It's the 30 percent of Democrats I was asking about. I was hoping you'd have a thoughtful answer. — frank

The 30 percent of Democrats don't fall under "voters"?

Quite frankly, given the media coverage of M4A, and the general lack of knowledge about it, I'm shocked it's polling as well as it is not just with Democrats but nationally (51% favorability).

A good percentage of Americans can't identify the US on a world map. What do you suppose accounts for this? Thoughtful answers, please.

Found it: labor unions want to keep the benefits they've bargained for. That's the main reason moderate politicians backed off from it.

So we know Bernie will get at least 30 percent of the votes. Bloomberg will get the 30 percent of moderates when Biden drops out. The question is: which direction will the remaining 40 percent go? Socialist or moderate?

Found it: labor unions want to keep the benefits they've bargained for. That's the main reason moderate politicians backed off from it. — frank

Yeah, one labor union in Nevada accounts for 30% of Democrats' opinions about M4A. Glad a quick Google search did the trick.

Go back to reading the NY Post and stop wasting everyone's time pretending to be interested in learning anything.

Where will they go?! Where??!

Consult Google to pick out the true and final answer -- i.e., the one you like.

A good percentage of Americans can't identify the US on a world map. — Xtrix

The National Geographic–Roper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden and the United States.

Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.

"The survey demonstrates the geographic illiteracy of the United States," said Robert Pastor, professor of International Relations at American University, in Washington, D.C. "The results are particularly appalling in light of September 11, which traumatized America and revealed that our destiny is connected to the rest of the world."

About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/geography-survey-illiteracy/#close

AP is already projecting Sanders wins Nevada. NYT, WSJ, WaPo, etc., are all following suit now. As far as I see only 4% is reporting, but I guess they know what they're doing?

Looks like Bernie is winning big based on the little that's accounted for. I guess we're all in for another week of op-eds saying that same exact thing as last week: how he's the worst one to go against Trump and how none of his plans will happen.

And the voters will continue to steamroll over these pathetic, professional "opinion-givers."

Interesting. Now just wait until Frank finds the more thoughtful answer.

I suspect that it'll be brokered, — 180 Proof

Even if Bernie wins, it's going to be brokered. Obama and Pelosi are both warning that the words "Medicare for all" are likely to make Trump seem like the safer choice. Alarms are ringing throughout the Democratic Party. People are just fundamentally afraid if socialism.

Bloomberg is going to be nominated no matter who wins the most votes.

Ok, I'm up to speed.

Bloomberg is going to be nominated no matter who wins the most votes. — frank

Not a chance.

Go Google a little more and find a more thoughtful opinion you can tout as your own.

Found it: labor unions want to keep the benefits they've bargained for. That's the main reason moderate politicians backed off from it. — frank

If you are referring to the Culinary Union, the leadership of which condemned Bernie Sanders for his Medicare for All which created a lot of drawn out media furor. Despite this, the majority of the Culinary Union members ended up backing Sanders anyway :cool:

Yep. I think the main reason moderates are against Medicare-for-all is that they believe it's too dangerous. They think it will even undermine support for Obamacare if Republicans start framing Democrats as Socialists. They're convinced the US isn't ready for Bernie Sanders.

That some Americans want to keep their private insurance is a minor issue in comparison.

I think the main reason moderates are against Medicare-for-all is that they believe it's too dangerous. — frank

Well Sanders received the most votes by moderates in Nevada so it may be that mostly media and party elites consider Medicare For All to be "radical".

if Republicans start framing Democrats as Socialists. — frank

They've been doing this for over 75 years. They did this to Obama, they did this to Hillary, and they'll do this to any other Democrat, whether or not they are a self-described socialist.

They did this to Obama, — Maw

Obama is among those warning that this isn't the time to go further into socialism than we've ever gone.

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Perhaps there's a learning disability involved here.

Let me be the mean one and tell you for your own good: your entire narrative, which you continue to try to fit all evidence to the contrary neatly into, is wrong. It's stupid. It's obsolete.

Grow up.

I agree with most to your post, but I wasn't being facetious: if you know how the process works, what evidence is there that suggests this is most likely to happen? I realize the DNC doesn't want Bernie, but Bernie will end up with most of the delegates in the end. I have a hard time believing that the DNC is stupid enough, given the delegate numbers, to simply hand it over to Bloomberg. That's a disaster.

You could be right, but I need more. Bloomberg plotting against Sanders we knew from the beginning. — Xtrix

The question you ask is, what is the evidence that I think makes the DNC screwing Bernie the most likely outcome. Well, the same people did the same thing to him in 2016. And they changed the rules to let Bloomie in the debate, while Tulsi, who has grassroots support, remains shut out.

The very existence of Bloomberg as a credible candidate is proof that the fix is in. You say you don't think they'd be stupid enough to be so blatant in their corruption. I say the Dems are long past that point. Bloomie had a tough night at the debate but he's never been a flashy debate performer. Many Dems are fully ready to abandon every one of their so-called principles to beat Trump and they know America's not ready for Bernie.

This all seems clear to me. I of course agree that I could be wrong. We'll all find out together, popcorn at the ready.

ps -- I'm pretty impressed by Bernie's strong showing in Nevada tonight. If his movement picks up steam, he could win. That's certainly the vibe tonight. Nobody believes in any of the other candidates.

Here's a nice analysis. It concludes, "The race is now Bernie's to lose." Maybe you're right.

Sanders eviscerates the conventional wisdom about why he can't win

Bloomberg’s performance the other night was profoundly depressing. I think it really damaged his cred. As an outsider, I had been hoping that he would be a credible candidate, and I still hope so.

Sander’s medicare plan seems pretty similar to what Canada and Australia already have. Why Americans are so hysterically frightened of that baffles me. You’d think he was running on ‘socializing the banking sector' or nationalising the airlines. But then, some Republicans called the Affordable Care Act communism. Capitalists have disproportionately large clout in the US electoral system.

If I thought Sanders could win, then I would be really hopeful. But unfortunately, I think it's going to be a replay of Johnson vs Corbyn, or Nixon vs McGovern. Except I can't fathom how Trump could possibly function as President for another term. He doesn't have enough family members to do the jobs and he's barely capable of a coherent thought.

March 4th is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...) — 180 Proof

At this point, given that she's come in a pretty abysmal 4th place in Nevada, it would be prudent for her to drop out and endorse Sanders. Her polling is terrible in South Carolina and every Super Tuesday state save for her own (Massachusetts), which she's projected to lose to Sanders. And she doesn't have the money for ad spending across 14 states to turn it around.

Sander’s medicare plan seems pretty similar to what Canada and Australia already have. Why Americans are so hysterically frightened of that baffles me — Wayfarer

Here's some of the problems:
First, fear of the unknown. Most people have health insurance of some kind, and although they may grumble about it, there's no guarantee "Medicare for All" will be an improvement. But the unknowns are substantial.

What becomes of the medical insurance industry? I suspect most Bernie supporters don't care what happens to those fat cats, but keep in mind the industry employs a lot of people, and there are millions of stockholders (including people with a vested pension plan). . What impact will that have on the economy to lose jobs and household wealth? The collapse of this one sector could have huge impact on the economy as a whole.

Medical insurance premiums will be replaced with taxes. That sounds fine in the long run and in the aggregate, but will this happen all a once, or phased in? How can it be phased in without creating massive deficits? When phased in, this will have the same effect as a revenue-neutral change in the tax structure - it's inevitable that there will be both winners and losers. Losers will not support the change. Losers include big unions who have negotiated great health plans. Even if "Medicare for All" matches their current plans (which may be unlikely), it means their negotiations were for naught. If the transition is not done in a revenue-neutral way, we're back to massive deficits.

Will there be disruptions in service as the transition is made? There are good reasons to be concerned.

If Bernie gets elected, I predict his promise of Medicare for All will never happen. At best, a Buttigieg-style "Medicare for those who want it" might pass (I don't know how likely that is, but I think that's the best anyone can hope for).

Approaching a fantasy and actually living in a fantasy are two very different things. Do you understand that?
— christian2017

I understand what you think that implies, yes. But it's complete nonsense. I'm not arguing that because we never achieve some ideal or some concept of perfection that it's not worth aiming for. I'm arguing that the pursuit of this so-called ideal has been used to justify neoliberal policies, which have devised the country for 40 years and has led to astronomical wealth inequality.

Let's stop pushing for this silly ideal to begin with. — Xtrix

Once again ass hole, once again, being on a spectrum and approaching that threshold is not trying to reach an ideal. Are you familiar with engineering or systems analysis and design? You don't just make a component as big as possible, you have to make it a more (more) precise shape (taper the edges and such) to get it to work (better) (not perfect).

China is a state-run economy. America is also a state-run economy, with some nice words about freedom of choice, free markets, etc. All fantasy. The concentration of wealth and power in this country gets everything they want from the government -- in a large degree they ARE in control of it. But even if you don't agree with that, it's impossible to look at the US and not see that the economy is directed by the government. Forget that China says they're "communist" and the US says it's a "democracy." Neither are true in any sense that matters. — Xtrix

Its funny i thought i made this clear in previous posts. I actually do for the most agree with this paragraph. Your a very simple guy at this point in your life. Just about every concept can be applied to a spectrum. Your finger nail was designed over billions of years through evolution and its development could be mapped on a spectrum. Perhaps randomness (intentional or not) could be shown to have some engineering insight as to how the finger nail got to the way it is. But like any engineer, you can't even begin to do your job if you don't understand spectrum. Absolutely everything can be applied to engineering (or systems analysis and design).principles. Part of the problem many scientists and "professionals" divorce themselves from mathematics and engineering and in all practicality these people should be called witch doctors.

I say it because it's nonsense
— Xtrix

You realize most people who oppose a view on this forum will claim they opposed it because its nonsense. That doesn't prove your point.
— christian2017

What point? You asked meL "Why do you say that?" That's my answer. I go on to argue why, and provide evidence. — Xtrix

ok. I'm not reposting that part. Feel free to repost our conversation, other than that i don't give a shit.

That last sentence i would agree with for the most part, its actually many republicans who are shooting themselves in the foot, they want their taxes lowered but at the same time want to keep certain types of people out of their neighborhoods and they want their counties looking a certain way. These Republicans may as well call themselves Democrats.
— christian2017

I really don't see the relevance of that remark. — Xtrix

Well i did state this earlier but: zoning laws need to be restructured.....

What becomes of the medical insurance industry? I suspect most Bernie supporters don't care what happens to those fat cats, but keep in mind the industry employs a lot of people, and there are millions of stockholders (including people with a vested pension plan). . What impact will that have on the economy to lose jobs and household wealth? The collapse of this one sector could have huge impact on the economy as a whole. — Relativist

What if it’s not a ‘collapse of a sector’ but a legitimate redistribution of resources? Why should shareholders profit from healthcare? They’re arguably transferring wealth from those unfortunate enough to fall ill.

As it happens, I currently work in the health insurance sector, in a NFP healthcare insurance company. Here in Australia they’re predicting the demise of such organisations also, as the young and healthy drop private insurance and the older and sicker pile on board. So I don’t imagine there are any easy answers. Nevertheless Sanders’ criticism of profiteering in the sector rings true with me. But the problem is, true as it might be, it won’t get him elected, and another four years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return.

another four years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return. — Wayfarer

I am continued to be be baffled by the Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can you explain how in your mind another years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return? I mean, rationally, without wild rants. (The claim sounds incredibly radicial, I wonder if any US president has such powers.) Thanks!

Can you explain how in your mind another years of Trump could just f*** civilization to the point of no return? — Nobeernolife

If you can't see it, there's no point trying to explain it.

If you can't see it, there's no point trying to explain it. — Wayfarer

Not much of an answer, is it!
If civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return, I would certainly like to hear more about it.

He's a threat, because he constantly attacks the legal system and uses the justice department in the pursuit of his own political ends (which are his personal ends, he sees no distinction.) IN addition he treats the Constitution, Congress, the State Department, and many of the other organs of government with obvious contempt. So he's a threat to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. If he's voted in for another term, this might end up having hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order, at a time when numerous other crises, economic, political and environmental, are reaching a peak.

He's a threat, because he constantly attacks the legal system and uses the justice department in the pursuit of his own political ends (which are his personal ends, he sees no distinction.) IN addition he treats the Constitution, Congress, the State Department, and many of the other organs of government with obvious contempt. So he's a threat to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. — Wayfarer

I do not really really see that, but OK, lets just assume it.

If he's voted in for another term, this might end up having hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order, at a time when numerous other crises, economic, political and environmental, are reaching a peak. — Wayfarer

OK, so you imagine "hugely damaging consequences for the Western democratic order".

But That is not the same as having "f*** civilization to the point of no return" as you said earlier. The "Western democratic order" as it is surely can survive some politician that you dislike. So it is not the end of civilization in 2024 after all, then?

It’s not a matter of pride, it’s a matter of not just giving in and letting us be forced out of our home so that some rich asshole can move in here instead (or, more accurately, so some super-rich asshole can buy all the housing stock and rent it out for profit).

So....pride. You can't let those rich assholes win. You are willing to continue struggling because your struggle is a moral one and you are on the good side.

In telling me that I should move, you’re saying that almost everybody in the entire state of California, the most populous state in the country and one of the largest, also shouldn’t live in the state that they do

Everybody is in a different situation, but I think for a lot of people if they could find a similarly-paying job elsewhere then they should probably move out. I'm not giving blanket advice here to everybody because everyone's situation is unique.

Even if you had the money required for a down payment you'd basically be draining your entire savings for that down payment, right? I would just really, really advise against that because it leaves you no cushion and you'd be living on knife's edge. On top of your mortgage you'd still have utilities, maintenance & repairs, homeowner's insurance, property taxes and HOA fees.

I'm just looking out for you here and giving you my honest take on how to best proceed. I am not a financial adviser, but I would recommend that you go to one. In the end its your life and you're going to make your own decisions. I didn't mean to start a debate, this is just what I would do.

EDIT: If you want to tough it out I would definitely try to get a side hustle going. This could mean filling out surveys for money, dog walking, opening credit cards and getting the bonuses, and others.