Just a couple reasons Bernie can win the nomination IF he even runs

[Omaha Steve]

Too early to tell if Bernie is even going to run. The reason I posted this is all the speculation on DU.

OS


He ran strong in Iowa where it all starts. (virtual tie for 1st place)

Still has a dedicated network like over 1.5 million endorsed union members.

Can raise grassroots $.

Has national race experience and infrastructure in place.

Is not an unknown for 2020.

Socialist is no longer a dirty word.

Can attract rust belt Trump Democrats on being anti-NAFTA, free trade, etc.

[waddirum]

1. Thanks no thanks

He gave it his best shot. Time for new blood.

[KatyMan]

8. agree.

not to be ageist, but he'll be 80. That's pretty old to be prez. Plus, he's not a Democrat is he? I like him and his message, but if he's only on the team to run for prez and jumps when he's not, should we as Dems support him?

[Hortensis]

47. Sanders and Nader 2020?

Or Nader and Sanders? They'd have to agree which of them would get to be the top of the ticket of course.

Interestingly, if I recall, Sanders didn't support Nader in 2000, supported Bill Clinton.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

52. I sort of doubt Sanders supported Bill Clinton in 2000,

considering Bill Clinton wasn't running that year.

[Hortensis]

55. :) whoops. 1996, thanks.

In any case, I suspect they were too much alike.

[BannonsLiver]

2. I think I'm going to be sick.

[arthritisR_US]

25. You and me both.

[EffieBlack]

3. He'll need to win more than Iowans, 1.5 million union members and Trump voters

And so far, I just don't see him expanding his support beyond what it was in 2016 and, in fact, he's got fewer in his camp now.

Don't think that's gonna happen.

[George II]

144. Unfortunately for him I think he's turned off more voters in the last year than he's attracted....

If the performance of Our Revolution endorsed candidates is any indication. In 2017-2018 elections they're running at about 40% success rate.

Plus, in recent years unions representing about 32+ million members have made endorsements. That 1.5 million isn't going to go too far.

[obamanut2012]

4. no thanks

[Blue_true]

5. You are using 2016 statistics and making some assumptions.

It seems a few people here on DU who were hot for Bernie in 2016 either can't stand him now or will vote for someone else.

I recently was talking with three democrats about politics and the 2020 race, after we talked about voting in the midterms and the importance of it. I expected one or two of the people to say they may vote for Bernie in primaries. But with zero hesitation, each said Biden. I asked whether Biden was too old and was emphatically told no. A couple liked Joe Kennedy III. Bernie was not even mentioned by either.

[Hortensis]

48. Yes, there's been a lot of media

talking up of Sanders during the electoral doldrums, but 2000 pretty much killed off Ralph Nader's political career and there will be a Nader effect from 2016. Perhaps not as strong, in real part due to the same background powers domestic and foreign promoting him, but it wouldn't need to be.

[Blue_true]

69. Bernie will also get a more indepth look from the press and political talking heads.

His personal history, effectiveness as a legislator and his positions and proposed solutions for problems will be examined throughly. He basically got a pass on that in 2016 because all the eyes that do the indepth stuff were on Hillary. Joe Biden will have largely the same problem that Bernie will have in 2020.
I don't view Bernie as being a 2016 Ralph Nader, Nader was and still is a complete ass. Although I don't think that he put his back into it, Bernie did help Hillary some in the General, vastly different from what Nader did to Gore.

[Hortensis]

79. Think you're spot on about new press scrutiny.

I've read that the press are much harder on candidates who've been around a while than new. The press treated Sanders' as new in 2016.

But for the last sentence, I have an enormous problem with everyone who hits the corrupt Democrats/corrupt Hillary themes, and none more so than left wingers who attempt to gain power by piggybacking on those themes as pushed by oceans of Republican, dark money donors, and Russian money and expertise.

If I were religious, I'd be wishing for a special hell.

[bettyellen]

202. Exactly all that!

[NCTraveler]

6. As much as I get that he is a newcomer on the national stage.

I think we should actually be looking for someone whose age is around that of Sanders political tunure.

Sanders name has become as toxic as Gillibrand to our base. One of those two I love. I still see that she has become a point of division. The other is a cancer eating our party with one foot in the door and one out.

I understand he might do well getting off the ground in a state with a black population under 3%. It will favor him going in.

[geardaddy]

22. Very well said.

I like Bernie for the most part, but I don't like his attacks on us Democrats. I do not want him running for POTUS. His time is definitely past.

[JCanete]

116. Wish you wouldn't post obviously inflamatory comments that are clearly against tos.

Calling democratic allies cancer would probably be a violation, and remains disrespectful of other members here. Nobody should be saying that kind of shit about Gillibrand or Clinton, etc. on these boards, and if they were it would get hidden in a heartbeat. I'm not going to alert because I think that's bullshit. I just ask you to reconsider contributing to an alienating tone.

[NCTraveler]

121. lol.

Alert.

You are the only one to mention the great HRC. I would never say such a thing about her. Truly an inspiration. I'm glad to see the great respect you show her. Sticking up for her in a conversation where she isn't even mentioned. That is my kind of Clinton respect. It's clear that Gillibrand has become a point of division. Sorry you don't see that. Not my problem. I personally love her. Doesn't mean I'm blind. I'm spot on about Sanders.

[JCanete]

122. what are you talking about? I'm trying to make a point about what is supposed to be accdeptable

on these boards, which you don't seem to give shit about respecting. Good for you!

[NCTraveler]

123. "what is supposed to be accdeptable"

"which you don't seem to give shit about"

Nope. I have no interest in the lecture. You are absolutely correct.

[JCanete]

125. yeah, but you know I wasn't talking about the lecture. Take it easy. nt

[NCTraveler]

126. Lets revisit your replies to my couple of day old post.

"Wish you wouldn't"

"would probably be a violation"

"disrespectful of other members here."

"Nobody should be saying that kind of shit"

"I'm not going to alert because I think that's bullshit."

"I just ask you to reconsider contributing to an alienating tone. "

I think there was just an op about "tone policing". Now I have even more in common with Sanders.



"I'm trying to make a point about what is supposed to be accdeptable"

"you don't seem to give shit about respecting"

Those are literally from your two replies. Lecture away!

[hack89]

7. I plan to only vote for Democrats. So no. nt

[kentuck]

9. I don't think Bernie could win the nomination...

But he could win enough support to hurt the Democratic Party and give another term to Donald Trump. But, nothing to worry about.

[brush]

32. And we've seen that movie already. Didn't like the ending.

[comradebillyboy]

110. That's pretty much what I expect to happen in 2020...

[LexVegas]

10. Minority support is necessary. He won't get it. nt

[MineralMan]

11. He already lost it once.

He'd lose it again.

Just saying...

[Omaha Steve]

23. Hillary lost in 08 and came back to win in 16

Just pointing that out.

[Mellomugwump]

41. I didnt vote during the primary...

Because I couldn’t decide between Hillary and Bernie. I could pretty much guarantee that I’d vote next time and not for Bernie. I think he’s probably lost more democratic support than he’s gained, so if he lost last time, he’d probably lose this time. But he’d have enough die hard supporters to do some real damage.

[Demsrule86]

53. 08 was way closer...and the primary was way less divisive...she worked her heart out for

Pres. Obama as did Bill Clinton afterwards. The convention was wonderful and not divisive... and we WON. It is not even close to the same thing in 20. And Bernie will be almost 80. That is a concern.

[LisaM]

59. The way he acted at the Convention was really a tell.

Can you even imagine if Hillary had sat there in 2008 all red-faced, with her arms folded, scowling, and if her supporters had come out to the post-mortems at MSNBC every night waving signs about one issue they didn't agree with Obama about?

No, you can't, because it would never, ever have happened.

[Demsrule86]

63. And the those folks were from the campaign too...disgraceful.

[Demsrule86]

107. She was great and put Pres. Obama's name in for' unanimous'. You know Sen. Sanders did not do

that.

[LisaM]

114. Her 2008 convention speech was so strong and unifying that even Keith Olbermann liked it.

And as far as I can tell, he either dislikes Hillary immensely or did a good impersonation of doing so during the 2008 campaign.

[Demsrule86]

164. He didn't like Hillary or he liked Pres. Obama more...I miss Keith.

[k8conant]

137. I was talking about the 2016 convention...

[Demsrule86]

163. Sorry...yep it was a shit show in 16.

[LisaM]

203. I know.

I was drawing the striking comparison.

[ehrnst]

188. More grace and class than most in that position. (nt)

[ehrnst]

187. She showed incredible grace and kindness. That is leadership and class.

I would not have been able to do that under the circumstances.

[lapucelle]

64. ,,,

[sheshe2]

66. ;)

[brer cat]

84. +1000 nt

[mia]

12. Bernie does not support the Democratic party.

I'm sorry that I voted for him in the primaries. Now I see him as a man who uses Democrats and puts them down when it suits his purposes. I never imagined that I would feel this way.

[leftstreet]

15. If he gets the nomination, Democrats will support him n/t

[mia]

18. If he gets the nomination, Democrats will be viewed as so weak that they can't even find a

good candidate from their own party. The Republicans would probably love to see that happen. It may even be their ticket to win again. Even with Trump.

[NCTraveler]

20. Historically he turns down the nomination and runs as an Independent.

I don't see any reason to ignore his historical trend.

[trueblue2007]

74. I think i agree with you.

[George II]

85. A few weeks ago Elizabeth Warren was a speaker at a very important fundraiser/dinner....

....in her home state. At that time she made a significant contribution to the DNC, and followed that with contributions to each and every one of the 50 state Democratic Party committees.

THAT is supporting the Democratic Party. I have seen nothing like that from him.

[Adrahil]

13. I liked him going into 2016.

His shennagins after he clearly lost and since them made me actively dislike him. And I know some folks who voted for him who have since soured on him. If he runs, he'll just continue to damage the party. And given that he didn't even bother the STAY a Democrat after the primaries, I don;t think he should be permitted to run. He views the party strictly as a vehicle for his personal ambitions.

[OregonBlue]

14. I don't think he can win. I think he is too old. He is not a Dem. So no, I don't think Democratic

Underground should support him.

[wasupaloopa]

16. My generation should sit down and let younger

folks take over. Bernie and I are the same age.

I want young progressives to take power and hold on to it.

[JI7]

17. He said Obama should be Primaried

That hurt in 2016 but will hurt even more in 2020 because people are feeling him being out of office.

I don't think people realize how much that hurts. Plus there were many more comments he made that his opponents this time will hit hard at.

[Demsrule86]

54. Agree...completely. Time to put 16 behind us it was an awful election and an awful year.

[Cairycat]

19. Neither he nor Hillary should run in 20

The rifts are too deep.

The hatred for Bernie runs very deep with some here. Conversely there are people who think Hillary had her faults as a candidate also.

Someone different, preferably younger, would be a better choice than either of them, IMO.

[Jim Lane]

24. You write, "The hatred for Bernie runs very deep with some here."

Allow me a slight modification: The hatred for Bernie runs very deep with some here.

DU is not a representative cross-section of the electorate or even of the Democratic primary/caucus electorate.

I'll add, optimistically, that the posts about Bernie aren't even a representative cross-section of the DU membership, although that's less clear.

[George II]

40. "DU" is...

Democratic Underground.

[Jim Lane]

44. While we're restating the obvious...

Bernie Sanders has demonstrated that, outside the cloistered halls of DU, he has widespread support among Democratic voters (as well as many independents and even some Republicans).

Here's an actual poll, from Quinnipiac earlier this year. Question 9 (on page 6) asks: "Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?" Among Democrats, the numbers were:

Favorable 76%
Unfavorable 11%
Haven't heard 10%
Refused to answer 2%

Obviously, that doesn't mean that, in a hypothetical primary matchup between Bernie and Politician X, Bernie would get 76% of the votes of Democrats. Plenty of other politicians also have high net approval ratings among Democrats. It does show, however, that the Democratic electorate as a whole is not unremittingly hostile to Bernie Sanders.

My point is that, of posts on DU concerning him, the percentage that is hostile is quite high -- at a wild guess, somewhere around 80%, but certainly far higher than 11%. I offer this as evidence for my assertion that posts on DU are not a reliable barometer of the overall temperament of the grassroots members of the Democratic Party.

[George II]

45. Did you overlook questions 11 and 18?

[Jim Lane]

46. Sigh. Another reading comprehension fail.

For those of you who don't want to bother clicking the link, the cited poll questions show Joe Biden's popularity among Democrats. For example, his net favorability is +72%, instead of the "mere" +65% for Bernie.

I guessed (correctly) what the knee-jerk Bernie-bash reaction to my post would be. I refer you to my post #44, the very one to which you're responding. After noting Bernie's high rating, I stated:

Obviously, that doesn't mean that, in a hypothetical primary matchup between Bernie and Politician X, Bernie would get 76% of the votes of Democrats. Plenty of other politicians also have high net approval ratings among Democrats.

I'm sorry, but I just don't know how I could have made my point any clearer. You are answering the assertion that Bernie is the politician with the highest favorable rating among Democrats. I made no such assertion. In fact, I expressly disavowed it. You attack it anyway. Congratulations, you have vanquished your straw man.

[ms liberty]

61. Well done, sir. Wish I could rec it. n/t

[Demsrule86]

57. I suggest Twitter, and Facebook...and I can tell you even my kids won't vote for him again...you can

bet I won't vote for him in a primary. I would in a general but I believe he would lose...he should not run.

[Jim Lane]

73. So we have a difference in methodology.

You choose to gather information about public opinion by chatting with your kids and by examining Twitter and Facebook -- or, more precisely, the tiny corner of the Twitterverse and the tiny fraction of billions of Facebook posts that happen to come your way.

Here's my choice:

From January 12 – 16, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,212 voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points, including the design effect. Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones.

(That's from page 2 of the report of the poll that I cited.)

Asking more than 1,200 people doesn't guarantee that you'll get a precisely correct answer, but it's pretty good. It's especially good when the poll is conducted by an outfit like Quinnipiac, a long-established pollster with a high reputation for accuracy.

You go your way and I'll go mine.

[Demsrule86]

86. Sen Sanders has lost support and there have been polls that showed Joe Biden as more popular.

He has lost support particularly among women and I believe his last comments at the MLK event lost him more POC. Do you think the treatment Hillary received and the identity politics comments will have not effect on Sen. Sander's numbers? I don't think you can judge Sen. Sanders chances objectively.

You like him a great deal and seem to think most people agree with you. I don't see that as being accurate. I understand this because during the latter part of the 16 election, there were signs that Sec. Clinton was in real trouble and I refused to believe that she would lose...nothing anyone said would change my mind. I was blinded by my own beliefs to the truth. In my opinion if Sen. Sanders manages to win the primary which I don't think he will... he will lose the general. The Republicans will destroy him, and he has never been properly vetted. I voted for Sen. Sanders last time. I liked both candidates at the time. My entire family voted for him...we will never do so again (unless he is the nominee)...won't vote for him in a primary this time. Hope he is out early in the primary and doesn't cause lasting damage to our chances. This truly is a must win election...the very survival of the progressive agenda hangs in the balance. He is not the right candidate for 20.

I would like to see young fresh faces...not a nearly 80 year old candidate who ran in 16 where we lost it all. ..presidency, Congress etc. We need desperately need to turn the page and have a fresh start. Also, Sen. Sanders is not a Democrat. He chose to change back to being an independent after the primary even though he said he would not do so...Thus he should not run as a Democrat in 20. I want a Democratic nominee for 20...not an independent. If you dislike the party so much you won't join how can you ask to represent it in a presidential race?

[R B Garr]

62. I see the exact opposite of your wishful thinking.

Bernie is revered by some **here** in ways not seen in the real world.

It is the opposite of your myopic spin. In the real world, Bernie is getting the heat he should have gotten three years ago.

[dawg day]

104. I think most Democrats are even less likely than DUers...

to support another spoiler campaign.

Sanders is popular with one part of the Democratic Party (to which, we must recall, he doesn't belong). He's not popular with people of color, and he's not particularly popular with women.

You're not going to win the Democratic nomination with mostly white male voters, and we shouldn't ever want that.

A younger person, maybe a woman even? It's about time. Maybe a non-white? We were pretty lucky with the one we just had.

[Jim Lane]

117. You repeat the myth of Bernie's unpopularity outside white male voters.

In this Quinnipiac poll from a few months ago, Bernie's rating among Hispanics was: Favorable 55%, Unfavorable 21%. Among blacks he did even better (70% to 10%). Contrary to the mindless "BernieBro" stereotyping, he did better among women (50% to 34%) than among men (46% to 42%).

Now for all the things I'm not saying, in what may well prove a vain attempt to head off someone's straw-man response: This poll doesn't prove that Bernie is the most popular politician among women or voters of color, or that he would win their votes in a primary if he were to run in 2020, or that we shouldn't nominate a woman, or that we shouldn't nominate a younger person, or that we shouldn't nominate a non-white.

[dawg day]

204. 55%/50% isn't very good when you're talking about the base.

What were Clinton's numbers in those groups?

Most Democrats are going to support a Democratic candidate. but 50% favorable across women? That's pretty lukewarm.

[Jim Lane]

211. Bernie's favorability rating is 76% among Democrats. Isn't that the base?

You wrote in #104, "Sanders is popular with one part of the Democratic Party (to which, we must recall, he doesn't belong)." The "one part" with which he's popular is more than three quarters, according to the Quinnipiac poll.

You're right that "we must recall" his party identification -- if we're talking about his popularity on DU. Out in the real world, most members of the Democratic Party don't seem to consider this "issue" to be a dealbreaker. Among grassroots Democrats, only 11% have an unfavorable opinion of him. Among DU members, especially among DU members who frequently post about Bernie, the percentage appears to be considerably higher.

As for the other crosstabs, I didn't say that Bernie's support among women was hot or lukewarm or whatever. I merely responded to your implication in #104 that "mostly white male voters" were the source of Bernie's support. He's more popular with women than with men, more popular with blacks than with whites, and more popular with Hispanics than with whites. In other words, the stereotype you repeated is not accurate.

[EffieBlack]

219. "Favorability" is very different than "If the election were held today, I would vote for him." nt

If I were asked in a poll, I would very likely say that I view him favorably. But I wouldn't vote for him over most Democrats.

[Jim Lane]

223. That is, perhaps, why I wrote the second paragraph of #117. (n/t)

[grantcart]

21. There is one reason why Bernie will never get the nomination

If he ever gets close then rather than being patted on the back as the "good uncle" he will be excoriated in detail for the lack of sensibility of his bumper sticker proposals.

He was given a pass on his gibberish statements on trade and his lack of coherent funding proposals for his massive increases in discretionary spending.

Should he appear to approach the nomination the microscopes will come out and people will be amazed to see what he actually has been saying.

By contrast Sec Clinton was under the microscope the whole time and even when she said things that everyone knew was true "those coal jobs are not coming back" she was castigated without mercy. Oddly she was frequently labelled as being untruthful at the same time she was being criticized for handing out bad news.

Should Sen Sanders appear to get the nomination for a party he refuses to join his "hall pass" will be revoked and he will be held to account for the details of what he promises.

[Me.]

26. Quite

[ehrnst]

39. Indeed. (nt)

[bearsfootball516]

27. Pass.

[PubliusEnigma]

28. So he's going to rejoin the Party again? Give us a break.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I will be consistent. I think it's a distraction to talk about Bernie as a candidate now, pro or con

I get that some want to begin the work of making a case for or against him now for 2020. I don't. I almost didn't even click on this thread but I had a moment of boredom so I did anyway. Historically on Democratic Underground (and similar boards) overt strong preference competition regarding those who might seek our Presidential nomination tends to weaken the ties that bond us. OK, that's natural, even healthy in a way when we don't need to be busting our ass to all get fired up in a common front for critical national elections less than 7 months away with our nation at grave risk..

So, no, I'm not going there now. I know that this subject obviously is on a number of people's minds - Steve is not coming out of the blue on this one, same for those who have felt the need to push a case against Bernie here. But I can wait until November before swinging bats at bee hives. I will say that the responses on this that thread I've read so far have been straight forward and honest - not in any way needlessly shit stirring even by those who hope like hell Bernie doesn't run again. And I appreciate that.

OK, I'm outta here.

[stopbush]

31. It might help if he switched his party designation from I to D a little earlier next time.

And once it’s clear - say, by March 2020 - that he will not (again) be the D nominee, he can go back to being an I by April 2020, and leave the apparent D nominee the hell alone.

[Demsrule86]

58. He said last time he would remain a Democrat.

[stopbush]

67. He lied.

[Demsrule86]

68. I can't argue with that.

[Jim Lane]

224. No, he's not the one who lied. (n/t)

[lunamagica]

33. Just one reason why he can't win the nomination: Tax Returns

[ehrnst]

38. Bingo. Especially for a candidate running on

economic issues.

[Blue_true]

70. Economic issues and integrity.

Bernie says loud that democrats are corrupt and to much in the pocket of big business. So, Bernie has made integrity an issue.

[KitSileya]

34. Bernie doesn't like the Democratic party, so no reason to think he'll be our nominee.

It's pretty clear he doesn't like who the true blue core of the Democratic party is and what it's about. He's doing his best to drive them out to replace them with his preferred base - young white kids from college. There's not a whole lot of them, at least not when it comes to wining a general election....

[George II]

36. Yes, but he's not succeeding in driving out the true blue core of the Democratic Party. Indeed....

....endorsed candidates of his and his "Our Revolution" have been failing miserably. It's almost like a kiss of death to be endorsed by "Our Revolution". But I suspect they have another agenda other than getting candidates elected.

[TexasTowelie]

42. I know that is anecdotal,

but on Facebook many of my younger friends that supported Bernie in 2016 do not want him to run. These are people between 20 and 40 years of age that went to a liberal arts college and support socialist candidates. I think that Bernie's "sell by" date has expired.

[BoneyardDem]

115. Bernie isn't the face and leader of the future

Time to move on for all parties, D and I and Socialist

[George II]

35. Not wanting to refight the primaries but since you brought it up....

Just your first, and probably strongest point, "He ran strong in Iowa":

He lost. And that was in a caucus where bullying is rampant. And he did it without releasing his tax returns. It's going to be a totally different situation two years from now.

[ehrnst]

37. Any backup for those claims? (nt)

[earthshine]

49. Which premises do you doubt? They are all self-evident to me.

You just don't like the conclusion, which the OP readily admits is just speculation.

[ehrnst]

78. "Self-evident."

That means you don't need backup if it confirms your particular bias.

[earthshine]

88. So, which do you deny??? All premises are OBVIOUSLY factual and true.

He ran strong in Iowa where it all starts. (virtual tie for 1st place)

Still has a dedicated network like over 1.5 million endorsed union members.

Can raise grassroots $.

Has national race experience and infrastructure in place.

Is not an unknown for 2020.

Socialist is no longer a dirty word.

Can attract rust belt Trump Democrats on being anti-NAFTA, free trade, etc.

[ehrnst]

90. Did I deny any? I asked for numbers and stats. For instance:

Still has a dedicated network like over 1.5 million endorsed union members. (citation? "Like" numbers? What network?)

Can raise grassroots $. (what are the numbers? Citation?)

Has national race experience and infrastructure in place. (what infrastructure? The Democratic Party? That will be available to any chosen Democratic POTUS candidate)

Socialist is no longer a dirty word. (In the much coveted White Working Class male demogrphic? Polls?)

Can attract rust belt Trump Democrats on being anti-NAFTA, free trade, etc. (Polls?)

I think you may be confusing a challenge to support one's claim with a denial of it. I hope that clarifies things for you.

[Omaha Steve]

92. Short memory

Over $75,000 from the DU alone.

[ehrnst]

94. Which of the several citations is that one?

Here's the list, in case you forgot:

Still has a dedicated network like over 1.5 million endorsed union members. (citation? "Like" numbers? What network?)

Can raise grassroots $. (what are the numbers? Citation?)

Has national race experience and infrastructure in place. (what infrastructure? The Democratic Party? That will be available to any chosen Democratic POTUS candidate)

Socialist is no longer a dirty word. (In the much coveted White Working Class male demogrphic? Polls?)

Can attract rust belt Trump Democrats on being anti-NAFTA, free trade, etc. (Polls?)

[Omaha Steve]

95. Grassroots $

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fundraising_us_59527587e4b02734df2d92c1

The Inside Story Of How Bernie Sanders Became The Greatest Online Fundraiser In Political History

The operatives who turned a septuagenarian independent socialist into a money-raising juggernaut explain for the first time how they did it.
By Sam Stein and Jason Cherkis

Snip: On the day Sanders announced his bid, the campaign took in more than $1 million. By the end of the campaign, the team had raised $218 million online

[ehrnst]

96. My understanding is that the $27 "average" donation wasn't really borne out in the stats

Such as when many individuals donated $27 10-15 times.

But that is one citation.

The others?

[Omaha Steve]

100. 1.5 million plus union members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#Labor_organizations

Labor organizations
National
APWU – American Postal Workers Union, representing 250,000[565]
ATU – Amalgamated Transit Union, representing 190,000[566]
CWA – Communication Workers of America, representing 700,000[567]
ILWU – International Longshore and Warehouse Union, representing 50,000[568]
NNU - National Nurses United, representing 11,000[569]
NUHW – National Union of Healthcare Workers, representing 11,000[202]
UE – United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, representing 35,900[570]
State, regional, and local divisions
AFL-CIO – American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: VT, SC[571][572]
AFGE – American Federation of Government Employees: National Union for Social Security Workers (Council 220)[573]
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: WA, WI and Locals 2724, 2057, and 25 (MI)[574][575][576]
AFT – American Federation of Teachers: Locals 1474, 1931, 1966, 1990, 2023, 2034, 2141, 2199, 2226, and 6366 (CA)[577][578]
CTU – Chicago Teachers Union: Caucus Of Rank-and-file Educators (CORE)[579]
IAIW – International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers: Local 7 (MA)[580]
IBEW – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Locals 2222, 2304, 2313, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325, 2326, 2327, 159, 357, 440, 490, 776, 1837, 1228, and 113 (MA, RI, CA, ME, VT, NH, NV, SC, WI, CO)[73][575][581][582][583][584][585][586][587][588][589]
IBT – International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Local One-L, Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division[575][590]
IFPTE – International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers: Local 70 (DC)[591]
NEA – National Education Association: VT[592]
PASNAP – Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals[575]
SEIU – Service Employees International Union: Locals 560 and 1984 (NH)[593][594]
TWU – Transport Workers Union of America: Local 100[595]
UBC – United Brotherhood of Carpenters: Locals 1503 (OR)[575]
UFCW – United Food and Commercial Workers International Union: Local 5 (CA)[596]
UH – UNITE HERE: NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME, and Locals 2, 30, 49, 54, and 2850 (CA, NJ)[597][598][599]
USW – United Steelworkers: Local 310, 1999, 2003 (IA, IN)[600][601][602]
UURWAW – United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers: Local 36 (CA)[575]

[ehrnst]

106. That would be union leadership endorsements, and not individuals that would vote.

Got it.

And the AFL-CIO, the largest (12 million) interestingly enough, endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The others?

Has national race experience and infrastructure in place. (what infrastructure? The Democratic Party? That will be available to any chosen Democratic POTUS candidate)

Socialist is no longer a dirty word. (In the much coveted White Working Class male demogrphic? Polls?)

Can attract rust belt Trump Democrats on being anti-NAFTA, free trade, etc. (Polls?)

[Omaha Steve]

108. Never mind

[ehrnst]

111. Got nothing?

I understand.

[George II]

140. 1.5 million is actually 1.25 million, but even so that's less than 4% of members of unions....

....that issued endorsements (unions representing more than 32 million members issued endorsements)

[earthshine]

130. I cyte the facts of the 2016 campaign. All of this was true then ... and true now.

The network is call "Our Revolution," but you knew that.

I am not going to spend my time doing a research project on polls for you. I don't care enough, about your opinions.

Your hatred of Bernie is ever evident in your posts. It serves no productive purpose.

[ehrnst]

132. My fondness for facts and citations bothers you?

I think it serves a very productive purpose, which unfortunately seems to contradict your bias.

"Go do the research yourself!" is usually the final resort of one who can't provide evidence to support their claims, which makes those claims opinions.

[earthshine]

133. You hate Bernie. Nothing will change that.

I am not interested in proving any points to such a hater. Please, by all means, live in your hate. Breath it in every day.

By all means, prove it otherwise, using your love of facts and citations. GET TO IT!

I cite your other posts as proof of knee-jerk, pointless, party-dividing hate.

In the unlikely event that he does get the Dem nomination, you will vote for him.

[ehrnst]

136. I think you are missing where the "hate" is originating.

Just own it - you have biases and opinions that aren't based in facts. Your statements will get more respect that way.

I made no claims - others did concerning Sanders. When I asked for citations, the hostility was overwhelming...

Also, when you dismiss any dissent from a manifesto as "emotional" because it can't possibly be intellectual, you may want to examine where your own biases originate from, and what kind of leader would encourage that.

What kind of movement or "revolution" would require that response to dissent?

Think about it.

And I assume you sucked it up and voted for Hillary?

[Eliot Rosewater]

142. I would like an answer to that last sentence also.

[earthshine]

159. They are based in facts and articles that I have been reading here and elsewhere for years.

You don't "deny" anything, yet you need polls?

If you love the facts so much, send me some that are contrary to the assertions.

So, how many members does Bernie have? Show me the figures!

How many can he count on to contribute? Show me the stats!

I'm a Democrat. Of course I voted for Hillary.

As a Democrat, I have watched this party move to right for decades, while I have stayed a firmly a progressive.

[ehrnst]

162. And we have the fallacy of proving a negative....

Those that make assertions have the burden of supporting them.

Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something.

Example:

Sheila: I know Elvis’ ghost is visiting me in my dreams.

Ron: Yeah, I don’t think that really is his ghost.

Sheila: Prove that it’s not!

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

I made no claims. I simply challenged someone else to prove theirs, and the knee jerk hostility and hate just exploded. The cry of "hater!" went up because someone doubted, because for many, any doubt whatsoever of the junior Senator from Vermont must be "hate" and not reason-based critical thought. Your personal attacks and name calling are exhibit A.

What does that indicate about where your critical thought is applied?

Your "facts" and articles are shareable. As we all know, some articles are more fact-based than others.

You seem to be hesitant to share your sources.

Why?

[earthshine]

175. You're the one who loves facts and polls, yes?

I am satisfied with self-evident assertions in the OP.

Statements such as "Is not an unknown for 2020" are obvious premises, but not to you, eh?

Since you doubt how many supporters he has, please tell us otherwise!

Casting shade arbitrarily -- without providing evidence is also a form of logical fallacy.

You don't have to prove anything absolutely, but do provide SOME evidence for your doubting of the verbally obvious.

I am refusing to do research FOR YOU.

Your hatred of Bernie is evident in your other posts, as well.

You have a nice day, now.

[Eliot Rosewater]

178. Wait, wait, count me in I LOVE FACTS ALSO!!!

[ehrnst]

185. I know - the whole mocking tone of "you love facts and polls"

shows a very deep discomfort with the idea that fact and polls might not support their feelings on a topic.

[ehrnst]

184. "I am refusing to do research FOR YOU."

I think we know what that means. You can't cite the sources to back up your claims.

Your emotional reaction to any criticism of Sanders isn't supported by evidence, because it's emotional.

You assume that people who doubt Sanders are the emotional ones.

"Casting shade arbitrarily" - that's a logical fallacy" I haven't heard.

That's a good one.

You have a nice day, now.

[earthshine]

191. Provide any evidence to the contrary of any assertions made.

Any of them?

Just one? Oh, please!

Casting shade -- what's the proper name for logical fallacy of muddying the meaning of the argument's premises?

You do understand that when referring to "logical fallacies," the further removed from pure mathematics, the less potent the ability to perform "deductive reasoning." The notion of fallacy is one of statistical probability when performing inductive reasoning.

None of the assertions in the OP can actually be proven or disproven by theorem. They can only be statistically evidenced.

Please -- some statistical evidence against "Can raise grassroots $."

[ehrnst]

196. Again....

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

And it's a great excuse to lash out at someone you are very angry at, and make it sound like the other person is the one being unreasonable and emotional - or "casting shade."

I'm guessing that you don't have any numbers or stats on the "grassroots" fundraising that Sanders did.

You certainly feel as though he should be given credit in that area, and believe anyone who doesn't do so is a "hater."

And it's a very handy excuse for avoiding supporting one's statistically provable claims with actual metrics.

[betsuni]

167. "I have watched the party move to (the) right for decades." LOL.

[NurseJackie]

173. Ha!! :-D Nice catch! I see it too!

[earthshine]

176. And???

You think this is not true?

[betsuni]

206. I know it is not true.

Everybody knows the 2016 Democratic Party platform was the most progressive ever. Why do you think this is not true? Does the answer involve "neoliberal!!!!!!" and "corporatist!!!!!" in it? Just guessing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

179. Isnt that a rightwing talking point? Or wait, maybe not theirs, let's look at this

logically:

the statement "democratic party has been moving to the right for decades" is both false and propaganda, the question is where does it originate and WHO does it help?

[ehrnst]

189. What are "members"?

[betsuni]

205. I've heard size doesn't matter.

[ehrnst]

209. Well yes, especially when one is in their 70's.

[mcar]

149. Ehrnst uses facts and citations to prove a point?

Zounds!

[ehrnst]

197. Guilty as charged...

And even worse - I expect OTHER PEOPLE to do that!!!

[betsuni]

207. This is AMAZING!

Now using facts and citations is bad? What's next! Oh wait, I think it has something to do with "passion." I keep hearing that. Weird.

[George II]

156. You used the word "hate" four times in your post. On what do you base this personal attack?

[yardwork]

157. Lighten up, Francis.

[BoneyardDem]

181. Bernie insists on being "I" Independent not "D"

I always wonder what make anyone press their way onto "D"emocratic Underground, and then insult those on Democratic Underground that want to only vote Democratic. I'm almost positive there must be a chat site somewhere that caters to "I".

[ehrnst]

190. Actually, here is what Bernie himself said as to why he ran as a Dem:

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Sanders knew what he was getting into, and what running as a Dem POTUS candidate involved when he jumped on board.

[earthshine]

194. What's the point? Nothing here is disputed.

The two parties have a lock on the elections.

Hill supporters are very upset that Bernie was allowed to run as a Dem. Instead of asking Bernie's supporters why he was allowed to run, why not ask the DCCC?

[ehrnst]

195. Who are you talking to?

Are you mistaking this for another thread?

Who is this "Hill supporter who is angry that the Democrats allowed Bernie to run?"

And also, why would the DCCC be involved in the POTUS run?

Perhaps you need to learn something about the Democratic party before bashing it.

[George II]

198. The DCCC? They didn't decide whether or not he ran as a Democrat.

[BoneyardDem]

200. I still don't understand why you are here pressing an "I" and while you are at it....

personally insult "D" members on this board?

[George II]

141. He "ran strong in Iowa", a caucus state, but he didn't win.

[Tavarious Jackson]

43. He can't win a general election nt

[yardwork]

50. Where are Bernie's tax returns?

[ehrnst]

91. Yes, that is a good question.

When one demands financial transparency from others, it becomes a big issue when one is not willing to do the same.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. I want to know why his supporters arent asking this, I really do.

If Hillary or Barack said sorry, cant see them, I would say "sorry, cant vote for you"

Well, if they were the only ones running I wouldn't refuse to vote for them because of the obvious "pickle" we are in at the moment, but you get my drifting

[George II]

199. April 14, 2016, sitting with Andrea Mitchell with the East River and Brooklyn Bridge as a backdrop..

...in a live interview Jane Sanders stated unequivocally that they would be released "when they are due", which at that time was April 29, 2016.

That was two years ago this Saturday.

[Demsrule86]

51. I would not consider last time...whole different ball game this year. And Sen. Sanders has made

critical statements about Democrats which has incensed many...I have seen it everywhere not just at DU. His wife is in legal jeopardy...he may or may not have exposure (don't think so). Socialist is still still a dirty word to many of the independents we need to win. I also believe that should he win the nomination, he would lose the general. I hope that he does not run as he will be almost 80 and we need to put 16 behind us forever. Hillary should not run either.

[EffieBlack]

118. It is absolutely amazing to me that Bernies supporters continue insist that the Democratic Party

should throw its support and resources behind a non-Democrat who criticizes them at every opportunity but still won’t join the party.

I don’t know if it’s arrogance or naïveté that leads them to believe this makwpes any kind of sense, but it’s just flat out stupid.

[Demsrule86]

165. I think Sen Sanders has die hard fans almost like a rock star...it is an emotional response...not

based in realism or facts. They never accepted that he was not the nominee and have been hoping since that he will run again. I have no doubt that should he run in a primary, he will lose, but then the accusations against the party will begin anew, and we will lose as in 16. I hope Sanders doesn't run. If he cares anything about the policies he advocates, he won't.

[Mike Nelson]

56. Partly agree...

...don't think he can win the Democratic nomination, although you ever know what's going to happen... I do believe he would prefer to run as a third party candidate in 2020 - that way, he can skip losing the primary race and stay in for a general election.

[Demsrule86]

60. And then be revealed as Ralph Nader the II.

[Amimnoch]

65. Nope. Never. Nt.

[pnwmom]

75. No one should run unless they produce 5 years of FULL returns before the first primary/caucus.

Whoever our candidate is has to be able to take a strong stand with regard to transparency of income tax returns.

Trump hasn't released a single return even now. Our candidate must be able to call him on that. Bernie wouldn't have been able to because he didn't release a single full return during the primaries.

[fleabiscuit]

76. Screw the presidency.

He would be a total disaster for every down ballot race too. Clear to animal control.

[David__77]

77. I would prefer Barbara Lee, perhaps.

Someone not on the radar now.

[NCTraveler]

80. The guy is starting to be vetted for the first time in his career.

People are starting to listen to the words he speaks instead of the volume he speaks at. That is what will do him in.

[EffieBlack]

119. And, boy is he pissed about it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

81. I will vote for the person with a D by their name

And not the one with a crayon that changes the I to a D when they feel like it. Or it suits their agenda.

[TheSmarterDog]

82. No.

Just - no

[Tipperary]

83. Nope. No way.

[NewJeffCT]

87. I am NOT a Bernie supporter, but I do think he can win the nomination in 2020

That said, I did not support Clinton in 2016, either. Nor did I support Obama or Clinton in 2008. I did not donate any money until we had a Democratic nominee.

The reason that Bernie can win the nomination in 2020 is that he has his base of support among the Democrats and the left. In 2016, Clinton had much of the rest of the Democratic Party, including minorities. After O'Malley had little impact on the race, it was just Clinton or Sanders.

Right now, Warren says she will not run, so there is nobody to divide up the votes from that "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party. In 2004, there was Howard Dean (for his vocal anti-war position), John Edwards, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich dividing up the left wing votes. When Dean lost early, he was basically out of the race and

In 2020, if Biden does not run, there could be several candidates dividing up the votes that Clinton received in 2016 - Harris, Booker, Castro, Cuomo, Gillebrand, Murphy, Kennedy, and probably a few more.

So, barring Warren entering the race and splitting his vote, Bernie could get his base of 40-45% of the vote in primaries, get his caucus victories and the other 6, 7 or 8 candidates split the remaining 55-60% in primaries.

[Garrett78]

161. Murphy could attract Bernie supporters.

Even without doing away with caucuses, which needs to happen, I don't see Sanders coming anywhere close to winning the nomination. Caucuses are the only reason 2016 seemed even remotely close.

[Orsino]

89. When would he become a Democrat again?

And for how long this time?

[kstewart33]

93. Can we stop with the Bernie posts?

Steve, you must know that every Bernie post automatically triggers a few hundred replies and does nothing for the unity of the DU community.

It's too soon, there are far more important topics/issues to consider and discuss.

Perhaps if we could wait a few months? Get past the midterm elections?

[SidDithers]

97. If he were to win, would he remain a Democrat?...

Or revert to Independent again right away, like he did in 2016?

Sid

[NurseJackie]

98. Fool me once... as the expression goes.

He had his chance to commit and he blew it. I'm not sure if "betrayal" is the right word... but I am sure that I won't trust him again.


#DemocratsFirst

[JustAnotherGen]

99. nope

[lillypaddle]

102. People still talking about Bernie

remind me of trump still talking about Hillary. Bernie's time has come - and gone. Let it go.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

103. No, I think he's out of the running.

I supported him during the primaries but Hillary in the general. I liked and still like a lot of what he has to say, disagree with him on some other points, and now I think he's not a viable candidate any more because he's become too controversial and divisive. Maybe some of that has to do with the comments and actions of certain of his supporters, but in any event I don't think he's a good candidate for 2020. Some might think he's too old. I appreciate how much he's done to push the party toward more progressive policies but we need someone new.

[OhZone]

109. I only vote for Democrats.

No GOP. No Greens. No Russians. No Independents.

[vsrazdem]

112. Anyone who wants to run should run, and the voters will decide. It's called Democracy.

[EffieBlack]

120. Everyone has the right to rn - but they dont have the right to use an organizations money and

infastructure to do it.

[lunasun]

113. Can't decide . I liked these two

Or this one so

HmmmCan't decide

?itemid=5850917

So I posted both

[MrsCoffee]

124. Why would we nominate a guy who says he doesn't consider himself a Democrat?

Seriously.

That ship sailed and sunk already.

[Blue_Tires]

127. He needs to get some smarter people around him first

Because simply running as the Anti-Hillary/Obama isn't going to cut it...

It would also help if he reined in his more fanatical followers this time...

And his top staffers could use a primer on how to win friends and influence people.

[emulatorloo]

135. +1. Definitely needs to take that to heart. IMHO Weaver was his undoing in 2016

A hot-headed ideologue who did little to expand support beyond the True Believers. However to me it seems like Weaver is still front and center and always will be. Poor judgement on Bernie’s part, another reason why I no longer consider Bernie to be presidential material. He is doing a great job for his constituents in Vermont though.

[Hoyt]

128. It is best to move on, besides November 2018 is what matters right now.

[emulatorloo]

134. Well said re 2018 n/t

[elocs]

129. No thanks. I'm a Democrat and want an actual Democrat as the party's nominee.

Not someone who will caucus with the Democrats but their party is not good enough for him to join and try and change. It's easier to stay on the outside and be critical.

If Sanders were to get the Democratic nomination I would vote for him then to stop the Republican from winning (see what a simple concept that is?), but I would actively work for anyone running against him in the primaries.
The over-bearing, self-righteous, and holier-than-thou Bernie or Busters are too much for me with their desire to make the Democratic Party tent as small as possible and to purge anyone from belonging who is less perfect and pure than themselves. Yeah, that sounds like a sure-fire recipe for an electoral victory.

Ultimately it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of actual Democrats to lead the party.
No more candidates old enough to collect Medicare.

[emulatorloo]

131. No. He is a good Senator for Vermont. However, he is not presidential material

- is a gaffe machine. This is why folks here constantly say “What Bernie really meant to say was...”
- is defensive and loses his temper when questioned. You can’t be defensive and succeed on the national stage (unless you are Donald Trump, and even that is falling apart now)
- tends towards nepotism (see Levi, Jane, Carolina, on salary in 2016
- can’t provide concrete proposals, just bare outlines
- has a questionable record on gun control that will be highlighted this time because of Florida shooting
- he calls civil rights “identity politics”
- voted against the Magnitsky Act and Russian Sanctions. “Because reasons!” is not going to cut it this time out
- isn’t financially transparent - won’t release his tax returns, dark money super-pac. Appears to be hiding something
- surrounded by binary thinking hot-headed ideologues and syncophantic yes-men like Weaver and Turner

He got a free pass from the press in 2016 because he was a bit of a novelty. He was handled with kid gloves by his primary opponents as well. Neither of those things will happen this time out. He will be vetted like every other primary candidate, and he will be asked difficult questions by the other candidates.

At any rate our chief focus now is taking the House and Senate in 2018

[EffieBlack]

155. Excellent synopsis.

[StevieM]

138. Trump did not win Rust Belt voters based on trade. He won them based on the same lies

that he used to win voters in Florida, North Carolina and Arizona.

James Comey got him elected. I think it is crazy to suggest otherwise.

[Omaha Steve]

139. Trump killed Trans Pacific immediately

Hillary at one time called TPP the gold standard. That is no lie. Rust belt people listened and voted.

Trump has negotiated on NAFTA again in the last few weeks. It's in all the papers.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/news/economy/tpp-trump-tariffs/index.html

11 countries sign TPP trade pact without the United States
by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney
March 8, 2018: 4:00 PM ET

[StevieM]

143. People from all parts of the country voted for one of the two candidates for all sorts of reasons.

The most important factor, by far, was James Comey's destruction of the Democratic nominee's reputation. Without Comey's repeated interference Trump would have gotten blown out, TPP and NAFTA not withstanding.

[Omaha Steve]

145. NOT in the rust belt

TPP was the difference.

[StevieM]

146. Without Comey's involvement there would not have been a "difference-maker."

Trump would have gotten blown out.

Not that this is a terribly huge accomplishment. Trump is an idiot and the American people know it. He only won because Comey made sure that any Republican could win. It terrifies me to see Democrats giving that man respect.

[Omaha Steve]

147. Dem: Obama's trade push may have cost Clinton the Rust Belt

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306631-dem-obamas-trade-push-may-have-cost-clinton-the-rust-belt

[EffieBlack]

148. Trump didnt become president because of his stance on trade

[Omaha Steve]

150. The rust belt was it

TRADE was the difference!

[StevieM]

152. I disagree with you twice over.

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2018, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

First, I don't agree that trade was the difference-maker in the midwest.

Second, I don't agree that it is reasonable to discount our party's chance in Florida, North Carolina and Arizona. We were going to win all of them, along with the midwestern battle ground states, until the final interventions by Comey and Putin. That entire election was turned upside down in the final 2 weeks.

[Omaha Steve]

153. These Rust Belt Democrats Saw the Trump Wave Coming

At least I post links.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/rust-belt-democrats-saw-trump-wave-coming/

And they tried to warn the Clinton campaign.
PEMA LEVY NOV. 11, 2016 8:32 PM

Snip: In May, after thousands of Democrats had switched parties to vote for Trump in the primary, Mahoning County Democratic Party Chairman David Betras circulated a memo cautioning that Trump was making headway in his Rust Belt region and urging the Clinton campaign to take the threat seriously. The memo focused largely on the issue of trade, arguing that because Democratic politicians in Ohio regularly denounce the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade generally, Trump’s anti-trade message was familiar and its appeal powerful. If the Clinton team didn’t find a way to counter it, Betras warned, she would lose a lot of votes she was counting on.

[EffieBlack]

154. You probably really believe that

Ok.

[Garrett78]

160. Is that why NAFTA-loving Rob Portman won his race easily?

The average Trump voter doesn't know diddly squat about trade. Study after study has made it clear that racism was (and is) the driving force behind Trump's support.

[Omaha Steve]

168. I never said NAFTA was the driving force

My liberal links pointed to it being a margin that made the difference for a narrow win. Your links and opinion are on the weak side.

[Garrett78]

169. Dozens of links have been posted over the last year that back up what I wrote.

If trade was such a concern, Rob Portman wouldn't have won his Ohio election by an even greater margin than Trump won Ohio by.

You can be pretty sure people who ultimately voted for Trump weren't sitting around debating Trump and Clinton trade policy. Most voters, much less those who support Trump, don't have the first clue about trade policies. People will claim in exit polls that such-and-such issue played a leading role in their decision, because virtually nobody is going to say, "I voted for Trump because I'm an ignorant, racist asshole."

[Omaha Steve]

170. Try reading my links

[Garrett78]

208. I have. And the opinions expressed by a few individuals do nothing to disprove the actual data.

Here's one of those many links that have been posted on this site previously: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study

Data; not mere opinions.

At this point, it's sad that anyone would still be peddling the "economic anxiety" story. Once again, if trade was such a big concern, Rob Portman wouldn't have outperformed Trump in Ohio.

Anyway, even with there still being disenfranchising caucuses (which need to be done away with in favor of primaries), Sanders has no shot at being nominated. Caucuses are the only reason the race for the 2016 nomination appeared to be even remotely close, but even that race was essentially over by the 2nd week of March.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

151. Not again.

Sorry. Once bitten twice shy.

[guillaumeb]

158. And he generally stands by his positions.

[Renew Deal]

172. Like his position that Obama should be primaried

And that we don't need gun control in VT.

[Eliot Rosewater]

180. Tax returns tax returns tax returns...

[marble falls]

192. Here's some....

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-tax-return-222041


Sanders’ tax return: As ‘boring’ as promised

Most of his earnings came from his $174,000 salary as a U.S. senator, as well as Social Security benefits.

By TOBY ECKERT and HANNA TRUDO

04/15/2016 08:13 PM EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released his 2014 tax returns Friday night, showing that he paid $27,653 in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of $205,271.

The Vermont senator pledged to release the filings during the Democratic debate on Thursday night after sparring with Hillary Clinton over financial disclosure issues.

The majority of Sanders’ earnings came from his $174,000 salary as a U.S. senator, as well as Social Security benefits.

The returns, filed jointly with his wife, Jane, were just as “boring” and straightforward as Sanders repeatedly said they would be, particularly compared to those of Hillary Clinton, his multi-millionaire opponent for the nomination.

After tax payments of $31,825, Sanders collected a $4,172 refund. They donated $8,350 to charity.

Last summer, Clinton’s campaign made public eight years of tax returns — from 2007 to 2014. They showed that she and Bill Clinton made almost $28 million in 2014 and paid about $10 million, or 36 percent, in federal taxes.

The Clintons gave just over $3 million to charity in 2014, about 11 percent of their overall income. Almost all of it went to a family foundation that doles out money to other charities and is separate from the global Clinton Foundation.

On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich have released portions of their tax returns. Donald Trump has refused to release his tax information, claiming he can’t because he is being audited.





http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/12/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-tax-return/index.html

Hillary Clinton's 2015 tax return shows $10.6 million in income, 31% rate -- and puts pressure on Donald Trump
by Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney August 12, 2016: 3:22 PM ET
Current Time 0:43
/
Duration Time 0:48

What you need to know about Hillary Clinton's 2015 tax return
Your move, Mr. Trump.

After hammering Donald Trump on the campaign trail for refusing to reveal his tax returns, Hillary Clinton released her latest federal income tax return Friday, showing she and Bill paid roughly a third of their multi-million dollar income to Uncle Sam.

The Clintons pulled in $10.6 million in 2015, much less than the nearly $28 million they made the year before.

Their tax return showed that they paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes.

That means their effective tax rate -- a measure of their income tax burden -- was 30.6% based on their adjusted gross income. That's on par with their 32% effective rate in 2014.

The campaign reported the Clintons' effective tax rate as 34%, which includes the more than $300,000 the couple paid in self-employment taxes, which are payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Experts often don't include them when calculating federal income tax burdens.

By any measure, though, Hillary Clinton and her husband have satisfied the Buffett Rule that she'd like to impose if elected. Under that rule, anyone with adjusted gross income over $1 million would have to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes.

Related: Here's how much Hillary Clinton's tax plan would hit the rich

The Clintons primarily made their money in two ways: speaking and writing.

Together they made $6.7 million in speaking fees. That's well below the roughly $20 million they made the year before.

They also made close to $3.1 million on their various books.

And Bill Clinton's consulting business brought in nearly $1.7 million.

The couple also received $226,000 in pension and annuities. As a former U.S. president, Bill Clinton is entitled to receive a pension north of $200,000 a year.

They made another $109,000 in interest and dividends, and claimed $3,000 in capital losses carried over from prior years.

The couple gave $1 million to their private Clinton Family Foundation, which is different than the Clinton Foundation that has been the subject of scrutiny.

With the release of her 2015 income taxes, Clinton has now released 39 years' worth of tax returns over the course of her career.

[Eliot Rosewater]

193. With the release of her 2015 income taxes, Clinton has now released 39 years' worth of tax returns

With the release of her 2015 income taxes, Clinton has now released 39 years' worth of tax returns over the course of her career.

[Tarc]

166. Old, White, Male

My litmus test for 2020 allows for one of those criteria to be met, maybe in a pinch two, but I'm done with the trifecta.

[Renew Deal]

171. He would lose again

People see his active distaste for the Democratic party, his lie about joining the party, his role in the "breach" of Hilary's info, his hatred towards Obama, his racial insensitivity's, his lack of accomplishments (other than speeches), his role in hurting Hillary's campaign by sticking around after it was over in 2016, his questionable connections to people connected to Russia.

The Democratic Party got it right in 2016, and 2020 would be worse for him. A large part of the reason we are in the Trump mess now is Sanders wouldn't do what was needed in 2016.

[EffieBlack]

220. I know of no one who didn't vote for Bernie in 2016 who would vote for him in 2020. I DO know plenty

of people who voted for him in 2016 who would not vote for him 2020.

He can't get the nomination if his support is going in the wrong direction.

[NCTraveler]

174. In order for it to happen Sanders is going to have to run a more honest campaign.

His base is willing to look past his deception and failed history as a career politician. Those more interested in moving us to the left will not be as prone to fall for it. As Krugman said, much of his campaign was based off of voodoo. Only those susceptible to religious like movements will stay on board for things like that.

[comradebillyboy]

177. I can't think of any upside from another Sanders presidential campaign.

[Lil Missy]

182. What nomination? He wouldn't be running as a Democrat.

[heaven05]

183. Oh no....

he is not a Democrat and has done nothing lately but disparage the Party and our last President. He has always distanced himself from Democrats until he needs a way to use the Party to further his 'economic justice' cures and solves racism schtick....which is bullshit to someone who knows root cause(s) of racial hate....brown skin, white supremacy intentions.

[LonePirate]

201. Why do Sanders supporters ignore the fact that many Dems do not like him?

Why not find a consensus candidate everyone in the party actually likes and will gladly support?

[LexVegas]

210. Many equals Most. nt

[Jim Lane]

212. His favorability rating among Democrats is a mere 76%.

According to this poll, a less-than-whopping 11% of all Democrats view him unfavorably.

You ask, "Why not find a consensus candidate everyone in the party actually likes and will gladly support?" Maybe because it's impossible. Back in 1820, when the party was still called Democratic-Republican, James Monroe sought re-election. Monroe carried every state, and he still lost one electoral vote, because one of the party's chosen electors wouldn't gladly support him (preferring John Quincy Adams). In more recent times, there've been Democrats who wouldn't support Gore, Democrats who wouldn't support Kerry, and Democrats who wouldn't support Obama. In 2016, many Dems disliked Clinton and many Dems disliked Sanders. I think O'Malley, being less well known, had lower unfavorability ratings than either of them, but even so there were many Dems who disliked him.

[ehrnst]

214. A quick look at the actual poll reveals a few details.

Press releases don't include the methodology or sampling data.

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us01172018_demos_udww76.pdf/

This RDD telephone survey was conducted from January 12 – 16, 2018 throughout the nation.
Responses are reported for 1,212 self-identified registered voters with a margin of
sampling error of +/- 3.4 percentage points, including the design effect. Margins of
sampling error for subgroups are available upon request.

32% of respondents were Democrat
39% were Independents.

70% of 32% of a 1,212 sample isn't "70% of Democrats."

And trend statistics in this same poll show that Senator Sanders has decreased in favorability:

TREND: Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard
enough about him?

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us01172018_trends_udww76.pdf/ (page 3)

First number: Fav, Second number: Unfav, Third number: HvntHrd Fourth number: Refused

Jan 17, 2018 48 38 13 1
Mar 23, 2016 50 37 12 1
Feb 18, 2016 51 36 12 1 High Fav
Feb 05, 2016 44 35 19 2
Dec 22, 2015 40 31 28 1
Dec 02, 2015 44 31 24 1
Nov 04, 2015 39 36 24 1
Sep 24, 2015 35 28 36 1
Aug 27, 2015 32 28 39 1
Jul 30, 2015 32 25 42 1
May 28, 2015 19 18 62 2 Low Fav

[George II]

216. It looks like his highwater mark was February 2016, more than two years ago...

....and very early in the campaign.

[ehrnst]

217. Yep.(nt)

[betsuni]

213. Because they don't listen, they dismiss.

Chip on the shoulder, arrogant.

[EffieBlack]

215. They think if they just tell us AGAIN, only this time louder, how great Bernie is,

we’ll all come around.

[ehrnst]

218. I guess "louder" is "more right" or "more numerous"

somewhere.

[sellitman]

221. No thanks

I voted for him in the primary I don't want to see him run again.

We need to get younger and we need to put the failures of the past behind us.

[Still In Wisconsin]

222. This Bernie voter and supporter say no thanks.

We don't need another run by Bernie or another run by Hillary. I like them both but we need to move forward with someone new.