Clinton doubles down on Sanders criticism, warns that he's promising 'the moon'

[Gothmog]

sanders cannot adopt any of his proposals in the real world.

Link to tweet

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton furthered her comments discrediting Sen. Bernie Sanders as a viable presidential candidate on Thursday, insinuating that his potential failure to "deliver the moon" would detract from efforts to rebuild public trust.

When asked by talk show host Ellen DeGeneres if she wanted to address her prior remarks about the Vermont independent, Clinton noted that while she originally made them about a year and a half ago, "I have a pretty clear perspective about what it's going to take to win, and as I said earlier, that's what I think the key calculation for any voter has to be."

"You've got to be responsible for what you say, and what you say you're going to do," Clinton added. "We need to rebuild trust in our fellow Americans and in our institutions, and if you promise the moon and you can't deliver the moon, then that's going to be one more indicator of how, you know, we just can't trust each other."

Sanders' campaign declined to comment Thursday. When Clinton's previous remarks surfaced last month, Sanders said in a statement that his focus was President Donald Trump: "Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history."

Clinton's comments Thursday come as Sanders is in a near-tie with former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa caucuses. As of Thursday afternoon, with 97% of precincts reporting, Buttigieg remained the leader of the race, with 26.2% of state delegates, while Sanders closely trailed with 26.1%.

Clinton's prior comments about Sanders, her 2016 opponent in the Democratic primary, were aimed directly at his core campaign appeal -- that he's a political outsider pitching revolutionary change.

[polichick]

1. Why didn't she just run again?

[StarfishSaver]

17. She can only express her opinion and if she's a candidate?

[polichick]

21. This way, she could do more harm than good - better to run.

[Gothmog]

87. How is telling the truth doing harm

[Rural_Progressive]

117. We can have a military larger than the next 7 countries combined

but what Sanders is suggesting is "promising the moon". She sure sounds like a voice for the current status quo.

I wish Bernie wouldn't run but what he is suggesting for our country already exists in some form in just about all the other developed nations in the world. So just exactly is how what he's suggesting unrealistic for our country?

[ehrnst]

125. OK...

If someone in Boston pointed to Chicago and said, "Look at our mess of tangled streets, and compare it that orderly grid of streets in Chi town! First responders can get places faster, you know how long you will need to walk to get from one address to another! They did it, why can't we?"

You'd know immediately what to tell them. You'd need to go back in time to get streets like Chicago has, and even if you could do that, the hills in Boston are still going to be there. You can't just retrofit that onto what we have now - the disruption would be massive, and the expense... what we can do is address one part of the city at a time, do traffic studies, figure out how to keep traffic flowing with lights, dig a subway, but we are not going to get what Chicago has, starting now, and retrofitting."

Anyone who promises a Chicago grid - within an 8 year period - to Boston is promising the moon.

The health care system in this country is intertwined with the payment systems. It is also much, much more difficult to cut costs than it is to prevent them from rising too much.

If we had a time machine and could go back to the Truman administration, before the massive jump in technology, and start then, and grow the system and adjust as technology grew, that would be the way.

But no other industrialized country in the world with UHC could start NOW, working with and against the massively baked in system we HAVE, and get to what they have NOW, in just a few years.

Canada took decades. All the provinces when single payer individually, over decades, and then in the 1960's, a very liberal federal government was voted in, and they added a federal layer over the system. It's still manage primarily at the province level, unlike a federal program that Sanders is proposing.

Most countries with UHC don't use single payer, they use a hybrid of public private systems to deliver care - more similar to the ACA than Single Payer. As with many other areas, governments outsource delivery of some services, and hire contractors.

And none of them got where they are in 2 years as Sanders is promising. He was promising it in 8 years in his 2016 plan, but i guess he felt a need to differentiate himself from other candidates by reducing the implementation time in his plan....

So yes, there is an element of "promising the moon." But I think that some people promise the moon knowing that they aren't ever going to be called on to deliver, and if they some how are, they can blame 'the establishment/big Pharma/big insurance/The Senate/ SCOTUS for thwarting them, while never really addressing how to deal with those obstacles during the campaign.

The ACA is the furthest down the road to UHC than we've ever gotten. Besides, if the 2010 SCOTUS struck down the requirement that states expand Medicaid, how do you think the 2022 SCOTUS will rule when red states don't want to participate in the expansion of "medicare?" And there will be no way to administer this for the full population at the federal level - there will need to be some medicaid type state participation in the administrative functions and delivery...

Sanders has never addressed that. But he's not known for listening to people who don't agree with him, and gets testy when asked questions that he can't answer easily, that are outside his talking points.

[ehrnst]

115. So no one who has run before can say anything about the candidates....

unless they run again?

[StarfishSaver]

180. No. Just Hillary

There are special rules that apply only to her.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

191. My special rule for Hillary: When she speaks, I pay attention.

[still_one]

52. +++

[Gore1FL]

57. She should endorse someone.

Being an attack dog does no one any good--especially her.

[ehrnst]

116. "attack dog?" So you think that she should be on someone's campaign staff?

Like David Sirota is?

[Gothmog]

90. Getting a lawyer to not comment on something is hard

[BlueWI]

134. Obama's a lawyer too.

Not hearing weekly venting from him about a primary he's not running in.

[Gothmog]

163. I still would love to see Joe Biden appoint President Obama to SCOTUS

[polichick]

34. Waiting pretty long.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Ya but it's not too late. Hillary's ally Bloomberg entered late & isn't competing til Super Tuesday.

Given Joe's poor performance in Iowa, and his collapsing poll numbers in New Hampshire, I'm sure the DNC would make another exception to allow Hillary onto the debate stage, even at this late stage, as Joe's potential substitute along with Mike. I hope they do... can't have too much democracy!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[ehrnst]

67. Or too much transparency!

If there's anything thing that HRC is known for is being up front about, it's her campaign donors, and her medical history and records! That would be refreshing, wouldn't it? I mean, if she was actually going to run again, which she clearly stated she's not, so she can help the nominee!!!

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/watch-bernie-sanders-promised-to-release-all-the-medical-records-following-heart-attack-now-says-he-probably-wont/

[TexasTowelie]

84. It's too late to get on the ballot in most states.

Candidates had to file in early December to get on the ballot in Texas. I'm reasonably certain that the deadlines have passed in most other states.

[ehrnst]

107. But InAbLuEsTaTe is sure that the DNC would "make exceptions" for HRC...

you know, because...DNC.

[TexasTowelie]

123. Yes, because we know that the DNC has rigged all of the primaries.

[sheshe2]

135. Wink. Wink.

[George II]

140. Kind of a strange thing to say - "Hillary's ally Bloomberg". Biden isn't collapsing anywhere....

...if anything Sanders is losing steam. Wonder what the polls will look like next time around now that he's lost Iowa after claiming he was the winner and Buttigieg is surging in New Hampshire. Two embarrassing losses in a row could destroy his candidacy.

"I'm sure the DNC would make another exception to allow Hillary onto the debate stage, even at this late stage, as Joe's potential substitute along with Mike. I hope they do... can't have too much democracy!!"

Did you forget to add this?

If not...............

[thesquanderer]

182. re: "Biden isn't collapsing anywhere ... if anything Sanders is losing steam."

Seriously? Did you forget to add this?

Sanders is the strongest he has been since Biden entered the race. Biden is the weakest he's been since he's entered the race.

[LanternWaste]

174. And don't forget Bernie's epic fail to suRge and take the blue ribbon IA was spectacular.

Thankfully, no one pretended Biden would walk away with the Blue Ribbon. Bernie on the hand had... what a massive disappointment in only meeting the minimum requirements rather than the decisive victory you guys guaranteed us.

But we get it... promise the moon and show up with a rock. Guess that spin trickles down from Bernie.

[ehrnst]

65. You missed this part, silly....

Yeah. I certainly feel the urge because I feel the 2016 election was a really odd time and an odd outcome. And the more we learn, the more that seems to be the case. But I’m going to support the people who are running now and do everything I can to help elect the Democratic nominee.

The only people still pushing the rumor that she's going to run again is the GOP, to get people talking about something other than Trump's legal problems.

You certainly didn't mean to do that, I'm sure!

[TwilightZone]

104. It was "missed" intentionally

And, yeah, this isn't the first time, either.

[ehrnst]

105. gEt oUt Of HeRe!!!

[TwilightZone]

106. ...

[LanternWaste]

173. I apply that same query to anyone commenting on candidates.

Including posters. Imagine our frustration that not everyone commenting on politics is running for President.

[polichick]

179. HRC's influence makes this false equivalency absurd.

[jalan48]

2. I don't think Hillary gets that her speaking like this really helps Bernie.

[Gothmog]

10. Really?

sanders will need the support of Clinton voters to get the nomination and get elected. Good luck with that

Link to tweet

[Autumn]

13. Her "conversation" about him in Jan really helped his fundraising. I believe February will be just

as good, if not better.

[jalan48]

28. Exactly. He has a strong base of support and these kinds of attacks just help him.

[pfeiffer]

30. His fundraising did not...

seem to help his turnout in Iowa. Way down from 2016.

[Autumn]

40. Doesn't matter his turnout did just fine and so is his fundraising. There were TWO running last time

there are several this time. Bernie did just fine. No..He did better than others.

[ehrnst]

114. Yeah, that doesn't bode well. (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. Yes, the Baseless Bernie Bashing Backlash is fueling Bernie's surge in the polls, soooo...

KEEP IT UP.... WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!! GO BERNIE... FEEL THE BERN BABY!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[ehrnst]

82. OLIVER!!

[Gothmog]

167. I share Hillary's concerns about sanders

Link to tweet

[George II]

181. .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Shhhhhhhh!! Please don't discourage Hillary from continuing to speaking out!!

I LOVE IT!!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[jalan48]

38. ...

[ehrnst]

112. oH, i GeT iT!!!!

rEvErSe pSyChOlOgY!!

[unitedwethrive]

60. I disagree. Many people respect her, why should she not let people know she has a strong opinion?

Few people would know better than Hillary.

[ehrnst]

81. Damn straight. And she's not going away.

[Scurrilous]

62. LOL

Oh my God. LOL Seriously. Is that what you get from this, It's helping Bernie. Pointing out that he's full of shit helps him? Why? Because Hillary said it? Everyone is saying it. He's a [redacted] [redacted]. God. We're talking [redacted] [redacted].

It's like the Christofascists and their little rule they pull out if criticized. "The Bible says I'll be persecuted for my beliefs.' 'You criticized.' 'That is persecution.' 'This proves God is right and the bible is infallible.' 'Therefore I win and won't listen to anything you say.'

Everything helps Bernie. I have faith in Bernie. Bernie is the moral center. The North star. Where the fuck were his followers the years before he ran for President, when he spent most of time gathering dust in the Senate. No one worshiped him then. He was just another career politician. This guy -

"From Jan 2007 to Feb 2020, Sanders missed 511 of 4,059 roll call votes, which is 12.6%. This is much worse than the median of 1.4% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving.'

The guy who lazed out on votes. This is the guy who is going to change the world?


His recent bills -

Green New Deal for Public Housing Act - Introduced on Nov 14, 2019

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on November 14, 2019. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Prognosis: 6% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs


Fracking Ban Act - Introduced on Jan 28, 2020

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on January 28, 2020. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Prognosis: 3% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs

6% chance and 3% chance. The rest on the recent list are: 3% 3% 3% 3% and 1%.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

Yeah. He's going to pass bills when President. Ooops, there I go. Helping fucking North Star Bernie.

[sheshe2]

147. Dayum.

I love ya and all those silly facts.

[Scurrilous]

148. Thanks sheshe2.

[ehrnst]

80. Is that her job now? (nt)

[Perseus]

83. I have always admired Hillary, but this is a time when I wish she would be quiet

Let the voters decide, I am sure she is pushing for Biden, they are good friends, but this is a time when we need the person with the most votes and if that is Bernie Sanders, then lets support him.

[ehrnst]

109. So, you're saying that if she isn't "pushing" Bernie, she should just shut up.

Like a good little grandma, and not a party leader with lot of wisdom from a life well lived that a lot of people want to hear?




What is she doing or saying that is "pushing Biden?" She's also friends with Liz Warren...

[Gothmog]

5. CNN- Sanders' agenda: Its cost- possibly $60 trillion- would set a peacetime US record

Here is the CNN article on which the OP was based

Link to tweet

Sanders' plan, though all of its costs cannot be precisely quantified, would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson or the agenda proposed by any recent Democratic presidential nominee, including liberal George McGovern in 1972, according to a historical analysis shared with CNN by Larry Summers, the former chief White House economic adviser for Barack Obama and treasury secretary for Bill Clinton.

Sanders' plan would also increase the size of government far more than any modern Republican president, including Ronald Reagan, has sought to cut it, Summers' analysis concluded.

"On the spending side, ... this is far more radical than all previous presidencies, on either the right or the left," Summers said in an interview. "The Sanders spending increase is roughly 2.5 times the size of the New Deal and the estimated fiscal impact of George McGovern's campaign proposals. This is six times as large of a growth of government than any of the Ronald Reagan dismemberments. We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal."

Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care). But a wide variety of estimates put the likely cost of the single-payer health care plan he has endorsed around $30 trillion or more over the next decade. Depending on the estimates used, including projections from his own campaign, the other elements of the Sanders agenda -- ranging from his "Green New Deal" to the cancellation of all student debt to a guaranteed federal jobs program that has received almost no scrutiny -- could cost about as much, or even more than, the single-payer plan. That would potentially bring his 10-year total for new spending to around $60 trillion, or more.

[Doremus]

9. But that next tax break? No problem! nt

[Scurrilous]

71. The tax break didn't get a single vote from Democrats. Blame the GOP for that. Not us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017

And this is illustrative of what a President Bernie will be up against. Hyper partisanship. He's saying he can convince the GOP to vote for his stuff. It is all bullshit, They wont.

[Gothmog]

94. Those were GOP tax cuts with no votes from any Demcorats

[Scurrilous]

111. I know. We get that thrown in our face a lot. Every Dem. and 13 GOP voted no.

And everyone voted no to reconciliation in the Senate which allowed it to pass with 51 votes. I explained it before to someone in here and they called me a Republican. LOL

[Doremus]

126. There's a lot more to negotiating than tucking tail and hand wringing

We need to become serious again.

[Midnightwalk]

74. Huh?

Do you think you’re going to find a lot of people here that were for the last two tax cuts or would be for the next?

Cancel the last tax break and you get what, 1 trillion a year for 10 years is 10 trillion.

I’d guess none of us were for the last military hike either. Cancel the whole thing. 700 billion for 10 years is 7 trillion.

10 + 7 is 17 trillion. We still need 43 trillion to get to 60 trillion.

I was too lazy to look up better numbers but that’s the arithmetic needed.

Use your own numbers.

The argument really comes down to is it is easier for people to believe that their taxes will go up than for government to deliver value for their taxes. No matter how many examples they know.

I worry that voters in the general will numbers like 60 trillion and worry their taxes will go much sooner than any relief will arrive.

That’s what make me want less ambitious numbers.

None of the republican tax cuts were paid for either. But people were promised money today by the republicans and warned of program cuts in the future by democrats. Hell the republicans promised no program cuts. Just spending reform and waste bs.

It sucks that they can get away with that but the dynamics are that it costs investment now for future reward. We do need Americans to start believing that again. They do, but not really.

I think that could be a winning message but it needs to come closer to 10 for people to buy it. Promise double that and you can back off if there’s resistance. You can’t do that from 60.

It’s easier to do more if we win. We do nothing if we lose. It’s a hell of a gamble.

That’s what seems reckless to me. We need a campaign that can maneuver if it has to.

Just random thoughts.

[Scurrilous]

92. Repealing Trump's tax cuts will be easier than doing anything to the military budget.

We need a majority vote in the Senate and House. We got the House, now we need the Senate. That will be hard to do.

[Midnightwalk]

108. Agree

And even if we could we wouldn’t get it all and we shouldn’t.

Added it to point out it’s hard to get to 60 without tax hikes.

I think we do need to raise taxes on the rich. But the uncertainty of how much makes people worry. They’ll worry more about 60 trillion than say 20. 10 of that can be some kind of a repeal of the trump tax with a profiteering tax. Maybe not call it a rich person tax because Americans are soon to be.

[Doremus]

122. I hate when dems carry repuke water

Let’s save the hand wringing about the budget. Nobody says a peep about the bloated defense budget, perpetual wars, tax breaks for gazillionaires, corporate giveaways, offshore trillions etc etc etc that have been the norm for the last decade plus. Any idea how much those add up to? More than enough to provide health care to all Americans, regardless of the hyped up BS figures pumped out by BigPharma.

Let’s all resist the urge to fall for repuke BS. We’re better than that.

[Midnightwalk]

142. 10 years out of 52

I gave ideas how to get 17 trillion. I don’t think we can get that with eliminating the military budget but throw in some more wealth tax.

Don’t tell me I don’t say a peep about that stuff you mention. Lost those arguments didn’t we. Republicans win because they promise benefits now and pain never.

I don’t really give a rats ass how we sell it. I’m voting democratic anyway. I just want to win.

I don’t think anyone has a clue how to sell 60 trillion in spending to Americans.

Is your argument that we don’t have to sell our plans to Americans?

Or do you believe Americans won’t be told there is 60 trillion in taxes coming. I wish that number wasn’t out there already. I wish they didn’t keep winning with those lies.

Our reply needs to be more than. Could be, but we’ll come out ahead some day.

I only care that we don’t lose the general election.

We’ve had control of government 10 years out of the last 52. We need government to start working again and we need to win it first.

[George II]

36. That's why he doesn't want to explicitly state how much his proposals will cost.

[Blue_true]

50. Are you sure that he even know how much it will cost?

He seems to get irritated about being asked to provide details.

[George II]

51. About a week ago he admitted on CBS that he doesn't know, and added "nobody knows".....

1:25:

[Blue_true]

53. Stuff like that scares me. It is like getting on a roller coaster blindfolded without checking

to confirm that all the track was intact. I just don't get his support of the left versus Warren.

[mcar]

68. How does he get away with that?

Warren was, rightly, hounded about how she'd pay for her policies and suffered for the answer.

[betsuni]

75. My favorite is when he said, "I don't have the plan in my pocket right now" when asked about details

of his student debt CANCELLED plan.

The dog ate my homework.

[Skittles]

99. he does not know, nor does he care

it's a talking point that rallies some people

[Blue_true]

127. Sort of like in Britain.

Tories: "Get Brexit done"

Corbyn's Labour: "Well we have these new programs that we still need to define, but trust me, things will be much better"


2020 Election:

Trump: Socialized medicine, socialized medicine"

Bernie: "I will reform the entire healthcare system, but nobody knows how much that will cost"

Thankfully, we still have a long way to go in our primary. But I can tell you one thing, candidates like Klobuchar need to make a decision if she does poorly in New Hampshire. Biden can hold out until South Carolina, but if he does not clean up there, he seriously need to think about clearing out and leaving just one progressive to face Bernie the rest of the way.

[Skittles]

132. I cannot believe this is what it has come to

this is the best we could have done? certainly not

[Blue_true]

143. Trump has a very hard core of 25% of voters who won't leave him.

Our side has 52-53%, only if we produce a rational candidate that can back up promises with a plan. I can promise you one thing, if we nominate Sanders in his present form, we are going to spend the next 6 years trying to piece our party back together.

The same people that see Bernie doing great in a General, also thought that Corbyn was going to stomp Johnson in Britain. I am simply afraid that they bite on images of an ideal state instead of recognizing the cold hard reality that no country in the world has that. I can't believe that the other candidates let Sanders get away with claiming that what he is proposing for healthcare is like Canada and Scandinavia, few things are farther from being true, their system is closer to an ACA with higher taxes imposed on citizens, for the exchange that they don't have to worry about medical expenses.

[Skittles]

153. I have never understood Bernie's appeal

I just see right through him.

[Gothmog]

164. Same here

I have never considered sanders to be a serious candidate. sanders has zero legislative accomplishments in the real world

[Skittles]

190. when he first came in the spotlight

I remember hearing his paltry net worth as if it was some kind of virtue - I immediately thought, he's either lying or he is a shitty money manager.

[Blue_true]

194. I will go there. He appeals to people that think that life is screwing them over somehow.

The remainder in the group that he appeals to likely have not spent one week thinking about how democratic governments worldwide work.

[Skittles]

195. I think at this point outside the very rich, everyone feels screwed somehow

but not everyone falls for nonsense

[Gothmog]

101. There is no way for sanders to get his platform adopted without a magical voter revolution

I do not understand how this magical voter revolution works in the real world and why sanders has not used such magic earlier to get even one meaningful piece of legislation passed.

[Blue_true]

145. You are a realist.

I just don't see how a person who hasn't done much in Washington in 30 years will bring about the reforms that Sanders is promising. It all just boggles the mind.

[Gothmog]

154. I simply do not understand the concept of voter revolution

Link to tweet

[Blue_true]

155. Sanders, like Trump in 2016, is making vague promises of better days. We have seen

this movie before.

[Gothmog]

157. How is wagging his finger at Mitch going to work in the real world?

Link to tweet

[greatauntoftriplets]

170. He actually things wagging his finger will move Moscow Mitch?

[Gothmog]

171. I am also amused

[elleng]

7. Yes

[Doremus]

11. ++++ This, 1000%

[Autumn]

20. I've noticed and I'm sure others have that there's NEVER a problem with tax breaks for the wealthy.

[Gothmog]

25. Sanders legislative agenda would have no way of being passed even if elected. Here's why:

Link to tweet

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Yup! President Sanders will reverse those tax breaks & problem solved! His entire agenda's paid for!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Gothmog]

97. Not in the real world

$60 trillion dollars is a ton of money and the tax cutes are not close to this in the real world

Why has sanders not told us what his programs cost and how he will pay for them?

How will sanders get real Democrats to go along with these plans??? I note that sanders has ZERO significant legislative accomplishments in the real world because even his fellow Democrats will not back his programs in congress.

[Butterflylady]

23. How's he gonna pay for it?

If the repugs keep the senate, well you know the rest. If the democrats take the senate, you have to find a way to pay for it. Hillary's right, don't promise things unless you absolutely know how to accomplish them.

[Gothmog]

26. sanders has no meaningful legilslative accomplishments in the real world

Even if sanders was POTUS, he could not get a majority of elected democrats to support his proposals in the real world

[Gore1FL]

58. I would reverse Reaganomics to pay for it, if it were me. nt

[George II]

78. See post #51, that "moon". Promising, but admitting he doesn't know how he'll pay for it.

[Cha]

4. Mahalo, Hillary

[Thekaspervote]

8. HRC is right...there is going to be a lot of very disgruntled people when the truth comes out

[Cha]

22. Hillary's not playing.

[YOHABLO]

27. She's also not running for President.

[Cha]

43. Actually we are aware of this.

[TomCADem]

124. Hillary Clinton Will Become John McCain to Bernie's Trump

At one time, Hillary Clinton was the party's nominee and represented a lifetime of service to her country. Yet, like McCain, she will become the object of ridicule by the troll like culture that Bernie's campaign has embraced.

[Cha]

129. Hillary will go down in History for

the brilliant accomplishments she has achieved.

But of course I hear what you're saying.

[Gothmog]

165. I agree Cha

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2020, 05:53 AM - Edit history (1)

[Cha]

198. ..

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

12. .

[elleng]

6. We don't need to see this from her

or from DUers.

[Gothmog]

14. How does sanders magical voter revolution work in the real world?

I have never taken sanders seriously due to a complete lack of legislative accomplishments of sanders and the fact that I do not understand sanders voter revolution The NYT also did not understand how sanders voter revolution works

Link to tweet

Like the NYT, I have questions about this voter revolution concept. I have asked sanders supporters to explain this concept to me and so far no one seems to know how this voter revolution will work in the real world https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=430371

Gothmog (78,308 posts)
64. Exactly how does sanders voter revolution work in the real world?

It is my understanding that even sanders has acknowledged that he cannot adopt his platform unless he holds rallies and this voter revolution occurs. Is this correct? How does this voter revolution work in the real world? Again as I understand this concept, so many new voters will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Is this correct? How many new voters does it take to accomplish this goal and where are these voters? How will these new voters force the GOP to be reasonable when so many GOP officeholders are in gerrymandered districts? Will these new voters move to these districts in time to vote for sanders’ platform? If these new voters are real, then why are theses new voters not showing up in the polls? New voters in such large numbers so as to cause the GOP to be reasonable should show up in polling. Are these new voters waiting for something? If these new voters really exist in the real world, why has sanders not used these new voters to get some meaningful legislation passed?

I look forward to answers to these questions

sanders i

[Raven123]

70. I agree.

[JudyM]

189. You're right. Targeting Sanders instead of trump.

[Aaron Pereira]

15. It's a tough critique but free of the personal attacks she engaged in previously.

Seems much more constructive.

[UniteFightBack]

16. Folks don't want to listen to the warning...they just want what they want. I find it almost

selfish in a way. We need to win by the largest margin in the swing states...why don't we go with the person who can do that...? That alone should generate excitement. Beating dump is NOT forefront in a lot of peoples priorities.

They say it is but then want to discuss issues to death when it's about beating dump...this is serious this is not like 'normal' fucking times. My anxiety level is off the charts because it looks like Dems want to shoot themselves in the foot and then go try to run a race. I see NO STRATEGIC VOTING. I'm almost depressed.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

24. Right there with you.

[emmaverybo]

45. I am depressed. I believe two of the weakest candidates have suddenly been catapulted into

serious contention for the nomination based on two of our most small and unrepresentative states.

Trump is in heaven.

[BlueWI]

150. I'm not a supporter of Biden but I don't want his campaign to tank.

He's still the favorite. But you have to win in the primaries before winning in the GE, and so far, the Biden campaign has fallen short in fundraising, ground game, and now votes. I actually hope he turns it around because I don't want to see any segment of the Democratic base feel like they don't have a stake in the race. But if Sanders and Buttigieg are so weak as candidates, why did they beat Biden in Iowa?

Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white states, but all the leading candidates are also white. They face the same sequence of primaries. And these predominantly white states still have electoral votes. Iowa is close to being a purple state. It could flip to the Democratic column with a good GE campaign.

Buttigieg and Sanders built better campaign organizations in Iowa, despite having to balance campaigning with legislative responsibility. Biden hasn't been in office for a couple of years, so there's no reason not to build a powerful ground operation in Iowa. It's up to him to step it up.

I'm a Warren supporter, but more than that, I want a Democratic win in the fall. I congratulate primary winners even if they're not my candidate because it takes effort and moxie to win. At the end of the day only one candidate goes to the GE, so most of us will have to put the work in for someone we didn't prefer. I'm in the liberal wing of the party, so I'm accustomed to that.

Biden or not, we gotta win in the fall.

[emmaverybo]

151. Agree the ground game comes down to him. Other points you made make sense. Still, according

to polls, Biden leads in ten states after NV. Of course we have to win. I don’t think we can with Bernie and noooo way with inexperienced Pete and his zero AA support.

Liz needs to break with Bernie now and demand some accounting. I think she would have a better chance than Bernie of not blowing this election for us.

[BlueWI]

158. Definitely Biden is still the favorite.

But South Carolina and Nevada are critical to reclaim that status.
I supported Sanders in the primary last time and my issues align with his, but he does have high negatives within the party, which is a concern, same as it was for me with Clinton last time. His strengths are social media savvy, directness in speaking, having a team that will work for every vote (as in Iowa), enthusiasm among young voters, and his genuine grassroots support from people who feel disenfranchised by the current economy. He has his risks as a candidate, but his strengths should be noted and perhaps other campaigns should put strategies in place in these areas. The polling says his electibility is almost as strong as Biden's, and from my view in Wisconsin, I do think he understands the culture of rural states better than most of the candidates.

Not a particular fan of Buttigieg, but he's also new on the scene. There are definitely people in my circle who favor him strongly. He has a hill to climb with culturally conservative black voters, but I think he might be the strongest candidate among true independents.

I don't think Liz wants to further divide the party, and I agree. Clinton vs. Sanders is enough infighting already.

[emmaverybo]

159. Appreciate your sharing your thinking! I learn. But one thing, Buttigieg brought on the major

part of his problems with the South Bend AA community through his own actions and inactions and further complicated matters with his “must opt out or we opt you in” Frederick Douglas plan roll-out.

His gesture was not appreciated in that it seemed a late addenda issues as he found himself in need of AA support. That part of his community, their problems and concerns, just were not on his radar. He offended when he rolled out a plan for people he never consulted about it.

He stirred anger too about gentrification plans using code violations which heavily punished AA property owners. Finally, regardless of conservative views in South Bend among some AA folks (as throughout the nation among many non-AA groups), Buttigieg’s campaign added insult to injury when it blamed AA folks’ attitudes about gay relationships for the failed relationship Buttigieg had with his AA constituents.

He is trying, but some feel he should demonstrate good leadership on racial injustice at home before he goes national.

[BlueWI]

199. I hear you.

I don't feel a particular connection with Buttigieg on the issues, and I don't see what within his resume is the right fit for the office. I given Biden credit for breadth of experience and selflessness. Buttigieg has extraordinary military and academic experience, but public service at the presidential level requires something different and distinct.

I also don't get why he feels motivated to pursue the presidency. This is similar to what I felt about Harris.

If he turns out to be an uncommonly strong campaigner that would be helpful. But I am very unlikely to vote for him in the primaries.

[emmaverybo]

200. I don't get why at this stage he feels he should shoot to the top. You pretty much sum up my

feelings, more neatly than I am able to. The Frederick Douglas plan was something. I mean thorough, incredible brainstorm! It could definitely be submitted as a blue print for every front that needs to be covered to begin to address economic inequity, racial,injustice. And detailed “how to.”

Maybe he’s paving the way to the big time, trying to get his voice into the national conversation by entering at the very top. Ambitious! In a sense, he has nothing to lose. That he’s green is an inoculation against the failure label. He will be seen as a kind of pioneer who got more than 15 minutes and just needs more cooking time. Or seasoning, rather.

[betsuni]

46. It is selfish.

At this point I have little hope.

[BlueWI]

152. Isn't honest disagreement possible?

Does it have to be that people who don't support Biden are selfish? Everyone wants to win. Not everyone agrees on the best strategy for getting a win. And judging by Biden's inability to beat a fairly obscure former mayor in Iowa, perhaps conventional assumptions about electibility are faulty.

It's ironic that two of the most visible Biden surrogates these days - Clinton and Kerry - lost races themselves to D student candidates Bush and Trump. Maybe some younger allies of Biden should get more invitations to represent the campaign.

Does it help the party's chances that Clinton, whose negatives are as high as any public figure today, is attacking a current front runner in the nomination race? Does it even help Biden? Not at all, IMO.

This is going to be a tough race. But there's no way to know who's the strongest candidate until the primary is over. Too many faulty assumptions led to disaster in 2016 and I don't want a repeat experience.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

18. Can't say I disagree

[jmg257]

19. "I have a pretty clear perspective about what it's going to take to win"

Better late than never.

[polichick]

39. HA!

[David__77]

54. "Better late than never."

I understand your perspective!

[Pompoy]

44. Because she wants an alternative to Sanders

She wants Democrats to think about this before casting their primary votes.
We have to nominate the best person for the job, and our best chance to get a Democrat elected.
I'm a Democrat, there is no way I'm not voting for whoever the Democratic nominee will be, but I don't look forward to Sanders being the President.

He would be President Cranky always reaching for the impossible at this time.
I just want things to go back to normal. We can accomplish a lot by not over reaching, like judges, sane policies protecting the ACA, SS, workers' rights, civil rights, the environment, without taking the blame for an economic downturn by moving on things like medicare for all without a more broad consensus from more Americans.
You can't win by 1% and demand changes like that immediately. Let's work on building trust incrementally.

[Quixote1818]

31. She is helping him win by galvanizing his supporters helping him look like an outsider. nt

[Skittles]

86. nonsense

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

91. Hillary sure is!! Thank you Hillary!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[OliverQ]

139. Yup, I believe that's what she's doing to.

It's reverse psychology on Americans.

[Zolorp]

33. GO HILLARY!!!!!

She's a private citizen and a good Democrat. Good on her exercising her rights to be involved with this primary!

[gristy]

42. wtf?

She's attacking the guy again? What, so her chosen one can be installed by convention time? Yeah, that worked out so well last time.

She really needs to pipe down and let the party and the voters do their job.

[madville]

61. Hopefully she doesn't publicly endorse Joe

He might not recover from that

[mcar]

72. Should she go home and knit?

Or walk in the woods? Fck that. She is a private citizen, an honored stateswoman. She can say whatever the fck she wants.

Or should it only be Sanders supporters chanting "Fck Warren/Biden/Buttigieg?

[TexasTowelie]

103. No knitting, just baking cookies.

I'm glad that Hillary is sharing her expertise.

[mcar]

128. I am too

One wonders at the motivation of those who tell her to STFU.

[MustLoveBeagles]

137. +1

[apcalc]

47. BFD So tired of this bs

On to New Hampshire

[Skittles]

89. I am tired of BS too

yes indeed

[TheFarseer]

48. Her problem was she didn't promise anything

While Trump told coal miners he’d bring their jobs back, she told coal miners of all ages to go back to school. Trump said he would renegotiate NAFTA and bring back people’s jobs. She said NAFTA is actually good despite everything you’ve heard. For example. Right or wrong-it’s not what people want to hear.

[Midnightwalk]

131. I don't mind a salesman

I said from the start that’s what we need. Would you trust or want a politician who couldn’t sell?

I don’t trust everything any salesman tells me, but if they tell me a price I don’t expect it to be less. It’s happened a few times and it’s surprising.

Tell people that we can repeal tax cuts and add some wealth tax and that will pay for 20 trillion in healthcare, some student tuition or debt relief, action on climate change and we might get a message. On the latter policy is just if not more than money in my opinion.

All good things. Put something else in if you prefer.

The problem with the 60 trillion number is it’s out there and people will believe taxes will go up before they get any benefit. If the benefit ever arrives. Republican lies are ok to them because they are promised benefit now and no future cost.

Reality is if, but only if, we win, we figure out how to pay for some amount of progress and that’s what will pass. We could lose and get nothing.

The answer should have been more like get rid of the trump corporate tax cuts and add some invest in America profiteering tax and it’ll be paid for. It’s hard to do that now that 60 trillion is in the lexicon. Tell us that we’re not stopping there until america really is the best in everything. Even the greatest. Whatever sells but 60 trillion won’t in my opinion.

[TheFarseer]

183. It all depends on how the narrative develops

Right now we have $21 trillion in debt and nothing to show except growing income inequality and a massive military that just gets us in trouble. I’ll be upfront I don’t support all of Bernie’s proposals but it’s just maddening that people act like the money spent on MFA will be added onto the cost of the health care system we already have when it would obviously replace it.

It would be difficult for Trump to campaign on fiscal responsibility. I would argue that raising taxes mostly on the rich to get rid of health insurance premiums is a good deal. Especially when you dig into getting rid of employer based healthcare and how that reduces costs on companies and makes our manufacturing etc more competitive.

[Midnightwalk]

184. I don't like either side of the MFA cost discussion

I’ve seen the same bad arguments that MFA funding would just add to healthcare costs. I don’t agree with that

On the other side I see the argument that getting rid of insurance companies gets healthcare spending in line with other countries. It doesn’t. There is gouging and waste in every corner of the system. We have over a decade of fixing to do on costs. Many fixes like pharmaceutical reform don’t depend on MFA vs buy in.

My technical argument against MFA is really just a speed of implementation argument It’s an immensely complicated issue getting from where we want and should be from where we are. Knowing that other countries do better tells us we can do it, but not exactly what path to take.

I firmly believe if we try to do it too fast we’ll screw it up massively. From IT glitches (the government sucks at IT they can’t pay talent enough) to not getting provider reimbursements right to just getting 300 million people used to a new system there will be plenty of hiccups. Hiccups that effect millions of people will make people vote for republicans to repeal what scares them.

That’s what makes buy in attractive to me. It helps some people immediately. It solves the part time workers scam if we tighten those rules. And it allows us to grow the system at a more manageable rate. Risk is that people will get complacent and we won’t get all the way there.

A phase in also diffuses the most obvious attack besides cost. If you really like your plan and your doctors you can keep them until we get much further down the road. Maybe permanently if we wind up like countries with a mixed public private system. We don’t have to commit to and defend the final shape of the system until we solve immediate problems with the current. By the time we do that we’ll be better able to decide those details.

[TheFarseer]

192. I agree that we can

lower drug prices etc without MFA. I don’t agree that the overhead associated with insurance companies is negligible. I used to work for a nonprofit that administrated Medicare and our costs were significantly lower than a for profit insurance company administrating private insurance. I forget the exact numbers. We had to be lean and mean and innovative to submit competitive bids.

I also agree that we can’t implement overnight. I’m just afraid that if we don’t have someone that’s pushing hard for it, it will never get done.

[Midnightwalk]

196. Didn't quite say negligible

But I can see reading that into what i wrote.

I figure we have to costs by 50% to get in line with other countries. Medical loss ratio is between 15 and 20%. That leaves a lot.

Agree that medicare reimbursement rates are lower than insurance negotiated rates. And insurance companies have a incentive to not negotiate as low as possible because that decreases their 20% markup.

Buy in fights that disincentive because it should cost less. But we can’t kill the insurance companies before everyone can switch over. So buy in does bring down costs slower than m4a maybe but even ideas like phasing m4a in by age group has that problem.

Google says, lots of hospitals say that reimbursement rates only covers 90% of costs. I don’t completely believe that number but it does say it could be hard cutting reimbursement rates for m4a to medicare rates. In fact I remember seeing it argued that it wouldn’t for that reason. Some areas can’t afford to have their last hospital close.

I can give links if you want, just lazy at moment.

I don’t work in healthcare so you have a better perspective on costs and other details. My only knowledge is from reading and discussion.

It’s nice to discuss details without all the rancor.

[Scurrilous]

49. "...if you promise the moon and you can't deliver the moon.."

At what point will people realize Bernie is utterly full of shit and can't deliver on his promises? Seriously, how many times does it have to be pointed out. When your Mom or Dad told you Santa wasn't real did you try and argue with them. Or did you think, 'Yeah, that seems to be a bit stupid.' 'No one can deliver toys to every boy and girl in one night.' 'The logistics aren't there.'

Look at just one lump in the pile of excreta Bernie has promised. From hippy rag Mother Jones. Named for Mary G. Harris Jones. 'A union organizer, community organizer, and activist. She helped coordinate major strikes and co-founded the Industrial Workers of the World. - wiki

BTW...it notes Bernie is promising free electricity by 2035. He promised something similar in his 1974 Senate run. The people who believed in him then and voted for him have waited 46 years and still no free electricity. Believe him now and that will be you.


Bernie Sanders Gets a D- for His Climate Plan

"If you’re going to propose a massive, $16 trillion plan, the first thing you should do is get as many people on board as possible. Instead, Sanders practically revels in pissing off as many stakeholders as possible. He’s going to tax the rich. He’s going to hobble the fossil fuel industry. He’s going to ban nuclear power. He’s going to nationalize electric generation and turn it over to the federal government.

And then there are the absurd promises. He’s going to create 20 million new union jobs. (No he’s not, unless he also creates 20 million new human beings.) He’s going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest. (I don’t think even the most optimistic environmentalist thinks we can build out solar and wind that fast.) Electricity will be “virtually free” by 2035. (Oh please.)

And there’s the spending. Two trillion dollars to weatherize homes. Another two trillion to allow people to trade in their old gas burners for electric vehicles. Half a trillion to replace school buses. A trillion dollars for public transit and high-speed rail. I’m open to expert opinion on this, but everything I know about climate change tells me that this is an enormous amount to spend on things that will have only modest impacts.

But at least Sanders will also dedicate huge amounts to R&D, right? He says right at the top that he’ll make “massive investments” in new research. But down in the details, R&D appears to get $800 billion, only a little more than he’d spend on school buses. This is a wild mismatch. Sanders appears to be more interested in creating a huge federal jobs program than he is in seriously taking on climate change.

The Sanders plan looks to me like the worst kind of kitchen sink proposal: a “plan” that avoids making any hard choices by simply saying that we’ll do everything. Call me cranky, but I’m tired of this stuff. It’s a box-checking exercise designed to appeal to every possible lefty constituency rather than something that has even the remotest chance of building the public support needed to get it passed through Congress.'

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/08/bernie-sanders-gets-a-d-for-his-climate-plan/

If you think Bernie is on the level, you're deluding yourself. It's all empty promises. Ask the hippies.

[betsuni]

55. Thanks for the link!

[Scurrilous]

66. You're welcome.

[jg10003]

56. "I have a pretty clear perspective about what it's going to take to win" - obviously not.

[robbedvoter]

59. Wtf is a " near tie"? More or less than a " virtual tie". She is right of course.

All other candidates were badgered to explain the cost of their plans. Burnie can’t even explain the mechanics of realizing they, let alone the costs. “Nobody knows!”

[NurseJackie]

63. Thank you Madam Secretary... I feel the same way.

We're simpatico.

[mcar]

64. Kick

[betsuni]

69. Many Sanders supporters say how disillusioned they were with President Obama.

For some reason they imagined he ran as a populist promising to change everything about America. Now there's actually not only a populist promising to change everything about America, but promising the moon as well.

Much much more disillusion. Too many "politiphobes" (Jonathan Rauch: "Between 25 and 40 percent of Americans ... have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. ... They see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country's problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding." ) Exactly what Sanders says, that progressive legislature is impossible because Congress is corrupt. That if he becomes president he'll lead rallies forcing lawmakers to do their jobs. He'll hold rallies in Kentucky and Mitch McConnell will do his job. He'll get money out of politics and everything will be fine because that's the only problem.

Hillary is correct.

[yaesu]

73. Oh come on, get over it, its been 4 years & I would love the moon. nt

[tiredtoo]

77. This infighting may cost us the election

Please stop!

[Skittles]

96. there are only a few idiots who will sit out the election because their bestie did not win the nod

not enough to sway, this time

[tiredtoo]

98. Not sure if that was my concern

May be republicans will use data found here to campaign against our eventual candidate.

[Skittles]

102. LOL

they certainly don't need to come here to find trash - heck, most of the time they just make up stuff

[warmfeet]

85. Nothing wrong with shooting for the moon.

It makes us human. We aspire.

Also, I agree, this infighting is utter bullshit.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Does not matter who it is.

[Az_lefty]

88. She should run, I would love to vote for her again

[Skittles]

95. she did not lose

she won, and it was stolen from her

[Marty Marzipan]

110. True, but I didn't see her giving the SOTU last night.

[Skittles]

119. BS did not, and will not, either

[Cha]

156. And, we all know why.

[Kentonio]

160. She lost.

[Skittles]

161. only with help from Russia

and she did WAY better than BS could ever do

[Kentonio]

162. Well, we'll find out in November.

[58Sunliner]

113. Bernie will do the same as president that he is doing as a candidate.

That he has done as a senator. His marked inability to work with others is signifying that he has issues. His commitment to his values that keeps him isolated and basically ineffectual, is really just a way to hide. His lack of coherence on policy planning and means to accomplish his stated goals to me means he is compensating when he doubles down on his campaign promises. His surrogates are posting propaganda and false narratives. Unapologetically. Their unwillingness to acknowledge wrongs, speaks for Bernie. Why do you think it will change as president? And if you think having a guy who does not know how to relate and interact with others is a handicap to passing legislation, wait till he trots out his surrogates. His inability to congress with others is a clear sign of fear and resentment and a lack of emotional maturity. His adherence to a dogmatic insistence on his terms suggests that his entrenchment is a liability. Why else do you have attack surrogates?

[betsuni]

121. +1

[Devil Child]

118. I'm ok with Clinton speaking out against Sen. Sanders

Seems to do nothing but boost him. Free publicity.

[calimary]

120. She's right.

[peequod]

130. More concern trollery from Clinton.

Has a former presidential candidate ever in history started "warning" her party against another front-running candidate, who actually helped campaigned for her 40 times? What an ingrate. I say: butt out, Clinton, help the party, go raise some dough, and let the primary/caucus system play itself out, let the voters speak.

[David__77]

146. I think it's instructive.

...

[democratisphere]

133. The numbers have NEVER added up to anything doable.

Existing $22 trillion dollar debt and single year trillion dollar deficits say so. Wake up people!

[napi21]

136. I'm retired now, but I was an accountan. I worked forseveral very profitable companies, and one

tha ultimately filed bankruptcy and died. I've looked a the promises on Bernie's site. Many of the promises really are promising the moon, with icing on it! take a look at each of the items on his site and keep a running total in your head of the cost of all these commitments.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

f we taxed the top 1% at 100% there wouldn't be enough money to pay for even half of them.

Put a little logic into assessing all the candidates, and ask yourself if their proposals could ever get passed the Congress. Even if we manage to take control of the House & the Senate, many of them just would never pass.

[OliverQ]

138. Anyone feel like Hillary is intentionally doing this to boost Sanders?

Every response I've seen to Hillary's criticism of Bernie is people giving him more money and saying they like him even more. She seems to be using reverse psychology on people. She knows how disliked she is by so many people (fair or not), so she's using that to distance herself from him.

[Gothmog]

166. No-Clinton is worried about the damage sanders is doing to the party

Link to tweet

[oasis]

141. "the moon" ?? All this time I was hoping it was "pie-in-the-sky".

Darn

[David__77]

144. That's not the spirit that got humans to the moon, incidentally.

“No, you can’t!”

[Mr. Sparkle]

168. She has a point, as much as i like Bernie and his agenda

He does not work well with others, there is a very small chance of getting any of his legislation passed. President Obama disappointed Bernies core supporters because of the system, Bernie will do the same. His only chance would be for the democrats to win the 3 branches of government, remove kavanagh and replace him with a democratic equivalent and than pass the biggest lobbying reform bill in history basically by ending it, or make it so small enough you can drown it in a bathtub.

As much as i would love this to happen, i dont see it happening under Bernie.

[Dennis Donovan]

169. .

Link to tweet

Yeah, I think it's counterproductive, too.

[Gothmog]

175. Here is more of Hillary's interview

Link to tweet

[Kurt V.]

176. if he gets elected he will have to operate within the system. no need to worry about these things

Clinton is talking about.

[Gothmog]

177. Which means that none of his proposals will be adopted in the real world

sanders is promising proposals that can never be adopted in the real world

[Kurt V.]

178. some would but certainly not all or even most. but a big part of being POTUS is steering things in

Different trajectory. That's why we bounce all over spectrum we change presidents

[Gothmog]

186. I really doubt that sanders would get support from the Democratic caucus on many of his proposals

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2020, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a reason why sanders has no significant legislative accomplishments in the real world. Most members of the Democrats caucus are not willing to support sanders proposals in congress. That would not change if sanders became POTUS

We do not need to worry about this. sanders is such a weak and unelectable candidate that trump will win 45+ states if sanders is the nominee and in the process we may lose the House and have Speaker Kevin McCarthy

[ibegurpard]

185. Someone needs to make it clear to her

That criticism of Bernie Sanders coming from her simply feeds the narrative that some of his most rabid followers believe that the Democratic "establishment" is doing everything they can to stop him.

[Gothmog]

187. This is a great interview with Ellen

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

193. Thanks!

[backscatter712]

188. OK Karen...

[ehrnst]

203. OK Becky...

[Skid Rogue]

197. Thank you, Hillary Clinton!!!!

I believe you're a brave woman, a patriotic woman, who loves her country and its people.

[Gothmog]

202. Steve Bannon: Bernie people have helped to elect Trump and they'll do it again.

Link to tweet