Democratic Donor Contacts Biden Allies About Possible Run

Biden will only bleed some support from Hillary. Bernie is drawing support from people the DNC are blind to....liberals, youth, disaffected voters, and working class. Rahm called them retarded and to stfu, Bernie gives them a voice.

right to choose. If Biden ever did, he would be dead to me. What does this say about the establishment's view of Hillary? I would be pissed if I were her or a supporter about this. Amazing. We were given a choice for over a year and a half by these people, A-Hillary or B-Jeb. Clinton v Bush, the rematch. Look how well that turned out. They still don't get it.

The message is that some big donors do not think Hillary can win, and they sure as hell do not want Trump to win, based on his promise to shut down immigrants, including ---and this is the BIG point...H1B visa labor.

Obviously they do not want a "socialist" to win and re-allocate Gov. money.

So the message they are sending is...we want nothing to change and now we are afraid our preferred candidate cannot win,
so let's find another one.

black community.

He'd trounce Sanders.

...he was polling in the single digits. Nice enough guy, but no one was buying. Although Clinton has her baggage, the basic problem is people aren't buying the crappy Third Way product. Repackaging it isn't going to make it sell.

What do the blacks have on Sanders past his first black lives matter confrontation? I mean it sounds like there would be something if the blacks "love" Biden and would want an establishment candidate. I mean, the establishment has worked out so well for them so far... oh wait I don't think it has. I think it's worked against them.

I would think single payer and free college would help blacks, as well as raising the minimum wage and stopping the drug war putting blacks in prison as well as 3 strikes keeping them there.

Have you somehow bought into Hillary's newly minted koolaid where after her and her husbands policies locked blacks up for 2 decades you think she is somehow going to help blacks? I did watch her throw in getting blacks out of prison several times in her speeches now which I considered rich since she helped put them in there. Lets not forget Hillary and Clinton were a team during his presidency. She was very much a part of everything.

I'm asking seriously because I want to know your stance on this.

But free college won't help.

I've stated in the AfAm Group that this country has not prepared black children in poor districts for college. It has been redlined, deliberate and malicious. This would resonate with me if I saw attached to this concept a money grab from middle class and wealthy districts and a redistribution to poorer districts for elementary, middle and high schools. I demand Sanders and Clinton adopt the very common sense idea O'Malley had of transforming the fourth year of high school. I want it taken further though . . . Launch it it in inner city schools (an additional property tax grab) and only allow it in currently underperforming districts from 2017 to 2021.

What white America needs to understand is that we aren't giving an inch. We've bought into the bullshit Wait Until We Get Ours Then You Can Have Yours American Dream before and we know now it's just a trickster thing.


So understand the radio is on, tuned into WII FM - and there's just a lot of static. Just as it has always been.

I'm with LiberalStalwart - I'm not getting tricked by tricksters. She told the truth.

The blacks, the blacks, the blacks. Do you actually have women like me and LS in your circle or are we just the 'Monolithic The Blacks.

Have you somehow bought into the American kool aid that The Blacks need you to give us a lecture?

Pssst - Search her name and Clinton. She hates the Clintons!

anyway. People were banned for that on the other liberal site I follow. Some black people aren't prepared for college. As a white woman I know whites can sure use free college, actually the African Americans I know and my Chinese American best friend can use it too. But anyway, I'm very offended by your post. Welcome to my ignore list. And good luck with that. I believe the judge that said that(buying into a racist argument) a few weeks ago apologized because it was so offensive. Try avoiding blanket statements in the future. They are ALWAYS wrong. Good bye.

Anyway -

The blacks (this black in particular) know better than you.

My mother is a white woman - till death did they part marriage to my dad of 40+ years -

And she never uses "the blacks".

You are offended because I pointed out that black kids in the inner cities, redlined into them from 1934 to 1968 and shoved into cyclical poverty by white America with its deliberate and malicious intent to make sure the masses of us stay stepping and fetching?


I'm not offended by you - I'm trying to educate you -

You don't know "the blacks". You don't know us. So don't speak to "the blacks".

Holy Cow.

. We are about the same age right?
Two black women.
College educated.
In our early 40's.

The free college cracks me up. It's like - no black person has ever even GONE to college.

On "the blacks" and put me on ignore. Even pulled out the minority friend card. I tried to help her. Hopefully she will stop using "the blacks".

If they had a politician somewhere with the last name Sanders, the DNC would get him on the ballot, too.

The point isn't to have someone else defeat Sanders, its to draw enough votes away to let Hillary squeak by.

Super Tuesday. And probably not even then. No matter how well Bernie does, he's not going to get 100%, or even 90% of the delegates along the way. It's really important to understand that the primaries and caucuses are totally about allocating delegates, and because of that the actual vote counts are somewhat less important.

On the Republican side, at some point all their primaries and caucuses become Winner Take All, and so they quickly get a nominee.

People keep on fantasizing about a brokered convention. If, and only if, we had at least three very strong candidates who more or less split the delegates evenly, then that could happen. But we are already down to a two way race. One of them will wind up with the lion's share of delegates.

On the Republican side, it is actually slightly more possible, given their winner take all system. Again, if at least three candidates who are equally strong, and split up the various states' delegates, it could happen. But it's not very likely.

America is very fortunate to have a person of Bernie's caliber, willing to dedicate years of his life in our service. He is truly an outstanding person and leader. But, I don't believe that enough voters have the intellect and courage to elect him. I hope that I'm wrong. There is a political revolution going on in the U.S. The question is, how widespread is it? Has it's time come or not?

cycle. The more people hear Bernie speak, the more they get a chance to compare what he stands for with what Hillary stands for, the more they move over to his side.

True, most voters are very low information voters, but Bernie is also phrasing himself in ways that get through to exactly those voters. "I believe health care should be a right, not a privilege." And so on.

Also, keep in mind that at this point in 2008, it was commonly assumed by many that a Black man couldn't possibly be elected to the highest office in the land. Notice how that election turned out.

obvious charisma.

I was sad that I had to vote for a guy that came off as a cur because he was saying the right stuff and it was coming up right -nearly always when I looked him up.

He was the best candidate out there and I thought, this guy can't win, his personality is of a curmudgeon.

But now he has way gotten better, although I still saw the cur flash by the night of the Iowa vote.

I think he's a very intelligent man who can listen to pointers from his team and is getting far better.

But,"Charisma?" Are you being facetious? I should hope he starts being Charismatic.

from Wikipedia:
"The term charisma has two senses: (1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, (2) a divinely conferred power or talent. As regards sense 1, scholars in political science, psychology, and management use the term "charisma" to describe a particular type of leader having "symbolic leader influence rooted in emotional and ideological foundations".

You have likened Sanders to a mongrel dog. "
NOUN
1.an aggressive dog or one that is in poor condition, especially a mongrel.
synonyms: mongrel · mutt

You might be interested to read some of the text of his 2010 filibuster speech. His genius as a political scientist was clearly revealed. No "cur" there.

black community.

He'd trounce Sanders.

What would Biden do for the black communty? Why is he beloved? Why would you want an establishment candidate to trounce Sanders?

Obama is still beloved in the black community.

Sanders supporters' racism is showing.

during the Thomas hearings.

And then there's that Bankruptcy Bill that he pushed so hard for.

I was surprised when Obama picked him as VP, but with his connection to the banks it has become obvious.

Black people are not stupid! We think for ourselves--not what some arrogant white liberals tell us how to think.

Where is it?

And I apologize. I thought we were talking the substance of what the candidates stand for and how they vet, not simply voting for someone by association.

He was too late by the time he made his final decision and he's way too late now. This Dem bigwig is not that bright to think Biden will run now and win.

The Big Money/Oil/Pharma/Agribiz/Chemicals, Banksters and Tax Haven Rich are freaking, is correct.

Times have changed. Nobody want's the establishment candidate. Not even the Repubs.

Hillary's new 2016 progressiveness is proof that her voters have to be told she is progressive or won't voter for her. She has to pretend to be for every thing Bernie is. Of course they seem willfully blind about who's on her super pac.

Looks like pitchforks and torches time. We gonna have us a Party!

Billionaires diversify their investments.

If some months ago was too late to make a run after Beau Biden's death, it's way too late now.

BERNIE!

Especially not this late in the primary season.

With all due respect to Biden, if he were going to run, he needed to jump in at least six months ago.

Plus, am I the only one who recalls that among the reasons Obama selected Biden as his vice president was that Joe was already old enough that there was no chance he'd be looking to run for president eight years later?

Some one mentioned March 1, I believe, as the cut off date in many states.

I like Joe a lot but I think he is too canny to jump in this late in the game.

And I don't think HRC will be willing to step aside for the "good of the party" in the first place. The panic and disarray that would result would definitely lead to a GOPuke victory in November. I guess the only real question would be how far the PTB are willing to go to keep Sanders in the Senate.

A person, no matter how well connected, can't just decide at the last minute to run for an office and expect to have any success at all. On very rare occasions a write-in campaign has succeeded. Wikipedia has an article on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

The convention can keep voting and not have a winner and they can nominate an outsider (Biden) and then take a vote.

with at least three or four, maybe more, candidates in actual contention. This was relatively common in the 19th and into the first part of the 20th centuries when caucuses and primaries were nonexistent. Several states would have their favored sons, and various politicos would back one candidate or another, and lots of lots of back room wheeling and dealing went on.

If you haven't already read Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard, do so, or at least the chapters that tell of how James A. Garfield wound up as the Republican nominee for President in 1880. THAT was a brokered convention. The book is worth reading anyway, because Garfield's brief time in office really did have an impact, even though he is almost entirely forgotten today.

I guess Bernie's message is resonating - kinda like a 'political revolution'.

When the Repugs start taking shots at Bernie - you know he has arrived.

He's on a losing path before he begins, boots and all

The two of them teamed up to kill Florida's Medical Marijuana ballot initiative. But it came close, and is on the ballot again, this time during a presidential election year with bigger turnout expected.

I like that! It's about damned time.

we're supposed to do it for $10/hr. or less.

"We cannot afford to lose the White House," Bartmann wrote in the email, seen by Reuters.

When they say 'WE', you know damn well who they are talking about. BIG MONEY

Based on ANY GOP candidate slipping through their nomination process, it is certain a Democrat IS going to win this General Election -- the 'worry' is the one who doesn't take PAC money and respond to string-pulls is currently heading for that position.

No thanks.

are scared shitless, that they may get their boat (yacht) rocked.

Don't bother Joe.

Only the GOP (and they are Fapping over running against Bernie!!) and Bernista's falsely think otherwise.

Even with a perverted system, Bernie is shining a light on the truths we have been forbidden to see and hear. This resonates with most people. After all, we aren't machines.

I am pretty pessimistic about a lot of things, but not Bernie. And the reason is this: even if he didn't win, I would be proud of my vote. What more is there in life than being honest and free with your choices?

And I think they would be in a position to know, wouldn't you?

He is rich, but this guy tweets everyday about stuff that sounds like Bernie. About how Americans are only one paycheck away from financial crisis, about how awful payday loan places are, about students up to eyes in student loan debt. He seems to be in the business of taking down debt collection companies that harass people.

Not sure why he thinks Biden should run, would want to put in the energy to run, or how he thinks Biden could even get on the ballot in many of the states.

Anyway, like I said, he seems to love Joe, and be a fan of his.

...when I was young, I'm beginning to think it could happen in this case. A deadlocked convention could well mean a "brokered convention." Nobody wants to see the Democratic Party torn apart, as in 1968 (over the Vietnam War, in that case; would be more about the economy, in this case, maybe combined with Iraq War/Militarism issues). But if Sanders does really well--can't overcome all the "stacking" that's been done against the grass roots with "super-delegates" and so on--but reaches the convention with substantial primary wins, young people in particular and maybe some stormin' grandparents in wheelchairs (!!!) as well--COULD split the party with our unhappiness with Clinton.

Enter the "brokers" who may try to find a compromise candidate. This could be a person who has NOT run in the primaries, but whom both sides could agree on. Most delegates are pledged to the candidate who won their primary only on the first round of voting. If neither Sanders nor Clinton gets enough convention votes to win the nomination, it's open wide. ANYBODY could be nominated instead of Sanders or Clinton. Could be Joe Biden. Could be Elizabeth Warren (whom I think would be a brilliant compromise candidate). Could be Martin O'Malley. Or literally anybody else, including relative unknowns. The compromise could also be a Sanders-Clinton or Clinton-Sanders team. The latter is not very likely, but that IS what more or less happened in 1960--two radically different people, JFK and LBJ, welded together as a compromise ticket. (There have been many uncomfortable tickets, but that one was pretty extreme.) Neither Clinton nor Sanders has yet inflicted sufficient public insult on the other to bar the way to a joint ticket, it appears to me. It is (at this point) a possibility. But I think a THIRD candidate (plus VP) might become the best way out, in this scenario--that is, if Sanders' delegates are sufficient in number to block Clinton and/or are sufficiently raucous in a smaller but still significant number to create a badly splintered party.

A "brokered convention" is not necessarily a bad thing. If the choice is Warren, it would certainly satisfy me on most of the issues, and would also satisfy those voting for the first woman president. THAT, I think, would prevent a splintered party.

if no candidate makes it all the way through the primary season without locking up at least half of the delegates. The super delegates are generally various elected party officials, sometimes former office holders. They invariably wind up going with the candidate who already has the greatest number of delegates. They are not going to take the nomination away from that person and give it to the other.

As I've said several times here on DU, we'd only get to a brokered convention if we had at least three strong candidates, all of whom stay in the race throughout the entire primary season, and there's pretty much a three-way (or possibly even a four-way) split of delegates. Not going to happen.

A majority of the total delegates is needed, but two candidates can enter the convention somewhat tied in pledged delegates, and either needing a majority of U pledged superdelegates. Although there are fewer superdelegates than a few decades ago, there are still enough to boost a trailing establishment candidate over a leading outlaw candidate. Risky move, but they could do it.

A somewhat similar situation occurred in 1968. After several early primary losses, LBJ withdrew from the race in March, and VP Hubert Humphrey entered as the 'Establishment' candidate. He was too late to make the filing deadlines for the primary states, but the party machine got him in the caucus states (there were more of them then), and rigged the caucuses to favor him. At the time of RFKs death, the pledged delegate counts were HH-561.5 (all from the rigged caucuses), RFK-393.5, and Eugene McCarthy-258. By the time of the Convention, 80% of the primary voters had gone to the two anti-war candidates, RFK and EM. RFKs delegates were free to shift to EM after the first ballot, but HH had almost as many delegates from the rigged caucuses. After a lot of arm-twisting and back room deals orchestrated by LBJ and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the unpledged delegates (there were many more back then) went to HH. The final delegate tally was Humphrey-1567.75 to McCarthy-1041.25. The party establishment machine exercising it's will over the choice of the voters was the cause of the rioting, and the devastating defeat to Richard Nixon. If the Party chooses to overrule the will of the people again, I predict a similar result...a deeply divided party and a big loss to the GOP in November.

happening is vanishingly small.

And keep in mind, that in 1968 there were three essentially viable candidates. Until Robert Kennedy was murdered. Back then there were a spate of fictionalized versions of "What if RFK had not been killed", and I read at least several of them. The most starry-eyed saw him as getting the nomination and winning the election. The most realistic understood that RFK probably was not going to get the nomination, and see him as a potential kingmaker.

Also, back in 1968, if I recall correctly, there were still states that did not select their delegates to the convention via primary or caucus, but by the Party officials in that state. Again, the modern system, with its all its warts, is different.

I also recall reading an article, probably in an old Life Magazine, but who knows? back around then that claimed the new system of the primaries and caucuses to select the nominee probably didn't result in much difference from the nominees chosen the old way. I read it a long time ago, and I may be completely mis-remembering what was said, but someone far better versed in political science/political history than I am could shed some light on the entire process.

In any case, I absolutely agree with you that if this year Bernie Sanders has the delegate count to get the nomination, and the Party figures out a way to take it from him, there will be hell to pay. And a Republican in the White House. But keep in mind that the Super Delegates have historically gone with the person with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries. And with only two people still in contention, it is essentially impossible to imagine a brokered convention, unless you envision a situation in which ALL SDs do not vote in the first round at the convention. That's simply not within the realm of possibility, if you ask me. Which you didn't, but I'm telling you anyway.

With pledged delegates, one mathematically has to have more than half the pledged delegates. It would be a disaster to not nominate that person. Only if the health or some real not known before the contests information surfaced could anyone think it a good idea to not pick that person as nominee.

I do agree that Warren might be a person both sides might accept -- if they agreed with sighting their choice.

I first remember hearing it in the '80s. The Daily Mail even had a column called "Life with the Loony Left", mostly consisting of made-up stories about Ken Livingstone's GLC.

These people really believe liberals a tiny minority they don't even need to pander to anymore.

In fact, they're treated as the enemy.

The new paradigm is wet sloppy kisses to Wall Street.

Back when the shadow of Reagan still hung over the whole of American politics. Nowadays, even the Republican party seems to have given up the almost religious invocation of his name. The world has moved on since the last time a Clinton was president.

That doesn't go over very well with Millennials.

Nor does getting paid a fraction of what the job is worth while those who are supposed to represent them are wearing a suit that is worth more than what they make in a montth while they're chillin' with their boss at the country club.

Otherwise, not this time around. She's been clear

The same goes for any other late candidate. They would either have to run in the GE as a third party candidate, or the party bosses would have to engineer some convention foul play to get them nominated.

I'd love it too, and Wall Street would have a collective aneurism! She'd be pretty valuable in the Senate too, so I'm o'K with that also. Or maybe a SCOTUS appointment!
We also need a DNC chair to replace Debbie Downer. I'm not suggesting Warren for that, but who?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

Colbert King sums up "Just a thought: As a precaution, the manager in the White House dugout might consider telling the bullpen to start warming up Joe Biden."

He's been in the House and Senate for 30 years. He knows how to deal with these banksters, Citizens United and other fraudsters

Just when I think all the "DU has jumped the shark" posts have already been covered, someone comes up with yet another one to top all previous contenders!

Yay, some sanity on this thread.

We need a stock market. We thrive on capitalism.

But most of us do not do well when the few at the top grab the entire economy and leave us out.

Wall Street has taken the jobs of ordinary Americans, shipped them overseas and shipped poor quality products back to fill the shelves of our stores. They hide their profits overseas so that they don't have to pay taxes to maintain our schools, our public colleges, our roads, our bridges and the rest of our infrastructure. They are in a sense taking their money and slowly but surely abandoning us.

I don't know the numbers, but it feels like fast food is the top employer in the country. That is probably not statistically accurate, but it sure feels like that. What kind of economy is that? How does someone buy a house or feed and clothe and educate their children on a minimum wage job at McDonalds or some other big chain, low-wage operation?

A lot of Americans are still doing OK, but the crash of 2008 meant many people lost their homes, their jobs and their businesses. That was a big warning to all of us. We all know someone, probably more than one hardworking, good person who lost their job or their home or their business. And many of those who lost out are still suffering. In many cases, these are people who thought they were doing well in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Those of us who did not lose just about everything are all frightened that we could join those who did. And those of us on Social Security and Medicare are worried that the Republicans and Wall Street with the silent acquiescence of the leadership of the Democratic Party will pull our meager monthly payments out from under us. Students and graduates are overwhelmed with debt and just at the time when they are starting their families, paying high rents. They really struggle.
,
We feel that the rich take and take and care nothing about anyone else, nothing about the rest of us. They want a share of our healthcare dollars, a share of our education dollars, a share of our housing dollars, a share of everything. And they give us nothing tangible in return for what they take. They just grab a little profit but provide no meaningful service for it.

And Bernie says it for us: Enough is enough. You can't have it all.

Why is the Democratic leadership surprised that we feel that we need a better safety net?

Occupy Wall Street put it well:

The banks got bailed out, and (I'm paraphrasing badly) we got locked out.

Who can we turn to? Congress with its Republican leadership and the apologetic minority of Democrats, those "you have to love us because at least we aren't as bad as the Republicans." What hope are they offering us?

When the bubble burst and the economy crashed, Wall Street leaders had contracts that protected their big paychecks. But Wall Street seemed oblivious to the many, many Americans who didn't have contracts like that and lost the small savings they had. There are a lot of people out there now in their 50s and 60s who lost their jobs and homes, spent the little they had saved for retirement just to survive and now can only get temp jobs or jobs that pay far less than they were earning before 2008.

Wall Street and the "leadership" of the Democratic Party seem to be oblivious to that reality. And if, as people like Hillary and other "leaders" of the Democratic Party are prone to do, they meet with "ordinary" people to talk about their problems and concerns, the ordinary working people they meet with are so starstruck and so anxious to please and say the right thing that the important "leaders" don't hear the truth. They see people at their best, not the reality under the dress-up clothes, the Sunday-best smiles and the cheerful talk.

So now Bernie is doing well in the polls, and these very important but oblivious people who are out of contact with the reality of American life at this time don't understand it.

They never will. They see the shopping centers full of shoppers -- of imported products -- often spending borrowed money. Hey. Credit is great for Wall Street and the banks. The interest boosts their income. But that same interest represents losses to the borrowers. Americans need living wages, not credit cards.

Bernie is doing well because he is speaking to the problems that are important to real Americans when they sit behind closed doors with their families. He understands how people are trying to figure out how they are going to survive in the future, whether they will have jobs five years from now, whether their jobs will be outsourced or exported.

He gets it. He knows what to do about it. He has ideas we haven't already tried. He tells us that we can work together to make our lives, our society more secure without sacrificing our creativity and individuality.

Meanwhile, Wall Street which seems so capable of predicting market trends pays very little attention if any at all to the trends in the lives of ordinary, the majority of Americans.

And then the Wall-Streeters think they are going to be able to buy this election the way they buy stocks.

Maybe they can. Maybe they can.

But what will it mean for America if they do?

Do they have any answers for what is ailing America? For what is scaring Americans?

I really don't think so.

There is a concept in religion of having "a calling." A calling is the mission that chooses you. It isn't something you choose.

We have a lot of politicians in both parties who don't have the calling.

They try to act like they do, but they really aren't called.

Bernie Sanders is called to public service. When we say we "feel the Bern," we are saying that we feel that Bernie is called, called to public service. He is selfless in following his calling. He is devoted to, obsessed with good government. That is what America needs in its next leader.

There are some nice people out there running for office. But none of them that I can think of have been called, feel the calling, like Bernie Sanders.

I just don't think that these self-satisfied makers, important people and politicians understand what that calling is or why it makes Sanders so different and so appealing.

We need Bernie.

He has the calling to clean up our government. None of the other candidates have that.

We need Bernie. We need him because he will provide responsible leadership, and at this time, more than anything we need responsible leadership not only in Congress but on Wall Street. Is that really too much to ask?????

If Wall Street was as smart as it thinks it is, it would go with Bernie. He is actually the candidate with the character and the personal skills, the independence, to reconcile the needs and interests of Wall Street with those of the rest of America. Probably sounds crazy. But if we continue on the corrupt track we are on, our country will divide and fall apart.

If Wall Street doesn't have the vision to understand that, we may well be doomed. We can't afford another administration that lives to cooperate with the corrupt, insatiable demands of big money and sacrifices the well being of average Americans for that end.

Sometimes only by giving up control can you exercise it. That's what America's business leaders need to learn. Because by constantly trying to grab and exercise their control and ignoring the needs of the American people, they are killing the goose that laid their golden egg -- the American people.

Bernie knows how to save that goose.

Stop Bernie at your peril, all you rich folks. He is what America needs, and guess what, he is what you need too.

not fast food. Then it's walmart, whose security department alone makes it the largest private security force in the nation (world?).

United States Department of Defense 3.2 million 3.2 million United States
People's Liberation Army 2.3 million 2.3 million China
Walmart 2.1 million 2.1 million United States
McDonald's [note 1] 1.9 million 1.7 million United States
National Health Service 1.7 million 1.4 million United Kingdom
China National Petroleum Corporation 1.6 million 1.7 million China
State Grid Corporation of China 1.5 million 1.6 million China
Indian Railways 1.4 million 1.4 million India
Indian Armed Forces 1.3 million [note 2] India
Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn) 1.2 million 0.8 million Taiwan

We don't need bernie. Bernie is fictional. What people think he is and who he is are very different creatures. Bernie will never get elected.

We need a dem in the white house, and it won't be bernie. That president would be called trump, not sanders.

The Department of Defense employs a lot of people.

You are correct on that. But my post was, and I probably did not make it clear, referring strictly to the United States' employment numbers. That you confirm. Walmart and McDonald's, one truly fast food, the other selling imported junk.

We have a crisis in the kinds of jobs that are available in our country. We are quickly becoming a third world economy with a very large military. That is not good. Not good at all.

If traditional Democrats were capable of improving our economy, really improving it, and not just creating more low-wage jobs at McDonalds and Walmart, then Obama would have done it.

We do need Bernie. Your post proves we need a new approach, and the only person running who is offering a new approach is Bernie. We do need Bernie.

We are sick and tired of "free" trade that is only free for the top 1% of our nation and costs the rest of us our jobs and what remains of OUR economic freedom.

That should be an OP.
The Third Way is a crappy product were not buying. Repackaging it isn't going to convince us.

Probably the fastest growing part of our economy, especially with the new darlings of online gambling, Fantasy Football and FanDuel.

Otherwise, you're right---fast food is the top employer.

democratic revolutions. At that time, the nobility as pretty much nearing the end of its period of dominance, and spent a lot of time gambling.

Any historians online who can tell me whether I am wrong about this and clarify the facts?

The popularity of gambling is not a good sign. It suggests to me that we are a decadent society -- very selfish and unaware of the consequences of what we do to our families and our society. A very bad sign. Gambling addictions harm a lot of families.

I think people gamble when they have no hope of earning more money, with wage stagnation. It gives poor people a thrill to imagine what they would do if they were rich. It seems to me that casinos were the playgrounds of the rich in the 19th century and now they are frequented by the desperate and addicted. I once saw a quote from Pascal, who determined the laws of probability. It said something like, if Lady Fortune did not exist, mankind would have had to invent her, for he builds temples to her and worships at them.

I'm on my IPad or I would link to some information on the Enlightenment, but I am not skilled enough on the IPad to do that.

That guy has no chance in a general election.

If he can beat the slick and powerful Clinton machine, he can beat anything the clown car crew can throw at him.

that show him doing better than Hillary against the various Republican candidates.

Or don't those polls count?

the media will say anything for a story.

These characters ought to be very careful. They don't want to create a Sanders-Warren independent run.
Biden, I think, would be a better choice than Clinton, but the party wants to be careful not to be seen deliberately pushing Sanders onto the gang plank.
A Sanders independent run could put a Repub in the Whitehouse.
The electorate is sick and tired of the backroom folks running the show.

This is getting quite strange.

The other names are being tossed around by different people. Seems to indicate they're in utter panic and flailing about, and no one has the answers. I can understand Clinton not filling them with confidence, but I'd think that Obama would tell them to calm down and relax.

Joe's a nice guy, I guess....and his big smile sure as hell always looks 'real'....

so when he screws you over you don't feel so taken advantage of...if I was him, I'd find out about all the $200K speaking engagements and just hit that circuit....

They don't want that.

It seems to me that in either case, "I'm happy where I am at" or simply "I'm not interested" falls on deaf ears.

Depends

Whoever the Elite Establishment person is...they just want the status quo to remain.

Sorry! That party is coming to an end.

Split Hillary's support in half and let Bernie win 50-25-25.

They're nervous, paying attention, and doling out megabucks.

That's different.

Definitely.

would be the perfect candidate if he weren't labeled Democratic Socialist
and he were from Texas. Then all would pay attention.

The socialist label is going to help him.
People are fed up with crony capitalism.
It's been going on since Raygun and it doesn't fucking work.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/colbert-i-king

Clinton email scandal: Why it might be time for Democrats to draft Joe Biden

By Colbert I. King Opinion writer February 5 at 7:06 PM

The Hillary Clinton email issue is developing into a real whodunit, complete with Clintonesque legal semantics. “I never sent or received any material marked classified,” she said with respect to the discovery of classified information on her private, unclassified email server. That surface denial nearly rivals Bill Clinton’s classic: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

But this is no laughing matter.

There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home. That appears to have been the case, based on the State Department’s announcement last week that 22 emails, across seven email chains, containing top-secret information were on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

At issue is whether the information in the emails was classified when it was sent to her unsecured server. It was, after all, the State Department, upon review of the content by intelligence agencies, that upgraded the emails to top-secret and ordered them withheld from the public.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3273700036.html

Fascinating bio, makes me wonder what he's hearing.

By the 'leadership' is a large part of what makes politics such a smarmy, cynical affair ...

It's different this time .... There is a candidate that is not only unfailingly HOPEFUL, but has based his candidacy on DEFYING the 'leadership' ... It's that aspect of Bernie's campaign that is DRAWING support ...

The more they try to marginalize that hopefulness - the more pushback from an angry electorate that insists the cynical manipulation of our lives by the 'leadership' must come to an end ... "Enough is enough" !

So, bring it, 'leadership' .... We look forward to picking up more votes !

Either Hillary or Bernie. As are Bill Clinton (can't run), President Obama (can't run), and (PERHAPS) Liz Warren. Hillary has too much baggage (and I'm really concerned she's going to get indicted for the email issue) and Bernie is a uber-liberal who can't win the GE in the Midwest, mountain states and most certainly the South. I really don't understand how the Democrats went from really good candidates not too long ago to really bad/unelectable candidates. Although to be fair, republicans have done the same - republicans have had some good presidents, like Theodore Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln, but Trump, Cruz and Rubio are simply awful. I'm really, really perplexed/sad when I think about some of the current candidates actually running this country.

They're voting against Wall Street.

Biden would have an immediate super pac and basically be Hillary.

No establishment candidate will suddenly make any one who would vote for Bernie change their mind.

It's literally falling apart at the seams.

No wonder she is resorting to these knee-jerk, over-the-top ploys like traveling to Flint.

OMG...I almost feel sorry for her. Almost.

would win, but that he'd step down!

We have a winner!

I'm one of those deep pockets donors; I was at a dinner with Biden the night he made it clear he wouldn't run. If this was a major thing, I'd hear about it.

but then again I read the article

Tell me where it says any of the recipients agree woth the donor's email

Reference: dozens of donors sent request:
A prominent Democratic donor worried about the party's chances of winning the presidency emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the race. <snip>


Reference: Reuters saw string of donor responses:
The email drew a string of affirmative responses, also seen by Reuters. <snip>


Reference: One example from the responses seen by Reuters:
"Count me in," Gary Hindes, chief executive of the Delaware Bay Company LLC and a former chairman of the Delaware Democratic Party, wrote on the email chain.

If Biden were to run, every single bank and insurance company on the super pacs will be on his. He will be bought out by the less than 1%. That is big money.

Why do I know this? Because all candidates except Bernie have super pacs by the Wall Street fraudsters and in many cases the same fraudsters are on every candidates super pac. Why is Goldman Sachs on every single super pac including all 12 republicans and Hillary's and O'malley? They don't care which candidate wins just that one one who does is beholding to them. They proved they don't care if they are supporting Democrats or Republicans - they ARE financing them all. Except Bernie who refused the super pac.

Biden will only run if Wall Street deems Hillary not viable which is a very real situation at this point. Bernie caught up too fast.
I imagine a bunch of sexist hedge funds and banksters and insurance execs deciding that maybe the problem is Hillary is a woman instead of the problem is Hillary is backed by the less than 1% and half the Dems noticed. That they would choose Biden means they really don't get why people aren't voting for Hillary.

the Dems will lose in the GE whether it's Sanders or Biden. This isn't going to happen.

if you say so..