Washington Post-What we learned from Bernie Sanders's town hall

[Gothmog]

I did not watch this town hall but I noticed this in the description of the concerns that the Washington Post had. How does one rely on voter revolutions as part of their plan to get legislation adopted?

Link to tweet

He isn’t going to grapple with the difficulties of legislating. This is a thorny topic for any presidential candidate, particularly Democrats who have ambitious policy agendas, because it requires admitting that things are going to be hard and that failure is a real possibility. Candidates would much prefer to assure you that if they’re elected, all their proposals will become law and everything will turn out wonderfully. The question of how you get your ideas through Congress is particularly important for Sanders, because his agenda is the most sweeping and the one that will run into the strongest resistance, not only from Republicans but from outside stakeholders as well.

Unfortunately, Sanders’s usual answer to such questions is unsatisfying, to say the least. He argues that we need a popular revolution so overwhelming that even Republican legislators will bow down before its power and vote for things they abhor with every fiber of their beings, such as single-payer health care.

That, of course, is just not going to happen. So what do you do then? We saw a taste of the problem during the town hall. A questioner asked about D.C. statehood, and Sanders said that he supports it. Unfortunately, the entire Republican Party believes that since the 700,000 residents of D.C. are mostly Democrats, they shouldn’t have representation in the federal government. Pressed on how what he would do to make it happen, he said, “Uh, everything that we possibly can,” going on to say, “I hope that my Republican colleagues do the right thing.” Which is a way of saying he doesn’t doesn’t have any ideas. That doesn’t make him different from most people, but getting Republicans to support the rest of his agenda is no more likely than getting them to agree to make D.C. a state.

I have some strong doubts about basing my vote on the hope of voter revolution

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. I am supporting someone I think will accomplish stuff.

[we can do it]

70. Me too. And my very close second so far is Warren.

And a few more actual democrats I’d be happy with before BS.

[Fresh_Start]

75. Me three

the lack of any concrete plans to actually execute pie in the sky make me dubious

Of course, the new political answer that seems to work for 40% of the people is Mexico will build it or Mexico will pay for it

[SKKY]

121. I'm with ya.

[Cha]

2. Mahalo for this from the WaPo, Goth..

Unfortunately, Sanders’s usual answer to such questions is unsatisfying, to say the least. He argues that we need a popular revolution so overwhelming that even Republican legislators will bow down before its power and vote for things they abhor with every fiber of their beings, such as single-payer health care.

That's Not all we learned..

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

6. Bernie looks a lot thinner than he did before.

New diet and exercise plan? Good to know that he's looking after his weight.

All I'm saying is that looking after one's health and weight is something that everyone should do. I think we older folks can take some inspiration whenever someone his age is able to make an effort to lose so many extra pounds. I know that weight is something that I struggle with and I'm always impressed whenever anyone can lose a lot of weight... no matter what their age may be.

Way to go, Bernie!

[Maru Kitteh]

97. Dramatic weight loss you say?

Well, we can hope it wasn't unexpected weight loss, especially in the elderly.

[cwydro]

113. I noticed that too.

???

[NurseJackie]

114. Maybe it's CrossFit or Zumba or P90X ... with all that weight loss, he must be RIPPED!!

Maybe it's CrossFit or Zumba or P90X ... with all that weight loss, he must be RIPPED!! Remember shirtless and fit Obama-at-the-beach? Maybe we'll soon be seeing photos of Bernie with his guns and sixpack abs!

I just don't have the patience (or willpower) to "do diets" or exercise programs. But it certainly looks like Bernie has committed to it. Good for him! That's quite an accomplishment!

[cwydro]

116. I'm on a train traveling in Ireland with a glass of wine, and I almost spewed it over my seat mates.

I’m imagining Bernie at CrossFit. Oh dear.

I have to admit I’m out of the loop and have no idea what P90X is.

[NastyRiffraff]

118. His face looks smoother too

Good to know he's paying attention to grooming and appearance this time.

[radical noodle]

126. You GO, Bernie!

Yes, weight loss is very difficult in the elderly (like me).

[lapucelle]

57. Some further context.

BS has a 75% rating for 2018-2019 from Progressive Punch on "crucial issue votes" due to to missed votes. His most recent missed vote was on February 25, 2019, the day of his big publicity event on CNN and the second crucial vote that he missed this year.



http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

It's little wonder that Vermont's Barre-Montpelier Times Argus editorial board wrote:

Don't run
Jan 5, 2019

Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to.

In this space, we have repeatedly hit the senator on where his loyalties lay: Vermont or a bigger calling? We have asked him to make a choice, which he would argue was his recent re-election to Congress. But in his previous run for the presidency, Sanders, an independent who ran for the White House as a Democrat, missed dozens of votes that likely would have helped Vermonters. And, while he handily defeated his challenger, can Vermonters point to Sanders’ record and say definitively, “This is what he’s done for us?”

snip==============================================

But that’s not our greatest concern. We fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote. There is too much at stake to take that gamble. If we are going to maintain a two-party system, the mandate needs to be a clear one. There is strength in numbers, and if anything has been shown in recent years, it is that unless tallies are overwhelming, there can always be questions or challenges raised over what “vote totals” really mean: popular vote vs. Electoral College results.

snip====================================================

In an interview Wednesday night on CNN, Sanders said he was proud of his 2016 campaign. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right, in terms of human resources,” he said. “I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course, if I run we will do better the next time.”

Asked by Anderson Cooper [January 3] if he knew about the staff complaints, he said, “I was a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case.” That response alone is inexcusable and insulting.

Mahalo!

[Cha]

58. Thank You for that additional context and information

lapucelle! Good job!

But that’s not our greatest concern. We fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote. There is too much at stake to take that gamble.

He'd better Not. At least those people realize what a crisis we're in.

[Gothmog]

73. I remember that editorial

It was very powerful and was from the paper that knows sanders best

[PatrickforO]

64. That's a thoughtful tweet.

Perhaps truly great leaders are not only great on policy but also great in empathy, and in dealing with details like this.

Sadly, it reminded me of the old WC Fields movies, remember? When WC would be trying to sell something to somebody and a little kid would come up and begin to persistently ask awkward questions, and Fields would growl, "Go away, kid, you bother me!"

That's what this felt like.

I'm sensing this time around, myself included, people are going to be watching for empathy maybe even more than policy. After two years of horror under the sociopath Trump, people seem really hungry for someone they can feel genuinely cares about them.

Now, Bernie's a decent guy, and deeply committed to progressive causes. He is. But the fundamental question in my mind here is does he actually care about me and about my family? or are we merely points on a plane or drops in an ocean?

He cares, I'm sure. But he isn't showing it very well.

Although...don't get me wrong about policy. I do care about that a lot. And I will be watching it, both in candidate platforms and in their governing or legislating history.

[LisaM]

3. I know what I learned, it's like 2016 all over again.

Whenever I turn on CNN or MSNBC, I'm going to see Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. All day long, for two long years.

[Cha]

4. Ugh.. another reason I appreciate Not

having a tv.

Lisa!

[scipan]

8. Actually Bernie got a lot less coverage than Hillary. Or Trump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. So true... but why let facts stand in the way of bashing Bernie?!?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
THINK BIG!!!

[NurseJackie]

23. Nobody is bashing Bernie.

[Amimnoch]

102. Speak for yourself ;) - nt.

[NurseJackie]

104. Ha!

[wasupaloopa]

46. Are all Bernie supporters on a 24/7 pity pot? It seems that way.

CNN had Democrats asking questions, so unfair. They ask how will things get done. Answer, revolution. Who came up with that? Ever hear of Our Revolution?

[Hortensis]

77. Not on social media. Russia and the Kochs made

damned sure of that.

If the NYT and MSNBC, etcetera, gave him technically a bit less coverage, it's because they knew from the very beginning that he could not win, although they did not know at first that Russia would be providing some of the outside lift that carried him much farther than expected.

My complaint about them is very different -- they provided a great deal of that lift themselves.
They cynically mislead readers about Sanders' chances, puffed him up in various other ways, and hid or underreported negative aspects.

They used Sanders to pump up their profits AND to undermine the Democratic Party candidates, who threatened to take control of congress and the WH and restore controls on business.

Btw, the very Wednesday that there were no longer enough open delegates for Sanders to win, even if he took every single one, the NYT hid that news behind a bland headline in an undersized font. ABOVE that truth was a full-size headline claiming the primary the day before had given Sanders' candidacy a big surge. (!) One of their usual negative headlines about Hillary was full-size below it.

You actually should be grateful, very grateful for the amount and type of coverage he got.

Or maybe not?

[NurseJackie]

22. Nobody said otherwise.

Here's what she actually said:

Whenever I turn on CNN or MSNBC, I'm going to see Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. All day long, for two long years.

This was not anything that characterized Bernie's past coverage. Instead it expresses a realistic and informed expectation of what's very likely to happen... and how tiresome the repetitiveness of it will be.

[House of Roberts]

42. No, she ACTUALLY said two sentences.

" I know what I learned, it's like 2016 all over again.
Whenever I turn on CNN or MSNBC, I'm going to see Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. All day long, for two long years."

She clearly meant 2016 was all Bernie and all Trump, on CNN and NBC, and for two years, it will happen again.

[NurseJackie]

44. No she didn't.

She clearly meant 2016 was all Bernie and all Trump, on CNN and NBC, and for two years, it will happen again.

No she didn't. She meant nothing of the sort and you know it. If that's what she "meant" then why didn't she say it?

In my many years, I've discovered that it's usually best to take people at their word rather than trying to infer too much or to "spin" and twist someone's plan-spoken sentence into having an alternate meaning.

Such things serve no good purpose.

[LisaM]

88. I meant that I felt like whenever I turned on those networks, I saw one or the other.

I just went back and looked up some stuff about coverage in 2015 and 2016 and while Hillary was covered, an astounding percentage of the coverage was negative. It wasn't clips of her doing town halls, rallies, whatever.

I have always loved politics but in 2016 I just had to flat out stop watching political shows. The sight of people holding mass rallies to incite their followers disturbed me. Give me the "old" days with shows like "Crossfire" (which I still miss).

[NurseJackie]

91. I know exactly what you mean.

I just had to flat out stop watching political shows.

I remember enjoying shows like Crossfire... at least it was organized chaos (somewhat) but today's cable-TV panel "discussions" are just so annoyingly boisterous, and the crosstalk and interruptions destroy any usefulness. It's just a cacophony of shouting and yelling.

That's why I enjoy watching BBC World News and SkyNews and PBS Newshour and Rachel.

[LisaM]

92. I've even given up on Town Halls. They're so obnoxious.

I remember when Hillary did one and some snarky kid asked, "why do young people hate you?"

Yeah, that's constructive and fair. The "moderator" should have stepped in and yanked the person out of there, though the optics of that would have been terrible too.

[NurseJackie]

94. Again... we are in complete agreement there.

I want INFORMATION not "drama" or "excitement". I want to be able to process the information, I don't want to have to try and figure out what I'm listening to.

Glad to see that you put the word moderator in quotes. They're often NOT moderators... they're just there to facilitate a fight and to hope for headlines the next day.

I miss Gwen Ifill

[WeekiWater]

107. Gwen Ifill

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=4762

Miss her.

[Gothmog]

30. I am glad that sanders will be vetted this cycle

Vetting is important https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

[The Wielding Truth]

36. Burlington College came up and was hammered here. Sanders has been vetted. Republicans/not vetted.

We must look for the best and brightest but we must remember that we have to be unified when it comes to defending our country against the selfish and narrow minded right-wing who are controlled by the oligarchs.

[Gothmog]

38. So much for Senator Sanders' warning to supporters.

Link to tweet

[namahage]

99. Oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska?

Sure could have used a united front then...

[The Wielding Truth]

111. Senator Bernie Sanders did not vote, but would have voted for the sanctions.

He was taking a meeting with former campaign staffers who have - thankfully - exposed the culture of and violence in his 2016 campaign. It was important, and Sen. Sanders had to miss the vote.

May sound weak, but Bernie's priorities, it seems, were with addressing accusations or actions about his campaign to stop any sexual harassment of women that may have been happening in his campaign.

He chose women over the vote that day.

[KitSileya]

112. He attended one hour of an all-day meeting.

He couldn't have joined the meeting at a different time? He had what, 6-7 other hours where he could have joined the meeting? And there's no indication that he would have voted for the sanctions, all the time he voted against sanctions on Russia twice previously.

And don't bother defending the Senator on these votes by bringing up sanctions on Iran, all the time the Senator himself voted FOR joining the Russian and Iranian sanctions.

[The Wielding Truth]

117. Okay. That's a point against him. I didn't know he also voted against sanctions on Russia before.

[NastyRiffraff]

119. Sanders will get no pass...

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

Nor should he. ALL candidates should be vetted, even (gasp!) Bernie Sanders. I know it's hard to take when someone you love is put under a microscope and something negative comes out, but it's part of a campaign, especially a presidential campaign. Voters can make up their minds based on information. It doesn't mean they have to accept everything; it doesn't mean some negative stuff means elimination. But unless we have clear pictures of every candidate, it limits our ability to choose.

All candidates, even Bernie Sanders, will and should be asked tough questions, by the media and by voters. How they handle that will certainly be important in evaluating their fitness for office.

[David__77]

33. I think that Bernie Sanders looms large at this time.

I think it will be interesting period ahead!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Very large... that's why they fear him and must take Bernie down...

he's obviously over the target, taking flak.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[NurseJackie]

61. Nobody fears Bernie.

[Gothmog]

74. My only fear is to try to understand why Putin preferred sanders

I like Clinton have some questions

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Hortensis]

78. We don't fear Bernie. We fear those who will believe him

and are all too likely to again go "vote" themselves in the head in 2020, along with our nation.

We have a second chance to stop the growing fascism on the right. After that, if we lose? It may be too late for a third. Imo, it's way past time for you, InA, to look RIGHT.

Whatever you really care about, it is ALL in grave danger. If it's healthcare, those who've taken over on the right don't intend to repeal the ACA because they're going to enact something else. They will not. They intend people to pay for themselves and then better society by dying off when they cannot.

They've tried for over 70 years to repeal Social Security, and all the rest of our safety net programs, and now that is within reach. No replacement ever. They will reinterpret the constitution to make sure of that.

Free/affordable college? Most won't be allowed college. Minimum wage? Stupid question.

If what you care about includes freedom and social justice issues, you need to realize that authoritarian government will stomp the Bill of Rights into the ground. These people using extreme cruelty against children as an instrument of government will of course use extreme cruelty against citizens. They just need the power to begin.

Eyes open. Look RIGHT. We must win.

[betsuni]

79. +1

[Farmer-Rick]

35. Yeah, I think it was MSNBC that switched to an empty podium on Trump

Instead of an active announcement being made by Bernie. Don't remember all the details. But if Dems get half the free publicity Trump got, we are sure to win.

[LisaM]

81. Not from where I stood. His rallies were extensively covered.

Her smaller events, not so much. I was in an airport one day when they had her on whatever version of CNN the airports carry, talking about the alt-right, and I was so shocked to see her actually being covered live I practically fell over!

[disillusioned73]

85. Don't come in here w/ facts...

[disillusioned73]

83. Huh....

Whhaaaa?? You must have watched a different 2016 than the rest of us...

[lapucelle]

103. ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977

[NastyRiffraff]

120. That looks about right

It certainly felt like every time I turned on MSNBC, there was Bernie. I thought he and Chris Hayes were going to move in together.

[NurseJackie]

5. Nailed it.

“I hope that my Republican colleagues do the right thing.” Which is a way of saying he doesn’t doesn’t have any ideas.

Nailed it.

[Cha]

7. Exactly! Nice pie in the sky, BS..

“I hope that my Republican colleagues do the right thing.”

omg.

[scipan]

10. So has Kamala said how she would get her promises passed?

I'd really like to know.

[Cha]

15. I haven't seen anything from Kamala

on hoping the repubs do the right thing.. which is what BS said.

[Gothmog]

16. Harris., Klobuchar and the other senators have better records so far

Link to tweet

[Cha]

20. Thanks, Goth!

[Gothmog]

28. Not counting on a voter revolution appears to be far more effective

All of the other senators have passed far more bills than sanders in less time

[Cha]

34. Good to know!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Cue the crickets... chirp! chirp!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
THINK BIG!!!

[Gothmog]

27. How many new voters need to magically appear for this revolution to work?

Exactly how does a voter revolution work in the real world? Where are these voters going to come from? How many are needed? Is there magic involved?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. You're about to see... don't worry, there's always room on the bandwagon for one more...

We'll save you a seat!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

39. That response does not answer the question

Where were these new voters last cycle? Where will these new voters come from? Why did these new voters not vote in 2016?

I will support the nominee of the party but that nominee will not be sanders. There are far too many real Democrats with long memories who will not forgive or forget

[NurseJackie]

43. It's the primaries-equivalent of the dismissive "I'll pray for you" response...

That response does not answer the question

It's the primaries-equivalent of the dismissive "I'll pray for you" response (or "well, bless your little ol' heart'') that one frequently hears from RW fundamentalists who are losing an argument.

All I'm saying is that it lacks any substance and is meant to provoke anger with its dismissive and "I know better than you" undercurrent. But, those things always miss the mark with me and it ends up making me laugh.

[Gothmog]

125. I am really curious to find out how this voter revolution works

sanders seems to think that there is a number of new voters who if they show up, these new voters will force the GOP to be reasonable. I have no idea how this would work

In the mean time, we flipped two seats in Texas during the midterm and the DCCC has targeted six additional sets that I feel good about. See https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/house-overview/2020-house-overview-can-democrats-keep-their-majority

TX-10: Michael McCaul (R) - Central: Austin and Houston suburbs
Lean Republican. McCaul, the former chair of the Homeland Security Committee, defeated underfunded Democratic prosecutor Mike Siegel by just four points in a race that was on no one's radar. Beto O'Rourke carried the 10th CD, owing to gargantuan turnout in its Travis County portion. Siegel is running again, but Democrats are hunting for someone new.

TX-21: Chip Roy (R) - South central: San Antonio and Austin suburbs
Lean Republican. The I-35 corridor is experiencing heavy Democratic vote growth, and Army veteran and tech entrepreneur Joseph Kopser held Roy, a former top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz, to a narrower-than-expected 50 percent to 48 percent victory. Kopser is currently developing a new app and hasn't indicated whether he'll run again, but Democratic recruiters may not feel like waiting on him.

TX-22: Pete Olson (R) - Houston southwest suburbs: Sugar Land
Lean Republican. This Sugar Land district, once held by Tom DeLay, is experiencing a surge in non-white professionals and isn't the reliable GOP bastion it used to be. President Trump took just 52 percent here in 2016 and Olson defeated Democratic former foreign service officer Sri Preston Kulkarni just 51 percent to 47 percent. Kulkarni is likely to run again and raise more than the $1.5 million he put together at the last minute in 2018.

TX-23: Will Hurd (R) - West: San Antonio and El Paso suburbs
Toss Up. Hurd's steadfast anti-wall stance and vocal criticism of President Trump have allowed the former CIA officer to survive in a 68 percent Hispanic seat that voted for Hillary Clinton. But his narrower-than-expected 926-vote margin over Democratic Air Force veteran Gina Ortiz Jones will keep him near the top of Democrats' target list. Ortiz Jones is expected to run again but may not clear the primary field. Hurd is in for another tough fight.

TX-24: Kenny Marchant (R) - Dallas/Ft. Worth suburbs: Grapevine, Irving
Toss Up. Not even Democratic operatives had heard of Jan McDowell, but the CPA came within three points of denying Marchant an eighth term despite spending just $88,000. How? The rapidly changing demographics of this Irving seat, and Beto O'Rourke, who carried it. Democrats will likely field a much more credible candidate in 2020. State Rep. Julie Johnson represents a good chunk of the 24th CD, but she just won her seat in 2018.

TX-31: John Carter (R) - Central: Round Rock, Temple, Killeen
Lean Republican. Carter, who turned 77 on Election Day 2018, eked out a 51 percent to 48 percent victory over Democratic former Air Force fighter pilot M.J. Hegar, who outspent him $5 million to $1.7 million. President Trump carried this seat by 13 points in 2016, but the northern Austin suburbs are rapidly changing. Democrats are courting Hegar to seek a rematch, but she could also opt to run for Senate. And, Carter could opt to retire.

[NurseJackie]

127. It's the selling of a fantasy... but if it won't work in the real world, I'm not buying.

[ehrnst]

67. Has Kamala been making promises on Capitol Hill since 1991?

Is there a reason that you are so angry with her other than announcing her candidacy for POTUS opposite a candidate you prefer?

[Hortensis]

95. Scipan, this is a SERIOUS and enduring Sanders issue.

You're new to DU, seemingly, so you may not know that Sanders shockingly, in spite of 25 years in congress, revealed on WaPo and NYT editorial staff interviews that he had no idea how to to use most government departments to achieve his promised goals if he became president.

Then as now he repeatedly promised that overwhelming popular support (which never developed) would make all things possible.

It was a major jaw-dropper for me. HOW could anyone spend 25 years in the senate telling everyone what needed to be done without ever applying himself to figuring out HOW it could be done? Maybe by picking up this knowledge from colleagues? Maybe ask Hillary? She was working on the same issues and had doable, highly detailed plans for everything she promised.

Of course, we'd already been surprised when economists said all his plans were vague with big holes and numbers that couldn't add up, and unachievable as written. But still, we really didn't expect the intense incompetence the interviews revealed.

We're two years on, Sanders has two more years in congress, and he still cannot say how he would fulfill his promises if elected. This is serious!!!

You're clearly interested. Can you point to anything concrete, maybe just ONE big achievement over his career, to indicate that Sanders is more than an unfortunately charismatic air-dreaming gadfly?

[NurseJackie]

12. All talk about what we "oughta" do and what we "needa" do... but no realistic plans.

I guess I just have higher standards and expectations in what I'm looking for and willing to accept in a candidate.

Honestly, Hillary spoiled me ... and all my future decisions will be made using Hillary as a "yardstick" that other candidates will have to measure up to.

[Cha]

18. Yes, Hillary and her amazingly intelligent

policy wonkiness was stellar!

We like leaders who know what they're talking about from the ground up.. all the gory details.

[BlueMTexpat]

128. This is why I am still genuinely

undecided. I like several candidates. But Hillary was the Real Deal.

Neither Sanders nor Biden is among my top preferences and, IMO, neither will be the Dem candidate. But Biden is at least a Democrat for the long haul, rather than one of convenience. We can do much better than yet another old white male.

I am loving all the positive energy from our wonderful group of newbies in the House. It seems to me than we need a standard bearer for the Top Job that can function as positively and intelligently and who understands how government really works rather than punting to "revolution" as a panacea.

[NurseJackie]

110. Thanks for sharing that link. It's VERY important, and VERY true.

[brer cat]

9. K&R

[George II]

11. The author's observations are a fairly accurate representation. Thanks!

[Scurrilous]

13. ...

[Gothmog]

14. Washington Post-Opinion: Are Democrats going to let Sanders get away with this?

Link to tweet

He tried to excuse his failure to release his tax returns last time on the grounds that he didn’t wind up getting the nomination. Now, he’s not actually going to withhold his tax returns through the entire primary season, right? Well, he says he’ll release them “soon.” “We have to do just a few more little things,” he said. Do what things?

The excuse that he and his wife don’t have a fleet of accountants doesn’t make any sense when we are talking about 10 years of prior years’ returns. Presumably, those were completed long ago. (He can supplement his disclosure when he files his return this year for 2018.)

This would be suspicious and disturbing even if we had not elected a president who never turned over his taxes and has perpetuated a host of conflicts of interest and continued to receive foreign emoluments.

[NurseJackie]

21. What's he hiding? Why the delays and excuses?

[Cha]

24. If he had just released them there wouldn't

be all these awkward, embarrassing questions Now.. about why he has Not released them.

So it makes Absolutely No sense.

Thank you, Goth

[Hortensis]

80. Maybe he thinks we'd behave like his followers.

People do tend to project their own failings onto others and underestimate virtues they're short on.

Remembering that Hillary made 30 years of clean returns public, but that didn't keep him from calling her corrupt or keep his followers from demanding "lock her up" at our national convention while he sat there blandly, apparently imagining that worked for him.

And now he's announced that he's once again trying to woo more social conservative populists away from Trump. Fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be a trumpy-bumpy ride.

[Cha]

93. Karma!

[Maven]

32. "We have to do just a few more little things"

[tinrobot]

40. Perhaps he's being audited.

[betsuni]

60. Imagine the conspiracy theories if a Democrat did that!

[comradebillyboy]

25. That's the problem with all his grand ideas.

[still_one]

26. It has echos of his 2016 interview with the Daily News

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

[Kurt V.]

31. yeah. It's almost like voters don't matter when it concerns legislation

[sheshe2]

37. From your link.

If Democrats are to be successful they will need, among other things, to point to Trump’s unprecedented financial shenanigans and secrecy. And, to exploit Trump’s vulnerabilities — including his foreign entanglements, conflicts of interest and possible constitutional violations — Democrats will need to be above reproach. Any of the current crop of candidates who seriously wants to contend for the nomination better open up their finances now, not after the first contest, let alone after the nomination has been decided.

No Democrat will get my vote in the primary unless they release their returns.

Transparency is needed more than ever in the age of trump.

[Cha]

50. "Democrats will need to be above reproach."

Excellent point, she.. Thank You!

Any of the current crop of candidates who seriously wants to contend for the nomination better open up their finances now, not after the first contest, let alone after the nomination has been decided.

That's what I've been saying.. the time to Vet is NOW.. Not in the GE.

Sunlight!

[sheshe2]

51. Yep.

Sunlight, Cha.

[McKim]

45. Still Punishing Sanders for Running in 2016

Is Sanders still being punished for daring to run in 2016? I support Warren but I want Sanders to be out there talking and raising the same important issues and proposals that we need to have held up. We can well afford free college and health care for all. And thanks to Sanders for bringing these ideas out into the general discourse.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

48. Amen to that

I never seem to hear that we don't have the money for endless war or tax cuts to billionaires. Warren will be an awesome candidate to watch in the months to come!

[Gothmog]

122. How does this voter revolution work?

If the only way to get sanders’ platform adopted is a voter revolution, then we Ned to understand how this revolution will work

[ZeroSomeBrains]

123. You have to get as many progressive Democrats in office as possible

It's not going to be easy but you have to vote in as many progressive Democrats as possible in office. You have to be bold enough to pass as much as you can through budget reconciliation through the US Senate and maybe get rid of the filibuster. Also maybe getting statehood for Washington DC and Puerto Rico would help and staying engaged at the local level as well.

You have to do the basic blocking and tackling of politics, knocking on doors and get as many people out to vote as possible. Everything we need to get through Congress won't happen just if Bernie wins or if there is a progressive Congress. That's why you have to stay engaged and hopefully in the long run we become more like a country we would be proud of.

[Gothmog]

124. That is not how sanders describe this voter revolution

sanders seems to claim that enough new voters will rise up that these new voters will force the GOP to be reasonable. How does one make the GOP act reasonable? Are there sufficient new voters to accomplish this?

As for blocking and tackling, I believe in getting as many real democrats as possible elected. We flipped two key house seats in 2018 in Texas with Colin and Lizzie. The DCCC has targeted six additional house seats for 2020 and I will be working to get these democrats elected. I really do not care if these candidates are called progressive. Who ever we elect will be better than idiots like Mike McCaul and Pete Olson

[ZeroSomeBrains]

129. I hope we have as many Democrats in Congress as well

As for what Senator Sanders said, all candidates say what he said in some form. If you listen to his whole argument and not just some sound bites than you would get the type of structural critique and overall need for a long-term strategy to help the party out.

All generic dems are better than Republicans but getting people elected who have a vision of getting poor people a chance to get a good job and union is something that is incredibly important IMO. Small incremental changes to the system aren't going to solve the climate crisis or inequality issues. I guess that's what I am thinking of in general in terms of his message.

[Cha]

49. ".. punishing.. "? The WaPo is calling him OUT

for his non answers.

Guess what?! Everyone gets Vetted this time.. Everyone releases their Tax Returns. No Exceptions.

Elizabeth Warren leads the way..

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

65. Nobody is doing that.

Is Sanders still being punished for daring to run in 2016?

Nobody is doing that.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

47. Always good to hear opposing viewpoints

I watched the town hall and thought that Senator Sanders did a good job. I know that expecting a revolution to change the feelings of Republicans is far-fetched. But there is always hope that it can change with another blue tsunami that gives Dems the House, and Senate as well. And keeping it 100, it's gonna take a rather large paper clip on a budget reconciliation bill to get the type of change this country needs no matter who the President is. That and hopefully 55 Democrats in the Senate so that you can change the filibuster to 55 votes. Honestly, good luck to all the candidates and I look forward to seeing this large field of great candidates continue their trek to throw out the orange bum in the White House.

[srobertss]

52. Yes

I think Bernie’s agenda is much further to the left of other candidates and thus harder to achieve. But I’m fiercely concerned about income inequality and climate change. I think our future is perilous and it takes someone deeply committed to these concerns to pave the way. And it always takes grassroots activism to bring about change. The New Deal was a response to grassroots activism. That’s my interpretation of his statement.

On the other hand, I’m also concerned that both Sanders and Warren as candidates will be like waving a red flag at the 1%, who I think are going to become crazed in trying to keep a grip on their growing sense of control over the whole world. I’m not sure a true democratic choice can prevail in the face of this. I keep wondering if there’s a candidate who would be committed to fight them, but be more of a Trojan horse. I don’t know enough about all of them. But I’m not confident about Kamala Harris, Gillibrand, Klobochar, or Booker.

I heard a clip on The Majority Report from Davos of a Washington Post economic journalist asking the CEO of Dell about 70% marginal tax rates and he got the whole room scoffing at the notion that they ever worked. Even the journalist laughed with him and said, “Maybe it worked briefly in the US in the 80’s.” What!? This keeps ringing through my head. She had to have known better, along with everyone in that room. But the 1% exert some kind of mesmerism that causes people to lose their brains. I need a candidate who is immune to their power.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

55. Another listener to MR. A smart one I see.

I listen to MR everyday and have for the past few years. I'm samantha cider on the chat and yeah there's a lot of concern in my eyes that the 1% have grown too powerful to subdue. But then I remember Teddy Roosevelt being able to threaten the coal companies by arguing he could take control over the mines and have the US army run it if they didn't negotiate. And the Supreme Court backed him in saying he had the right to do it if he wanted. A strong powerul leftist President may have more power than some are being led to believe.

[srobertss]

63. MR keeps me sane

I used to think it was the interviews I was most interested in. But when they’re on break like they were last week, I realized it’s their daily response to the headlines I depend on. Keeps me laughing.

Thanks for the history info to keep things in perspective.

[Nitram]

53. I, too, have been concerned that when the only plan is a "popular revolution", nothing will be

accomplished. The Constitution does not make provision for popular revolutions as a means to pass and enact legislation.

[billpolonsky]

54. He's asking for citizens to get involved

It's not pie in the sky, it's how things get done in a democracy.

You want something you have to get up out of your chair and ask for it.
You go for the loaf otherwise the government will give you crumbs ($15.hour not $12?)
You put pressure on the government and stop whining.

[pnwmom]

101. It's pie on the sky. What matters is who controls the House and the Senate.

If he were to win but the Democrats don't control both Houses, it won't matter how many of Bernie's followers decide to take to the streets. He'd just keep proposing things that wouldn't get passed.

[jalan48]

56. So says the mouthpiece for the richest man in America-Jeff Bezos.

[Mr. Evil]

59. Well, it's starting again.

Having this many Democrats (And please don't point out the obvious that Bernie isn't a 'Democrat.' He's more of a Democrat than Joe Manchin.) in the field this early on is a good thing. Maybe instead of disparaging articles like this one and the many more to come that will try to divide us, maybe we should focus on the positive aspects of each candidate's platform. They all have good ideas and plans, more or less, and we should hope that whomever wins the nomination will be able to pull a little from each candidate and form an unbeatable juggernaut to the White House.

What we should be focusing on is not how we can divide ourselves but, how we paint the Republicans as the ones hell bent on dividing this nation and making it even more worse than it is today. I won't take the bait and I will support the Democratic nominee. That person may not be my favorite choice but, I realize that it is imperative that I support them nonetheless. I will listen to each and every one of them and give them every opportunity to convince me they are up to the task of directing our country into a more prosperous and equitable future.

We should put all our energy into encouraging our candidates and making sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that a Republican (Trump or anyone else) is not elected president in 2020 or for a very long time after that.

[Gothmog]

72. The nominee needs to be the candidate who can beat trump

If sanders whole platform is contingent on a voter revolution that will force the GOP to be reasonable, then I doubt that he is electable. Counting on the GOP to do the right thing is not a sound platform

[pnwmom]

100. No, he isn't more of a Democrat than Joe Manchin, and here's why.

Joe Manchin was proud to wear the Democratic label -- and to win with it -- despite running for the Senate in the state with the HIGHEST vote for Trump in the whole country in 2016. What Joe Manchin managed to pull off was quite a feat.

Bernie comes from a strongly Democratic state, so it isn't hard for a Democrat -- or even a "Democratic socialist" -- to get elected there. West Virginia is a strongly Republican state, and yet the voters picked Manchin, who is far less conservative than any of the Republicans. (On Progressive Punch he has a 65% lifetime score on progressive positions, as opposed to the most progressive of the Republicans, Susan Collins, who is rated at 36% -- even though she comes from Swing state.)

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[betsuni]

62. "I hope that my Republican colleagues do the right thing."

Wasn't being too nice and trusting Republicans to do their jobs why people got mad at President Obama? So now that's a good plan? This time it's totally going to work! I've seen his supporters say that Sanders is respected and admired by the Right. Another myth to add to the collection.

[Cha]

66. Yes, it most certainly was, betsuni..

I saw them complaining about it all the time.

So, they have nothing to say about BS stating this?..

"I hope that my republican colleagues do the right thing"?!

No one who employs double standards can be taken seriously.

[Gothmog]

130. I am glad that sanders will be vetted this cycle

sanders will be vetted this cycle and vetting is part of the process https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

The vetting has only started and I have seen some interesting oppo on sanders. Again, a nominee needs to be vetted and I am glad that sanders will be vetted this cycle

[Cha]

131. Cheers to That.. he's

has a pass for far too long.

[ehrnst]

68. Marty Barron is continuing the good work that he started at The Boston Globe,

making it possible for his newsroom to speak truth to power.

[yardwork]

69. Magical thinking.

[Gothmog]

71. I still want to know how this voter revolution works

I am not comfortable basing my vote on the concept that none of a candidate's positions can be adopted in the real world and that we need a voter revolution to force the GOP to be reasonable. How many new voters are necessary to force the GOP to be reasonable? How does voter revolution work?

[redstatebluegirl]

76. He wasn't asked the hard questions the last time, this time he will be.

He gets angry when he is challenged. That is not the temperment we need in the White House right now. I agree with a lot of his ideas, I just wonder about his leadership ability.

[honest.abe]

87. He doesn't like dealing with people who don't trust him unconditionally.

Not a good characteristic for a national leader or POTUS candidate.

[comradebillyboy]

89. If he gets angry about obvious questions from Democrats just think

what would happen in a debate with Trump, who would engage in the crudest ad hominum attacks. Bernie would melt down into a quivering heap.

[disillusioned73]

82. "I did not watch this town hall"

Enough said... I appreciate the honesty

[Gothmog]

84. According the ratings most people did not watch this show

I trust the washington Post analysid

[disillusioned73]

86. I trust the wash post..

about as far as I can throw Jeff Bezos.. not that I advocate for the sport of tossing little ppl..

[R B Garr]

90. Then why hasn't there been this "Revolution" in Vermont?

It seems he could have some results in his home state by now, but no one ever asks him for results. Results are standards for other politicians.

[Adrahil]

96. ...and then a miracle happens....

Kind of like Bernie's plan to fund things. It's long on aspiration, short on actual policy.

[NurseJackie]

98. Anyone can read things from a wish-list. I guess I just have higher standards...

... than pie in the sky aspirations that lack realistic plans and policy.

[Adrahil]

105. me too!

[Gothmog]

108. I like living in the real world and I am not comfortable relying on magical voter revolutions

[Adrahil]

115. Same. NT

[WeekiWater]

106. The revolution needs to undergo an evolution. NT