Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrWendel
MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
February 27, 2016
By claudsam
People may not believe this, but I was an undecided Democratic voter until earlier this month. I watched both Hillary and Bernie — and their campaigns — with a singular focus on who I think has the best chance to win in November.
I concluded that Bernie, while inspiring young voters, independents, and disaffected liberals, just doesn’t have what it takes to win. Everything I’ve seen over the last three weeks from him and his supporters only reinforces my views.
And in the last few days, I’ve realized something new about Bernie that always bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Bernie is inspiring and has offered big ideas, but is almost insultingly vague in both the policy details and in the politics. And that vagueness juxtaposed against his big broad ideas is not a winning combination.
Let me start with this basic point: If Bernie were to win the White House, he would be the most liberal elected official in the entire Federal Government. This would be unprecedented. Never before in U.S. history has the most liberal or the most conservative elected official of the Federal Government been President. And this point alone makes it exceedingly hard for me to see how he would get anything done — even getting his cabinet confirmed would be a gigantic fight with a Congress far to his right.
So, this question of how would he actually govern is a very important question, one he has not come close to answering.
(More in link)
Bernie's Vagueness Dooming His Campaign
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491653/-Bernie-s-Vagueness-Dooming-His-CampaignBy claudsam
People may not believe this, but I was an undecided Democratic voter until earlier this month. I watched both Hillary and Bernie — and their campaigns — with a singular focus on who I think has the best chance to win in November.
I concluded that Bernie, while inspiring young voters, independents, and disaffected liberals, just doesn’t have what it takes to win. Everything I’ve seen over the last three weeks from him and his supporters only reinforces my views.
And in the last few days, I’ve realized something new about Bernie that always bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Bernie is inspiring and has offered big ideas, but is almost insultingly vague in both the policy details and in the politics. And that vagueness juxtaposed against his big broad ideas is not a winning combination.
Let me start with this basic point: If Bernie were to win the White House, he would be the most liberal elected official in the entire Federal Government. This would be unprecedented. Never before in U.S. history has the most liberal or the most conservative elected official of the Federal Government been President. And this point alone makes it exceedingly hard for me to see how he would get anything done — even getting his cabinet confirmed would be a gigantic fight with a Congress far to his right.
So, this question of how would he actually govern is a very important question, one he has not come close to answering.
(More in link)
February 27, 2016
By claudsam
People may not believe this, but I was an undecided Democratic voter until earlier this month. I watched both Hillary and Bernie — and their campaigns — with a singular focus on who I think has the best chance to win in November.
I concluded that Bernie, while inspiring young voters, independents, and disaffected liberals, just doesn’t have what it takes to win. Everything I’ve seen over the last three weeks from him and his supporters only reinforces my views.
And in the last few days, I’ve realized something new about Bernie that always bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Bernie is inspiring and has offered big ideas, but is almost insultingly vague in both the policy details and in the politics. And that vagueness juxtaposed against his big broad ideas is not a winning combination.
Let me start with this basic point: If Bernie were to win the White House, he would be the most liberal elected official in the entire Federal Government. This would be unprecedented. Never before in U.S. history has the most liberal or the most conservative elected official of the Federal Government been President. And this point alone makes it exceedingly hard for me to see how he would get anything done — even getting his cabinet confirmed would be a gigantic fight with a Congress far to his right.
So, this question of how would he actually govern is a very important question, one he has not come close to answering.
(More in link)
Bernie's Vagueness Dooming His Campaign
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491653/-Bernie-s-Vagueness-Dooming-His-CampaignBy claudsam
People may not believe this, but I was an undecided Democratic voter until earlier this month. I watched both Hillary and Bernie — and their campaigns — with a singular focus on who I think has the best chance to win in November.
I concluded that Bernie, while inspiring young voters, independents, and disaffected liberals, just doesn’t have what it takes to win. Everything I’ve seen over the last three weeks from him and his supporters only reinforces my views.
And in the last few days, I’ve realized something new about Bernie that always bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Bernie is inspiring and has offered big ideas, but is almost insultingly vague in both the policy details and in the politics. And that vagueness juxtaposed against his big broad ideas is not a winning combination.
Let me start with this basic point: If Bernie were to win the White House, he would be the most liberal elected official in the entire Federal Government. This would be unprecedented. Never before in U.S. history has the most liberal or the most conservative elected official of the Federal Government been President. And this point alone makes it exceedingly hard for me to see how he would get anything done — even getting his cabinet confirmed would be a gigantic fight with a Congress far to his right.
So, this question of how would he actually govern is a very important question, one he has not come close to answering.
(More in link)
February 27, 2016
By First Amendment
Mayor Andrew Gillum
This is a great endorsement for Hillary. Mr Gillum is popular in Tallahassee and he’s a rising star in Florida Democratic politics. He was the youngest person ever elected to the Tallahassee City Commission. He was elected Mayor in 2014.
In his endorsement, he had some nice things to say about Hillary.
floridapolitics.com/…
(More in link)
Tallahassee, Florida Mayor Andrew Gillum Endorses Hillary Clinton For President!
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491420/-Tallahassee-Florida-Mayor-Andrew-Gillum-Endorses-Hillary-Clinton-For-PresidentBy First Amendment
Mayor Andrew Gillum
This is a great endorsement for Hillary. Mr Gillum is popular in Tallahassee and he’s a rising star in Florida Democratic politics. He was the youngest person ever elected to the Tallahassee City Commission. He was elected Mayor in 2014.
In his endorsement, he had some nice things to say about Hillary.
floridapolitics.com/…
(More in link)
February 27, 2016
By sholmberg
Wow! Another great endorsement!
538 does not have a predication yet, but with the massive bump and momentum she will have after Super Tuesday, this endorsement may help seal the deal for Hillary in PA!
BAM! Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney Endorses Hillary Clinton For President!!
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491426/-PHILADELPHIA-MAYOR-JIM-KENNEY-ENDORSES-HILLARY-CLINTON-FOR-PRESIDENTBy sholmberg
Wow! Another great endorsement!
The announcement came in a written statement Tuesday morning.
"Hillary Clinton has the heart, strength and depth of knowledge and experience to unite our nation and lead us during these troubled times," said Kenney in the statement. "She will build on the accomplishments of President Obama and continue the economic growth and expansion he successfully initiated."
"I share Secretary Clinton's progressive vision for America and her quest to tear down barriers that deny opportunity and exclude so many Americans from access to the American Dream. I trust Hillary Clinton with our nation's future."
abc.com/...
538 does not have a predication yet, but with the massive bump and momentum she will have after Super Tuesday, this endorsement may help seal the deal for Hillary in PA!
February 27, 2016
By sholmberg
That’s right! Among Dem’s Hillary’s favorable ratings have surged!
Hillary Clinton has reclaimed her position as the best-liked presidential candidate among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, a sign that her candidacy is recovering a key advantage she recently surrendered to rival Bernie Sanders. Clinton's net favorable score stands at +55 for the week of Feb. 18-24, 2016, a 10-percentage-point increase from her low point recorded over Jan. 27-Feb.10. This latter time period overlapped with her landslide loss to Sanders in the New Hampshire primary. Sanders' net favorable over the past week, by contrast, stands at +44, well below Clinton's score and a steep fall from the +57 he boasted in late January/early February.
www.gallup.com/...
(More in link)
BAM!! Hillary more Favorable Than Bernie Among Dems!!
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1492042/-BAM-Hillary-more-Favorable-Than-Bernie-Among-DemsBy sholmberg
That’s right! Among Dem’s Hillary’s favorable ratings have surged!
Hillary Clinton has reclaimed her position as the best-liked presidential candidate among Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, a sign that her candidacy is recovering a key advantage she recently surrendered to rival Bernie Sanders. Clinton's net favorable score stands at +55 for the week of Feb. 18-24, 2016, a 10-percentage-point increase from her low point recorded over Jan. 27-Feb.10. This latter time period overlapped with her landslide loss to Sanders in the New Hampshire primary. Sanders' net favorable over the past week, by contrast, stands at +44, well below Clinton's score and a steep fall from the +57 he boasted in late January/early February.
www.gallup.com/...
(More in link)
February 26, 2016
By andrewj54
Christy Romer, formerly of the Council of Economic Advisors, and David Romer, have provided a response to those defending the growth claims embedded in Sanders’ policies. It’s eleven pages of what looks to me like rigorous economic analysis.
From the opening of the memo:
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.
• First, all the effects of Senator Sanders’s policies that he identifies are assumed to come through their impact on demand. However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible—even given Friedman’s own assumptions.
• Second, in assuming that demand stimulus can raise output 37% over the next 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast, Friedman is implicitly assuming that the U.S. economy is (and will continue to be for a long time) dramatically below its productive capacity. However, while some output gap likely still exists, the plausible range for the output gap is much too small to accommodate demand effects nearly as large as Friedman finds. As a result, capacity constraints would likely lead to inflation and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates long before such high growth rates were realized.
• Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.
(More in link)
New Christy Romer memo shreds Sanders' claims on economic growth
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491522/-New-Christy-Romer-memo-shreds-Sanders-claims-on-economic-growthBy andrewj54
Christy Romer, formerly of the Council of Economic Advisors, and David Romer, have provided a response to those defending the growth claims embedded in Sanders’ policies. It’s eleven pages of what looks to me like rigorous economic analysis.
From the opening of the memo:
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.
• First, all the effects of Senator Sanders’s policies that he identifies are assumed to come through their impact on demand. However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible—even given Friedman’s own assumptions.
• Second, in assuming that demand stimulus can raise output 37% over the next 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast, Friedman is implicitly assuming that the U.S. economy is (and will continue to be for a long time) dramatically below its productive capacity. However, while some output gap likely still exists, the plausible range for the output gap is much too small to accommodate demand effects nearly as large as Friedman finds. As a result, capacity constraints would likely lead to inflation and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates long before such high growth rates were realized.
• Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.
(More in link)
February 26, 2016
By andrewj54
Christy Romer, formerly of the Council of Economic Advisors, and David Romer, have provided a response to those defending the growth claims embedded in Sanders’ policies. It’s eleven pages of what looks to me like rigorous economic analysis.
From the opening of the memo:
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.
• First, all the effects of Senator Sanders’s policies that he identifies are assumed to come through their impact on demand. However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible—even given Friedman’s own assumptions.
• Second, in assuming that demand stimulus can raise output 37% over the next 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast, Friedman is implicitly assuming that the U.S. economy is (and will continue to be for a long time) dramatically below its productive capacity. However, while some output gap likely still exists, the plausible range for the output gap is much too small to accommodate demand effects nearly as large as Friedman finds. As a result, capacity constraints would likely lead to inflation and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates long before such high growth rates were realized.
• Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.
(More in link)
New Christy Romer memo shreds Sanders' claims on economic growth
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491522/-New-Christy-Romer-memo-shreds-Sanders-claims-on-economic-growthBy andrewj54
Christy Romer, formerly of the Council of Economic Advisors, and David Romer, have provided a response to those defending the growth claims embedded in Sanders’ policies. It’s eleven pages of what looks to me like rigorous economic analysis.
From the opening of the memo:
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.
• First, all the effects of Senator Sanders’s policies that he identifies are assumed to come through their impact on demand. However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible—even given Friedman’s own assumptions.
• Second, in assuming that demand stimulus can raise output 37% over the next 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast, Friedman is implicitly assuming that the U.S. economy is (and will continue to be for a long time) dramatically below its productive capacity. However, while some output gap likely still exists, the plausible range for the output gap is much too small to accommodate demand effects nearly as large as Friedman finds. As a result, capacity constraints would likely lead to inflation and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates long before such high growth rates were realized.
• Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.
(More in link)
February 26, 2016
By Skywatch
Down in the polls and desperate for a win on Super Tuesday, the Bernie Sanders campaign has decided that their best hope for upending Clinton in March is by going on the attack against her.
CNN is reporting that Sanders in a stump speech in Minnesota at this hour, is attacking Clinton on a decision not to release her wall street transcripts to the public, a tactic that he hopes will provide some leverage to his campaign just days from super Tuesday when 11 states will go to the polls. Even more disturbing is a report that a coalition of Sanders-aligned Progressives are fully supporting a number of GOP ads that are airing which are hitting Clinton on her decision not to release her wall street transcripts. It is even being reported that Sanders has accepted money from Conservative PACS that are attacking Hillary.
Most troubling for Sanders is his promise not to go negative in this campaign, a promise he is now more than willing to overlook in order to shift the focus on the Clinton campaign and help his own cause.
Republicans realize that a Clinton surge that would propel her to the nomination is their worst nightmare for the General Election, and so once again as they did in the Benghazi hearings, have concocted another scheme that they hope will derail the Clinton campaign.
(More in link)
Desperate for a Win-Sanders Shifts to Attack Mode-Looks to GOP Ads for Help
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491785/-Desperate-for-a-Win-Sanders-Shifts-to-Attack-Mode-Looks-to-GOP-Ads-for-HelpBy Skywatch
Down in the polls and desperate for a win on Super Tuesday, the Bernie Sanders campaign has decided that their best hope for upending Clinton in March is by going on the attack against her.
CNN is reporting that Sanders in a stump speech in Minnesota at this hour, is attacking Clinton on a decision not to release her wall street transcripts to the public, a tactic that he hopes will provide some leverage to his campaign just days from super Tuesday when 11 states will go to the polls. Even more disturbing is a report that a coalition of Sanders-aligned Progressives are fully supporting a number of GOP ads that are airing which are hitting Clinton on her decision not to release her wall street transcripts. It is even being reported that Sanders has accepted money from Conservative PACS that are attacking Hillary.
Most troubling for Sanders is his promise not to go negative in this campaign, a promise he is now more than willing to overlook in order to shift the focus on the Clinton campaign and help his own cause.
Republicans realize that a Clinton surge that would propel her to the nomination is their worst nightmare for the General Election, and so once again as they did in the Benghazi hearings, have concocted another scheme that they hope will derail the Clinton campaign.
(More in link)
February 26, 2016
By Skywatch
Down in the polls and desperate for a win on Super Tuesday, the Bernie Sanders campaign has decided that their best hope for upending Clinton in March is by going on the attack against her.
CNN is reporting that Sanders in a stump speech in Minnesota at this hour, is attacking Clinton on a decision not to release her wall street transcripts to the public, a tactic that he hopes will provide some leverage to his campaign just days from super Tuesday when 11 states will go to the polls. Even more disturbing is a report that a coalition of Sanders-aligned Progressives are fully supporting a number of GOP ads that are airing which are hitting Clinton on her decision not to release her wall street transcripts. It is even being reported that Sanders has accepted money from Conservative PACS that are attacking Hillary.
Most troubling for Sanders is his promise not to go negative in this campaign, a promise he is now more than willing to overlook in order to shift the focus on the Clinton campaign and help his own cause.
Republicans realize that a Clinton surge that would propel her to the nomination is their worst nightmare for the General Election, and so once again as they did in the Benghazi hearings, have concocted another scheme that they hope will derail the Clinton campaign.
(More in link)
Desperate for a Win-Sanders Shifts to Attack Mode-Looks to GOP Ads for Help
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/26/1491785/-Desperate-for-a-Win-Sanders-Shifts-to-Attack-Mode-Looks-to-GOP-Ads-for-HelpBy Skywatch
Down in the polls and desperate for a win on Super Tuesday, the Bernie Sanders campaign has decided that their best hope for upending Clinton in March is by going on the attack against her.
CNN is reporting that Sanders in a stump speech in Minnesota at this hour, is attacking Clinton on a decision not to release her wall street transcripts to the public, a tactic that he hopes will provide some leverage to his campaign just days from super Tuesday when 11 states will go to the polls. Even more disturbing is a report that a coalition of Sanders-aligned Progressives are fully supporting a number of GOP ads that are airing which are hitting Clinton on her decision not to release her wall street transcripts. It is even being reported that Sanders has accepted money from Conservative PACS that are attacking Hillary.
Most troubling for Sanders is his promise not to go negative in this campaign, a promise he is now more than willing to overlook in order to shift the focus on the Clinton campaign and help his own cause.
Republicans realize that a Clinton surge that would propel her to the nomination is their worst nightmare for the General Election, and so once again as they did in the Benghazi hearings, have concocted another scheme that they hope will derail the Clinton campaign.
(More in link)
February 26, 2016
By Bravenak
Bernie is probably talking about Oligarchs, I really am just guessing
How tone deaf is Bernie Sanders on race? If we look back through his history in government, we find a much different Bernie than we would find in 1968. Is it his time living in mostly white Vermont that has affected his ability to discuss race in a clear and coherent manner? Or is it the fact that he sees race as a wedge issue, something that distracts from his all important theme of economic inequality? In my opinion, it is a combination of many elements that contribute to his stubborn attachment to shifting from race to poverty, without even demonstrating the shallowest understanding of the intersections that separate them.
We are not all poor. We are not all on welfare. We are not all in jail. So why does Bernie Sanders always pivot from matters of race to matters of poverty and incarceration? Yes, we know they are connected, but they are not the SAME THING. We all know that there are many disparities between the races in almost every walk of life, but what we need in a leader is someone who shows that they can engage us on issues and has a genuine interest in our issues. From OUR perspective.
Let's discuss a few moments of his absolute tone deafness in dealing with black americans. At the Race Forum, Bernie was addressed by a woman whose son was dealing with lung issues from the garbage plant burning near her home. She was visibly frustrated, and accused him of not being able to say 'Black'. Did he empathize? Sympathize? Discuss her son? No! He yelled out, "I said black FIFTY TIMES!", and then proceeded to discuss poverty with this middle class black business owner who wanted to discuss environmental racism. He actually told her what they were GOING to discuss. I suppose he has good reason but, I have no idea how his answer had anything to do with her questions or comments.
At the debate on PBS, he was asked about something he said about race relations on MSNBC, under him versus under Obama, as he had said they would be BETTER under him. His answer seemed odd. Very ODD. Somehow he decided to answer a completely different question than the one asked. It involved taxing millionaires and billionaires to get jobs to poor kids so they 'won't be HANGING on street corners!'. Um? What? Race relations would improve if poor kids were not hanging out on street corners? I tried not to say that black kids hanging on corners did not cause racism, but I couldn't stop myself. Black OR poor kids hanging on street corners does not cause racism, Sir.
(More in link)
The Neverending Tone Deafness of Bernie Sanders
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491492/-The-Neverending-Tone-Deafness-of-Bernie-SandersBy Bravenak
Bernie is probably talking about Oligarchs, I really am just guessing
How tone deaf is Bernie Sanders on race? If we look back through his history in government, we find a much different Bernie than we would find in 1968. Is it his time living in mostly white Vermont that has affected his ability to discuss race in a clear and coherent manner? Or is it the fact that he sees race as a wedge issue, something that distracts from his all important theme of economic inequality? In my opinion, it is a combination of many elements that contribute to his stubborn attachment to shifting from race to poverty, without even demonstrating the shallowest understanding of the intersections that separate them.
We are not all poor. We are not all on welfare. We are not all in jail. So why does Bernie Sanders always pivot from matters of race to matters of poverty and incarceration? Yes, we know they are connected, but they are not the SAME THING. We all know that there are many disparities between the races in almost every walk of life, but what we need in a leader is someone who shows that they can engage us on issues and has a genuine interest in our issues. From OUR perspective.
Let's discuss a few moments of his absolute tone deafness in dealing with black americans. At the Race Forum, Bernie was addressed by a woman whose son was dealing with lung issues from the garbage plant burning near her home. She was visibly frustrated, and accused him of not being able to say 'Black'. Did he empathize? Sympathize? Discuss her son? No! He yelled out, "I said black FIFTY TIMES!", and then proceeded to discuss poverty with this middle class black business owner who wanted to discuss environmental racism. He actually told her what they were GOING to discuss. I suppose he has good reason but, I have no idea how his answer had anything to do with her questions or comments.
At the debate on PBS, he was asked about something he said about race relations on MSNBC, under him versus under Obama, as he had said they would be BETTER under him. His answer seemed odd. Very ODD. Somehow he decided to answer a completely different question than the one asked. It involved taxing millionaires and billionaires to get jobs to poor kids so they 'won't be HANGING on street corners!'. Um? What? Race relations would improve if poor kids were not hanging out on street corners? I tried not to say that black kids hanging on corners did not cause racism, but I couldn't stop myself. Black OR poor kids hanging on street corners does not cause racism, Sir.
(More in link)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 02:19 PMNumber of posts: 1,881
