisanship index.
Open Congress notes that he most often votes with Senator Maria Cantwell (she votes party line 95% of the time)
Ballotpedia describes him as an “average Democrat”, meaning he votes Democratic the majority of the time.
So what is the notion that Sanders is so bipartisan based on?
It looks like your first and third article are about the same Veteran’s health bill which seems to me about the easiest thing on the planet to get bipartisan action on.
Your middle one postulates that he gets things done through amendments. I’m not sure but I think at least a couple of those listed died because they didn’t pass both houses. Pretty sure a couple were mentioned specifically in the Rolling Stone article I read about him - in it they mentioned that sometimes they let unfavorable amendments slide through because they know no one will sponsor it in the next house.
Anyway, do you think those articles fully refute the cites I gave? I said he wasn’t exclusively partisan but his overall numbers indicate he mostly is.
That is indeed interesting. It helps sell him to Democrats, but it does undercut the “independent” label. I think he’s “independent” of Wall Street, if that makes sense.
He’s “principled,” I think. Or ideologically inclined.
He’s part of the Democratic caucus. He does vote with Democrats, maybe more than the actual Democrats. That’s apparently helped his career in the Senate. He is much more part of the Democratic Party than when he started out.
I don’t know that moderation always indicates independence. A weathervane who always votes with the plurality isn’t actually a leader, even if they have similar voting records.
Does Sanders consistently voting with Democrats indicate a lack of independence? Maybe they’re just closer to acceptable for him.
If Sanders votes with progressives a lot more than with moderates, I’m not sure that’s bad. “Moderates” are kind of the bad guys these days due to the bailouts.
Rumors that he experimented in college.
Well that’s just it, foolsguinea. A lot of Dems think of him as a johnny come lately, a lot of his supporters think of him as some trail blazing bipartisan. But the truth seems to be he’s a fairly reliable left side Democrat. He does have a good “Liberal” voting record from what I’ve read.
I don’t know about “bipartisan” in the typical USA sense. More that he’s not invested in the Democratic machine and its own flavors of corruption.
So I found the Rolling Stone article I was talking about. It’s not particularly unbiased, lol, but it’s not a bad read. But I misremembered - I think the only amendment mentioned in it that matches one from the alternet article is the one about the Chinese Nuclear plant loan. And it didn’t get ignored in the Senate, it was voted down there. So while it’s an example of bipartisanship, it’s not truly successful bipartisanship.
The Hillary campaign (and her supporters at Time and the Washington Post) are claiming that the photo the Sanders campaign is posting showing Bernie attending civil rights demonstrations in the 60s is not really him. The Washington Post even said the Bernie campaign should stop sending it out because it’s a lie.
Apparently nobody bothered to ask the person who took the picture.
Ted Cruz took the picture?