The problem remains that with Sanders, the American empire may regain strength temporarily.
We still have the problem of an aggressive state, which has demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons against stubborn yet weakened enemies.
Geez, if people aren’t robbing me and giving it to corporations and then greasing me a little once in a while, I just won’t feel like an american. Where’s my gun!
Spend my money on infrastructure? "Infrastructure ’ is just code for welfare.
Yes, it is welfare for corporations whom make money from high speed trains. But this is better than high speed nuclear missiles.
Or woke-war crimes drone strikes for everyone.
Ok. I’m (temporarily) convinced. If Bernie comes in first in Nevada and second or better in South Carolina, I’ll vote for him in the primary. I’m in Texas so I’ll be voting on Super Tuesday. I’m going to go with whoever seems likeliest to beat Trump, and I’m coming around to thinking Bernie just might be able to pull it off.
They can’t. Reversing those cuts would barely scratch the surface.
First, it wasn’t a trillion dollar a year tax cut. The total deficit increased to about 1 trillion but we weren’t running a balanced budget beforehand. We ran a 666 billion dollar deficit in 2017 before the change kicked in. What it was was close to a trillion dollar estimate cost across the normal CBO used 10 year period. Some of the early cuts phase out in the bill passed and dynamic effects take time so the first year was a bigger chunk. So that is 1 trillion for a decade.
The left leaning Urban Institute did a cost estimate in 2017. That was the year Sanders first put meat on the campaign slogan of Medicare for All with actual legislation. Their estimate was increased government costs of $32 trillion across a decade. They do reference a lowball study in their finding where net costs only went up by $24.3 trillion across a decade.
Reversing the Trump tax cuts only covers about 3.1-4.1% of paying just for Medicare for All using those two cost estimates. That is before we include the costs of all his other proposals.
Medicare for all is cheaper than private health care
I will vote for him if he’s on the final ticket. I think he is a fantastic, career politician. I think he wants what’s best. But I really, REALLY don’t see how getting the nom is possible.
-
His age and health are a major point. I’m not sure he’ll be able to stay healthy on the campaign and in the WH. He’ll need a very strong VP candidate.
-
Dems don’t fully support him. REALLY. I feel one of the big reasons Hillary got it over Bernie was he was barely a democrat in 2016 to go for the nomination. And people point out that there will still be a GOP Senate after this election. Even if the Senate went to the Dems, I feel there will still be plenty of non-supporting senators on issues, especially on financial ones.
Frankly, I see him as a better cabinet member or Secretary of something in a new administration. And I think the longer he stays in, the less of a chance for someone to overtake Trump. His candidate support would really help the Dem nominee.
Maybe him just ending his bid would be for the best for the Democrats’ side.
Nate Silver has Bernie as the most likely candidate by about 3-1 to get the nomination. The likelihood that he’d drop out when he’s the frontrunner, and with no signs of losing support, is pretty close to zero.
Nate Silver still has a site after last election?? I had no idea. 
I don’t think he’d be able to predict the most popular ice cream flavor on national chocolate day.
Nate Silver was by far the closest data-tracking pundit to be correct in 2016 (he had Trump as about a 1 in 3 chance to win, and was only off by more than 1 or 2 points in about 3 states), and he was dead-on in 2018. If you think Nate Silver’s reputation has suffered, you haven’t been paying attention. He was amazing in '08 and '12, very close in '16, and amazing again in '18. 1 in 3 chance things happen about 1 time out of 3.
Sure, he’s right sometimes. I was exaggerating a bit. But when I dropped my ballot at 8 am in CA for Hillary, 538 had her at about 71%. I just don’t trust poll data.
I think Bernie is amazing yet worn out. I think he should consider retiring in a few years, too. And I don’t think enough Dems support him for dumbass reasons, like not being a “committed” democrat. Or something dopey like that.
71% chance to win (which is just about 2 out of 3 – not exactly a certainty). It had her right on the nose for the popular vote – about 2-3 points ahead. The polling was only off in 2-3 states, and only then by a few points. The vast majority of the polling was correct. If you don’t trust poll data, then it’s because you don’t understand how accurate it has been in recent elections.
We’ll see. Right now, he’s ahead, and in the lead in polling.
I would say that of every last one of them. I’m for Amy, but her staff issues are real. I’m for Warren, but you just can’t convince a lot of swing voters that she didn’t commit careerist affirmative action fraud. I’m for Pete, but hie’s only a little better qualified than Steyer, and the lies my imagination tells me Trump and Company would throw out against Buttegieg are unspeakable. As for Bloomberg, we can start with my wanting someone who will serve two terms, and go on to the, if possible, worse than Trump business conflicts of interest. Who did I miss?
Governors have the best chance of gaining the presidency – and none of the eight remaining candidate have that qualification. They should push the Democratic Governors Association into a room and not let them leave until the conclave has selected one of their own. But I don’t see who has any more responsibility to fall on their sword than anyone else :mad:
Have you ever watched baseball? If a batter comes to the plate with a batting average of .290, and he gets a hit, do you conclude the statistician has failed?
Three statisticians went hunting. After about an hour, a deer ran through a clearing not far away. One statistician shot just in front of the deer, and another shot just behind it. The third statistician shouted, “We got it!”
Even Nate accepts Bernie is going to win.
Green new deal, deal with global warming.
End belligerent foreign policy.
Tax billionaires their ill gotten gains
No more worrying about hospital bills, this must be so exciting for you
Are you forgetting that people would no longer need to pay for private health insurance? The rest of the civilized world pays half or less of what we do (per capita) for health care and gets measurably better results. They must be doing something right.
As long as Bernie selects a healthy fairly young VP, preferably Michelle Obama, I’m in. I don’t like him nearly as much as Warren, but I will absolutely get behind him.
These. [del]Never[/del] Rarely bet against a baseball statistician. The odds say that he will probably be right, within the margin of error.
JB Pritzker, governor of Illinois, is richer (and fatter?) than Trump and a solid Dem.
Can you imagine Michelle taking on Mitch McConnell? That’s not a job of the president, but of the veep.
Looks like we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty, as us fossils used to say. Who will Bernie pick as his Veep candidate? That’s immeasurably more important now than in previous campaigns. Danny Quayle and Dickie Cheney, and even lovely Sarah Palin and probably Prissy Pence, were obvious shields against assassination - off the Prez and see what horror you’ll unleash! With Bernie it’s: Who does America want to as Prez when your heart craps out just after inauguration?
Which reminds me of a quirk of fate. Herbert Hoover’s Veep was a former Senate Majority Leader, Charles Curtis, who was an enrolled member of the Kaw (Kansa) Nation. Had Hoover kicked off in office, the US would have had a Native American as president. Can’t call him Pocahontas.