About 70% precincts reporting in for South Carolina with Biden in the clear lead at around 50% and Sanders at around 19%. Steyer, who just dropped out, is in third at around 11% and him and all other candidates are non-viable. Warren and Klobuchar should at this point drop out instead of siphoning delegates from competitive candidates, which will just lead to a brokered convention. Pete will probably drop out after Super Tuesday.

Personally, I'm not to fond of the "socialism for the rich" phrase, since it positions socialism as something government does, good or bad, which dilutes the term. Socialism should be seen as a positive.

Imagine getting upset because Sanders acknowledged some objectively good things Cuba has done. Very American to condemn other states as authoritarian while the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

It's also one of my new goals to read everything Wood has ever written — StreetlightX

:100:

You can simply Google "Bloomberg Maoist", not giving Breitbart the click throughs

Breitbart ran an article calling Bloomberg a Maoist so I think we can all rest easy as the Right calls Bernie a socialist

If it makes anyone feel better, Jimmy Carter is 95, and the previous presidents down to Ford died in their mid-90s,

I accidently ended up watching some CNN today. An analyst pointed out that a high percentage of Bernie supporters don't remember anything about the Cold War. They remember 911, the 2008 crisis, Obama and Trump, but nothing about the Berlin Wall or anything like that.

I think that probably is part of the divide. It's a different set of fears. — frank

The most recent Politico demographic breakdown shows that Bernie supporters were 40% more likely to be ages 30-44 and 96% more likely to be ages 18-29 than all Democratic voters, so yes they don't have Communist Russia as a boogyman and having been either born during or after Reagan's neoliberal shift, they haven't benefited from Capitalism in the way their parents, who were born during the post-war boom, did. Also they will be affected by climate change in ways their 60+ YO parents won't be.

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal. — Maw

lol

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.

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.

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:

Did you actually read the article? — Maw

Let's agree to disagree here. — fishfry

You can just say "no" next time :wink:

The LA Times link you provided is just a 10 sentence Letter to the Editor...

The Atlantic article, which I did happen to read early today, despite offering a simplistic overview, unequivocally concludes that the analogy is not valid (despite the clickbait headline). Did you actually read the article?

Tell it to the DNC insiders plotting to stab Bernie in the back. 1972 is very much in the minds of the Dem insiders. I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the news. I can assure you that the professionals who run the campaigns are acutely aware of historical precedents. — fishfry

I don't care if it's "in the news", it's a vapid analogy attempting to be prophetic in service to democratic moderates

I moved (back) to Atlanta in 2015. However, looking forward to relocating to Portland, Oregon this fall. Left coast "blue state" for the duration - putting down roots finally. — 180 Proof

Nice, hope you enjoy Portland, been a while since I've been there but certainly a great place to live.

By 1972 the leftists took back the party and nominated George McGovern. Nixon got reelected in a historic landslide, winning 49 out of the 50 states. — fishfry

This was nearly 50 years ago, under vastly different conditions and with a set of voters who are now mostly dead. Not at all analogous.

The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman (data greatly influence Sanders' and Warren's tax proposals)

War and War by Laszlo Krasznahorkai

How so? — 180 Proof

Beyond her ostentatious mishandling of Bernie's purported "A Women Can't Win" comment, she's increasingly engaged in spurious attacks centered on internet Bernie Bro meanies and misleading attacks from the Culinary Union's leadership. Despite nominally being the "unity" candidate and a progressive ally of Sanders, she's recently participated in hackenyed (and frankly anti-semitic) statements around Bernie's...yelling...despite prominent surrogates for Sanders defending her performance at Wednesday's debate against critics. But perhaps most egregious was her answer for one of the last questions at the most recent debate in which she answered no to the question "should the person with the most delegates at the end of this primary season be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority?", which, as it currently stands will most likely work against Sander's chances at the nomination in favor of a moderate who rejects the progressive policies proposed by Sanders/Warren.

There's already so much inane noise and table pounding directed against Sanders, (who may well become the first Socialist president of the USA or at least the most progressive president since FDR), from conservatives to pearl-clutching Democrats, Warren's comments and actions have become a major turnoff.

(I live just down the street from his presidential library — 180 Proof

Did you move, I thought you lived in Arizona?

Warren doing an excellent job of alienating the Left

Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker with anger issues, but I was impressed by Klobuchar's Midwestern restraint in not ripping Pete Buttigieg's head off.

IF some sneaky shenanigans kept Bernie from the nomination (as opposed to getting beat fairly), then the difficult question of his running as an independent would arise — 0 thru 9

He has stated that he will support the democratic nominee no matter what, so he very likely wouldn't consider running as an independent.

The irony of course is that, despite being called "devisive", despite the calls for "unity" among candidates, he was the only one on stage that believed the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, rather than swayed by undemocratic super-delegates.

If Bernie wins the plurality of votes, but loses the nomination in this way you might as well hand Trump the election

One of the most alarming takeaways from the debate last night came from the last question, in which candidates were asked if the person with the most delegates at the end of primary season should be the nominee even if they dont have a majority of delegates needed to officially clench it.

Only Bernie Sanders said yes, i.e. the candidate with the most votes should receive the nomination, while the other five on stage advocated for following the rules of the DNC which, in the case of a non-majority, would allow undemocratically elected super-delegates to vote in a second ballot to decide the nominee, and guess who the last person they would vote for would be? And with still a wide candidate field it disincentives candidates who have no path to victory to stay in the race on the chance of being favored by the undemocratic super-delegates should a brokered convention take place.

Can't believe they showed the live murder of Bloomberg by the other candidates on stage like that

Let's try and keep the convo on topic

That means almost 60% is white. I’m not saying that this is good or bad. I’m explaining how Democrats lost to Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

And I'm saying that your analysis is myopic since excludes the fact that the Democrats are made up of a diverse coalition of classes, ethnicities, and occupations. Not just liberal art carrying lawyers and university professors.

Over 40% of working class Americans are people of color and vote Democrat, this type of stereotyping is 40 years outdated

I’m thinking about starting a Twitter campaign. #DemsTrollTrump

Say something about his small hands, low IQ, failed businesses, orange skin, or baby-bitch temper tantrums and tag RealDonaldTrump with #DemsTrollTrump.

That whiny little bitch couldn’t handle it, and I would bet he would die of a stroke before the election! :100: :party: — Noah Te Stroete

I just want to fucking die

I'm just making the point HOW the GOP will attack Bernie — ssu

You originally said that "the real mudslinging hasnt yet started", and I explained how that's not true given the examples you provided. If you want to expand, feel free to do so.

. The GOP hasn't really put the crosshairs on him.

Last election the mudslinging was basically done by other Democrats, Hillary etc. It was convenient for GOP to portray Bernie positively or simple to back off, because he wasn't the "official" candidate. — ssu

Simply untrue. You're a non-American, so I don't expect you to have a strong pulse on American political discourse, but it's simply not true that Bernie has thus far escaped criticism and scrutiny from the GOP.

That Bernie Sanders will be painted to a like Corbyn is evident for examples like this article from Tom Rogan's piece in the Washington Examiner last month: — ssu

Anyone who is an avid reader of the Washington Examiner is unlikely to consider voting for Sanders in the first place. However, the GOP (and the Democrats) have leveraged the state of contemporary Venezuela against Sanders and other Left politicians for the last year, which doesn't stick given that the simple solution, which has in fact been effective, is to ignore it and point to other developed countries or Norwegian models instead, some of which have Governments with larger wealth ownership in their countries than the Venezuela government has over their own.

Sanders has, cynically, been accused of some odd but new strain of anti-Semitism in which criticism of Israel is considered criticism of Jews, but this also won't be effective given that 1) Sanders is obviously Jewish and had relatives killed in the Holocaust, 2) the GOP has their own problems with anti-semitism and 3) Jewish Americans, unlike British Jews, overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

None of these slanders are particularly novel or potent.

Honestly can't think of anyone Trump would rather debate than Bloomberg, who's another corrupt racist self-interested billionaire (who also hung out with Jeffery Epstein) and whose wealth, like Trump's, enables him to switch political parties at will, without consequence or care, but simply for expedient public perception. There's a treasure trove of ammunition that Trump has against Bloomberg to depress voter turnout, and if he somehow becomes the nominee (possibly/probably through DNC treachery), I'm sitting out of the General (albeit, a fairly empty threat since I live in NY); not voting for oligarch

I'll post a longer response tomorrow or the day after, since I don't have time today, but for now: — Maw

Well I think @StreetlightX summed it up nicely and better than I would have, so I won't waste my time.

Yet the real mudslinging hasn't really started — ssu

Sanders has been in the national spotlight for years now and is on his second presidential run in which he's now the front-runner, and you really think there is more damaging mudslinging to come than what's been thrown at him in the past four years? I'm curious what you think the "real mudslinging" will be.

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal.

I thought the icon on the top left of a profile pic indicated that

Who made Hanover a mod

"Bernie is a reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left" what the fuck does this even mean

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want — Hanover

Latest polling shows that Trump's tax cuts have around 30% approval, and that 50% feel his immigration enforcement goes too far, while about 20% feel they are just right. Feel free to show which Trump policies have majority support.

Wouldn't be surprised if Warren drops out before Massachusetts