<p>Late last year, as I was making my way by Capital Bikeshare across the Washington National Mall on an unseasonably warm December night, the phone in my jacket pocket dinged. It was a text from a longtime pal of mine, Jack Democrat. Jack reads <em>The Washington Post </em>every day. He follows the 2016 presidential campaign closely.
If the young show up to vote, Bernie wins by a landslide!
If Trump is the nominiee that could completely change the electoral map. Also, if Cruz or Rubio is the nominee that would put the Hispanic vote up for grabs and again change the electoral map. In other words, predicting this time around is basically a guessing game. The one thing to worry about when it comes to Sanders is he plans to raise taxes. He says his health care plan would save people money but he hasn't explained how other than by eliminating insurance companies. But most of the cost of health care is due to hospital bills. He as also proposed a carbon tax which I think we certainly need but Republicans will spin that to higher electric bills. He has proposed a small tax for paid family leave. He has proposed a tax on stock trading to pay for free tuition at all public colleges and universities but it remains unclear who decides what the tuition is and what would be the consequences of this tax. He has proposed huge amounts of spending on infrastructure but hasn't said how that would be paid for. So one could see the Republicans rolling out the old tax and spend liberal campaign or perhaps with some tweaks to tax and spend progressive or tax and spend socialist. At least this this something to consider.
Winning the presidential race is the easier of the two contests for him.
No doubt about it! Bernie would bury Trump or any other Republican for POTUS. Like I have posted before, the elephant in the room is his own parties Wall Street corruption that could deny Bernie the nomination. Unless HRC is indicted by the FBI, she will fight dirty and do everything in her power to throw Bernie under the political bus!
" There are millions of Democratic voters, like Jack Democrat, who are most interested in nominating a candidate who will retain the White House for the Democrats."
How do they know that HRC would beat Trump? That is an assumption, not a fact.
However, there are many corrupt Democrats including almost all of the super corrupt delegates that are in HRC's Wall Street pocket, who if HRC wins or loses, do not have to worry about Sanders raining on their Wall Street corruption!
Were it not that the oligarchy is afraid of democracy then Hillary would have been plummeting in the polls and possibly encouraged to drop out of the race by the democrats "for the good of the party" in the face of possible indictments by the FBI during the mid election months ahead.
Hillary messed up and it will perhaps be a horrendous mistake for America if the democrats put their eggs in one basket and the choose the basket with a big hole in it.
It is truly starting to stink that the media, the democratic party and the corporate coup are bending over backwards to stifle Bernie's obvious popularity. Imagine if Hillary had had such a surge in popularity as has had Bernie these last few months? That is the only thing you'd ever hear about. Trump wouldn't even have become an issue. With the media playing fair, Bernie would be at landslide status by now.
He may win despite the forces arrayed against him. He may win because of the force allied behind him >>> the people of the USA. The VOTERS!!!
Are you folks starting to feel empowered yet? Since when has YOUR vote ever mattered as much as it does now in this presidential race?
The voters vs the Citizen's United election.
Go Bernie... there are a lot of us behind you and a lot of big money against you. They may have the big numbers in dollars...
... guess what we've got? Big numbers of voters who want to have a democracy and not an oligarchy.
Very informative article... particularly the election pattern statistics.
"Since Tory Prime Minister David Cameron was just re-elected last spring, it will be awhile before we know whether those voices are right or wrong.
"Yet in 2012 French voters ousted their center-right President Nicolas Sarkozy, and replaced him with Francois Hollande—the leader of the French Socialist Party. And then just last fall our great neighbor to the north ousted their Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and replaced him with Justin Trudeau—the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada."
And although Mr. Daley left out Podemos in Spain, the attempts to free Greece from the European Union's financial chokehold, and Iceland's courageous breakaway from the New Global System of Economics & Governance... this "leftist" trend has gone global because a New World Order based on the coupling of martial muscle (military entities) with corporate exploits has insulted people and ecosystems everywhere.
The only way elites can try to block this tide is by convincing people to vote against their own interests. In the U.S., the powerful allure of celebrity--in the form of a Smiling Fascist like Trump--is serving as a litmus test.
The other way is to control the vote counts.
Meanwhile, just as the elites gained control of media and the presses in Venezuela and Mexico in the attempt to bamboozle the public, here in the U.S. the same corporate media controls are ever at work to use slime, disinformation, mockery, and general deception to lure as many people into their camp as is possible.
Pay attention C.D. readers. I have called out this poster for shilling for anyone BUT Sanders.
Note the purposeful use of the word WORRY and the right wing (& Hillary Camp) Talking Point about raising taxes.
LRX is here to discredit Sanders but he plays his little Columbo game of "just offering an innocent opinion." Sure.
The Obama health care plan EXTORTS HUNDREDS of dollar from individuals and families every month. And the result is that it's still the insurance company, NOT the doctor who makes the decision on whether particular treatments will necessarily be covered.
As Mr. Sanders HAS pointed out (although it goes against the Talking Points that YOU are here to push), a higher tax in the form of perhaps several hundred dollars a month would STILL put families way ahead of what they had been paying in the way of insurance.
Since small businesses can seldom afford employee health insurance, this system frees them up to invest in more employees or better systems.
You are transparent! I'll play the role of F.A.I.R here.. you use the term TAX 8 times in your post. If that isn't a right wing, Frank Luntz buzzword, WTF is?
First of all, I think it's obvious that if we have universal healthcare, hospital care will also be free, or rather paid for by the same mechanism as the rest of our healthcare. Second, if you're really interested in Bernie's ideas and how he intends to pay for them, there is a fairly comprehensive breakdown on his official page, here:
Do a little research instead of just believing what his opponents say about his plans. You might be pleasantly surprised.
" He may win despite the forces arrayed against him."
And most posters on these threads know exactly who those forces are that are arrayed against Bernie. They need to be called out and excoriated before the Democratic Convention begins next summer.
I hope C.D. will publish more of Mr. Daley. Unlike many, he takes in a very wide view and covers an issue from all perspectives. It's this type of mental dexterity and literary diversity that is unique!
Who would have thought of this... and it's VERY important:
"Because today, it's hardly only hardcore Democrats who feel ever more tightly squeezed by the economic realities of 21st century American capitalism. It's likely not only liberals who laughed darkly at the recent Onion headline: “Man Dying From Cancer Spends Last Good Day On Phone With Insurance Company.” And it can’t be only citizens “on the far left” who feel alienated and marginalized and completely disengaged from a broken American political system."
And someone like LYX pretends that paying insurance companies is what Americans want... or that this system of extortion vaguely constitutes health CARE.
Am I to believe that the great (and consistent to the point of disbelief) Shantiananda now does believe that Bernie can win (as opposed to saying endlessly that you didn't believe that could happen in so many prior posts)?
Yes I'm rubbing it in... a little. Once... well maybe a couple of more times later too... lol.
They need to be countered by support from the voters who prefer democracy rather than oligarchy and corruption. But the fact is Bernie really does have a lot of support behind him out there. The game is rigged but this is still a voters game and in that one area... Bernie is continually rising in popularity.
I love this:
"Because as six-time presidential candidate Norman Thomas said, "I am not the champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won."
Agreed, and I disagree with Daley's assertion that "if Hillary is nominated we will never be able to test Jack and Alex's theory."
A HILLARY NOMINATION WILL TEST THAT THEORY when boatloads progressives stay home or vote third party in the general election, giving the GOP candidate an easy win. Hillary simply has way too much baggage to win the general election.
Mea culpa and happy about it! But to clarify my previous posts, I have never stated Bernie could not win the POTUS; what I have stated that it will be difficult for Bernie to win the Democratic nomination for POTUS becauseof the oligarchs, Wall Street and the corrupt, formidable forces arrayed against his candidacy. But if Bernie gets millions of voters behind him, he may be able to overcome the corruption of the Democratic party hacks.
Ahem! ... and Aher too! cough cough ...piffle!
I will only continue discussing this if I am given a cookie!
Or the next time rolls around when I feel like rubbing it in a little ...lol.
But you are right about what you said. (... now anyway!!!)
Well said! And I am one of the millions that refuse to support rotten one or rotten two!
The one issue where I would disagree with this article is on the Nader issue. Nader was a scapegoat, not the cause of Gore's loss. First of all, the election in Florida was won by Gore, but the counting was won by Bush. This is largely because Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, was also Bush's state campaign co-chair, and she used every opportunity to exercise her discretion in favor of Bush and prevent a proper recount. Second, there was no mention in the article of the voter purges in Florida, where Harris had over 100,000 voters removed from the rolls, most of those people being legitimate voters that fit Democratic Party demographics.
Third, the "blame Nader" narrative relies on the assumption that Nader's voters would have supported Gore had Nader not run. There is no way to know how many would have done so. They were primarily voters who were fed up with the two-party system, and many -- perhaps most -- of those voters were independent voters who would have supported another alternative party candidate, wrote someone in, or simply not voted.
Fourth, there is Gore himself, who failed to carry his own state. Before dismissing TN as a "red state,' consider that they had voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and they had voted for Carter in 1976. In 1980, Carter was edged out by less than 3/10 of 1%. So it appears that they are willing to vote for Democrats as long as they are southerners.
Finally, there is SCOTUS, also not mentioned in the article. Their 5-4 decision in a conservative packed Court was the last nail in the recount coffin.
The two factors that the article mentioned -- Nader's candidacy and the butterfly ballot -- are the least of the factors that produced the official Bush victory.
This comes from another article just posted on C.D.
It exposes LRX's Talking Point for the B.S. that it is:
"Most people tell me, yes, they'd be happy to spend $1,000 more on taxes if they're paying $5,000 less on premiums." Sanders said, "If Democrats want to win, I'm the candidate."
Hillary, Chelsea, ad LRX only mention the TAXES part. That word has tremendous power over the American psyche. It's meant to shut out any other aspect of the dialog or discussion.