Go Bernie!

[em2nought]

What most concerns me about this [immigration] legislation are the provisions that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the wages of American workers, which are already in decline. With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress. The CEOs who want this bill aren’t even embarrassed by their hypocrisy. One day they shut down plants with high-skilled, well-paid American workers, and move to China where they pay desperate people 50 cents an hour. The next day, they have the nerve to come before the U.S Congress and tell us that they can’t find skilled workers to do the jobs that they need. Give me a break.

With the latest GOP betrayal Trump should declare as independent and offer Bernie VP. Only way to give Bernie everything he wants is if Trump gets what he wants - a resurgent USA.

Meanwhile all those other dirtbags want the status quo.

[hepcat]

Trump supporters are so whiny.

[Fireball]

OK, Sanders has pissed me off locally. This, to me, is a serious indication of his inability to get into the weeds and understand politics the way functional and effective Democrats must.

In Philadelphia we've been facing an education crisis for years. While we now have a new and admirable state governor, the Pennsylvania state legislature is still dominated by Tea-Party-inflected Republicans, and Harrisburg has been at war with Pennsylvania's two major cities for decades.

As a result, Philadelphia's options for educational funding are extremely limited. Progressives here have been forced to be as creative as possible in producing solutions, and very recently we've been on the cusp of a breakthrough in the form of a sugary soda tax that would fund nearly universal pre-K education. This is hugely important, and it has come about as the result of literally years of negotiation and the exhaustion of all other options. It's not an ideal funding solution, but the benefits are huge, and they're worth the compromise. City council was just now on the verge of approving this plan.

Suddenly, however, it's the 2016 race and Pennsylvania's primary actually matters. In just the past few days, Bernie Sanders has parachuted in and, adopting the rote stance that -all- sales taxes are regressive, has come out strongly against it. (Incidentally, this plan stipulates that the benefits flow first to the poorest, but that doesn't seem to matter.) It also seems likely that Sanders' opposition is intended to slam Philadelphia's new mayor, who supports the plan and is a Clinton ally.

Sanders is urging his followers to push for rejection, and city council is feeling the pressure. Clinton, meanwhile, has had her people research and understand the issue, and she has endorsed it as literally the only way we're going to get this kind of support for pre-K for at least a decade, or basically a generation of kids.

In other words, Sanders (who clearly knows nothing of our local situation and years of effort by our most progressive citizens to craft solutions) has stepped in to torpedo a pragmatic, achievable, and immensely beneficial compromise because it doesn't fit his big-picture playbook. In effect, the socialist has thrown his support behind the soda distributors fighting tooth and nail to keep this from going forward. And Sanders' position isn't merely theoretical: city council is divided, and pressure at this level can have an effect. Bernie is trying to derail universal pre-K in Philadelphia just when we were about to achieve it, presumably because it isn't pure enough for his revolution.

How dare you question the Perfect One from Vermont!

[Zarathud]

The Perfect has always been the enemy of the Good.

[Holman]

Sanders' stated position is that the city should forgo a product tax and instead insist on progressive taxation.

This is the position I would expect him to take and one everyone would prefer, but if he or his staff had done even the *slightest* bit of homework they would know that the state constitution makes this illegal for PA cities to do. (This is why the soda tax was considered the best available option.) It would require a constitutional amendment at the state level to change this, and that's not going to happen.

It's embarrassing that his campaign didn't have someone who could point this out to him.

[Default]

Philly, Pittsburgh and gullible hillbillies. Welcome to PA!

Bernie's opposition is looking like a moot point after Tuesday.

[Defiant]

Someone went to a lot of effort:

Bernie Sanders as George in Seinfeld

[El Guapo]

Is there any way to square Sanders' new effort to have superdelegates give him the nomination even if (when) he ends the campaign behind in pledged delegates, with his earlier condemnations of superdelegates as undemocratic?

[Captain Caveman]

Is there any way to square Sanders' new effort to have superdelegates give him the nomination even if (when) he ends the campaign behind in pledged delegates, with his earlier condemnations of superdelegates as undemocratic?

Yes. He's losing.

[Rip]

Doing incredibly well in Indiana.....

Yep, looks like he has this.

[Kraken]

Hah. Go Bernie!

[YellowKing]

He's just prolonging the inevitable. I think this "huge upset" in Indiana is currently costing Hillary a whopping 10 delegates. Don't spend 'em all in one place, Bernie!

[Jeff V]

He's just prolonging the inevitable. I think this "huge upset" in Indiana is currently costing Hillary a whopping 10 delegates. Don't spend 'em all in one place, Bernie!

He is still somehow deluded that all of the superdelegates that support a party he has no real interest in will somehow come flocking to his side. But hey, if it keeps him from pulling a Ted Cruz for another week or two, more power to him!

[El Guapo]

He's just prolonging the inevitable. I think this "huge upset" in Indiana is currently costing Hillary a whopping 10 delegates. Don't spend 'em all in one place, Bernie!

He is still somehow deluded that all of the superdelegates that support a party he has no real interest in will somehow come flocking to his side. But hey, if it keeps him from pulling a Ted Cruz for another week or two, more power to him!

What's *really* bugging me about Sanders's recent superdelegate pitch is not just the hypocrisy (within a pretty short time period!), but the stupid futility of it - do you really expect this to work? Do you really expect a lot of the superdelegate party loyalists, whose legitimacy you have been attacking, to suddenly flip to your side when Clinton still has (and will almost certainly maintain) a pledged delegate and vote lead?

Stuff like that doesn't really help my sense of him knowing what he's doing.

[tgb]

Rip will be voting for Bernie. Here's why.

[El Guapo]

Bernie Math: Why Bernie Sanders is Actually Winning.

[hepcat]

Rip will be voting for Bernie. Here's why.

Come on, you're acting like you're new here. Not enough people here would actually be upset if Bernie won, therefore Rip won't be voting for Bernie.

[Defiant]

So here's a question: Why are people backing Sanders?

Is it because:

1) They like his policy stances?
2) They want someone outside the establishment
3) They like his personality/character/honesty?
4) They don't like Clinton?
5) Some other reason

I'd love to see a poll of Sanders supporters that asked that

Well, it seems that it's not so much 1:

More detailed evidence casts further doubt on the notion that support for Mr. Sanders reflects a shift to the left in the policy preferences of Democrats. In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters about “opportunity in America today for the average person to get ahead” and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased.

However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.

Additionally,

Moreover, warm views of Mr. Sanders increased the liberalism of young Democrats by as much as 1.5 points on the seven-point ideological scale. For many of them, liberal ideology seems to have been a short-term byproduct of enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders rather than a stable political conviction.

So maybe not a long term revolution?

[Defiant]

Samantha Bee: Feel theTurn

[El Guapo]

So, Sanders has appointed Cornel West as one of his representatives on the Democratic convention platform committee. You may know Cornel West (in addition to his minor role in the shitty second Matrix movie) from dropping such pearls of wisdom as describing Obama as "a Rockefeller Republican in blackface" and from accusing Netanyahu of "war crimes."

Delightful.

[hepcat]

I know he doesn't stand a chance, but I actually am rooting for Bernie.

Well, that didn't last.

[Defiant]

West also lied about Obama's record, stating that African-American infant mortality and unemployment rates under Obama have gone up when they have in fact gone down. Because an analysis of the current situation based on reality in order to create policy is overrated.

[El Guapo]

Reality-based analysis isn't so much in vogue these days, to be sure.

Also, Sanders and Trump may debate each other.

Can my approval rating of Sanders get any lower? We'll find out over the next month or two!

[LordMortis]

Reality-based analysis isn't so much in vogue these days, to be sure.

Also, Sanders and Trump may debate each other.

Can my approval rating of Sanders get any lower? We'll find out over the next month or two!

I'd like to believe my approval rating of Clinton couldn't. But that'd be wishful believing.

Why on earth would you be opposed to Sanders debating Trump?

[Defiant]

Why on earth would you be opposed to Sanders debating Trump?

Free airtime to two people who've attacked Clinton a lot, without Clinton there to defend herself?

What could go wrong?

[LordMortis]

Why on earth would you be opposed to Sanders debating Trump?

Free airtime to two people who've attacked Clinton a lot, without Clinton there to defend herself?

What could go wrong?

Because a debate between Sanders and Trump over the next four years of the executive office is about the coronation of Clinton?

Nope. Didn't lower my opinion of her.

[El Guapo]

Why on earth would you be opposed to Sanders debating Trump?

Free airtime to two people who've attacked Clinton a lot, without Clinton there to defend herself?

What could go wrong?

Because a debate between Sanders and Trump over the next four years of the executive office is about the coronation of Clinton?

Nope. Didn't lower my opinion of her.

It's *way too late* for Sanders to come back and beat Clinton. It's not literally impossible, but it's close. It's fine if Sanders wants to stay in the race, get his message out, and try to shape the party platform (though I would prefer that he appoint non-crazy people when he tries to do the latter). However, as a responsible citizen of the republic, he should make sure that none of that interferes with what ought to be the main priority, of preventing Orange Hitler from becoming President.

Debating Trump would give Trump an extended platform to: (a) not sound crazy; and (b) attack Clinton without her defending herself. Which is contrary to the last and most important priority above.

[LordMortis]

It's *way too late* for Sanders to come back and beat Clinton.

Concurred.

However, as a responsible citizen of the republic, he should make sure that none of that interferes with what ought to be the main priority, of preventing Orange Hitler from becoming President.

Debating Trump would give Trump an extended platform to: (a) not sound crazy; and (b) attack Clinton without her defending herself. Which is contrary to the last and most important priority above.

So what you're saying is the debate would be over the next four years of the executive office being about the coronation of Clinton?

Nope. Didn't lower my opinion of her.

1) I don't think Hillary would be the main topic of conversation, even if Trump tried to steer it that way.
2) Even if I'm wrong, so what? The DNC set up a limited debate schedule on the worst possible stages for Sanders. This is about exposure that he has been denied. Lowering your opinion of him for taking advantage of

an extended platform

[El Guapo]

It's *way too late* for Sanders to come back and beat Clinton.

Concurred.

However, as a responsible citizen of the republic, he should make sure that none of that interferes with what ought to be the main priority, of preventing Orange Hitler from becoming President.

Debating Trump would give Trump an extended platform to: (a) not sound crazy; and (b) attack Clinton without her defending herself. Which is contrary to the last and most important priority above.

So what you're saying is the debate would be over the next four years of the executive office being about the coronation of Clinton?

Nope. Didn't lower my opinion of her.

1) I don't think Hillary would be the main topic of conversation, even if Trump tried to steer it that way.
2) Even if I'm wrong, so what? The DNC set up a limited debate schedule on the worst possible stages for Sanders. This is about exposure that he has been denied. Lowering your opinion of him for taking advantage of

an extended platform

(1) How could anyone stop Trump from making this about Hillary? He can just answer every question with an attack on Hillary.

(2) Are you unaware of Sanders or his platform? I'm not sure how he could be regarded as not exposed. Eight debates (I think that's the number), all of which are available online, isn't enough, in addition to the rest of the campaigning?

Sanders can do what he wants, of course. If his candidacy wasn't all but doomed, and/or if Trump weren't a uniquely awful and dangerous candidate, I might feel differently. What hurts my view of him is not seeking out additional campaign platforms, it's raising the risk of a Trump presidency and not exhibiting much in the way of concern about that.

[Holman]

Is this a Fox debate? I would expect the moderators to do everything they can to bring Clinton into it.

But Sanders' goal is free airtime, as he's nearly out of money and can't afford even a moderate ad buy in California. And this isn't due to his underdog status: Sanders has spent far more heavily than Clinton, in large part because he loves huge rallies in expensive baseball stadiums with expensive logistics and security. Clinton is saving her cash for Trump.

[Defiant]

(2) Are you unaware of Sanders or his platform? I'm not sure how he could be regarded as not exposed. Eight debates (I think that's the number), all of which are available online, isn't enough, in addition to the rest of the campaigning?

Nine debates, thirteen forums and, IIRC, he overtook Trump as the candidate that had the most appearances on Sunday morning news shows.

[El Guapo]

Also, FWIW, the DNC's original schedule of six sanctioned debates is in line with recent history.. Typically the candidates wind up debating more than the sanctioned debates, as happened here as well.

[Zarathud]

It's a terrible strategic and tactical move -- my prediction is that Bernie will fare poorly against Trump's persona onstage.

My only hope is that Bernie's bros are going to have to start complaining about how Trump and FOX are unfair, and stealing the election from Bernie.

[El Guapo]

I'm just getting nervous because Trump's consolidating Republicans very rapidly, and again is uniquely awful and dangerous. Given the demographic / electoral advantages favoring democrats in this presidential election, Trump *should* lose. The main thing that could help Trump is if Clinton can't consolidate the bulk of Sanders's supporters. I get that that's on her, BUT I do worry about Sanders stoking conspiratorial worries among his supporters that could wind up helping Trump.

[Defiant]

Apparently, Trump was kidding

[Holman]

I'm just getting nervous because Trump's consolidating Republicans very rapidly, and again is uniquely awful and dangerous. Given the demographic / electoral advantages favoring democrats in this presidential election, Trump *should* lose. The main thing that could help Trump is if Clinton can't consolidate the bulk of Sanders's supporters. I get that that's on her, BUT I do worry about Sanders stoking conspiratorial worries among his supporters that could wind up helping Trump.

I read recently that the percentage of Sanders-2016 supporters claiming they won't vote Clinton is close to the Clinton-2008 supporters who said they would never support Obama. In the end they nearly all did.

[El Guapo]

I'm just getting nervous because Trump's consolidating Republicans very rapidly, and again is uniquely awful and dangerous. Given the demographic / electoral advantages favoring democrats in this presidential election, Trump *should* lose. The main thing that could help Trump is if Clinton can't consolidate the bulk of Sanders's supporters. I get that that's on her, BUT I do worry about Sanders stoking conspiratorial worries among his supporters that could wind up helping Trump.

I read recently that the percentage of Sanders-2016 supporters claiming they won't vote Clinton is close to the Clinton-2008 supporters who said they would never support Obama. In the end they nearly all did.

Yeah, and the bulk of Sanders's supporters are *probably* going to come around, especially once they stop focusing on Sanders v. Clinton and start actually looking at Trump. BUT it will still make me nervous until it happens. And in 2008, Clinton immediately and strongly endorsed Obama after dropping out after the last primary, and wasn't making the same "the system is rigged" type arguments that Sanders is making. And Sanders has said that he'll take the fight to the convention since it will be "contested" (but not really). What happens if Sanders doesn't endorse Clinton, or does so only late and tepidly? What if the Nevada convention repeats itself at the actual DNC convention?

That could plausibly happen, and I worry that it would dramatically raise Trump's odds of winning.

[El Guapo]

Apparently, Trump was kidding

Trump did say this in response to a question on Jimmy Kimmel's show, so the "I was kidding" remark makes all the sense in the world.

However, the article is right in that it's hard to understand why Trump would balk at it after Sanders accepted. This is spot-on my take on it:

Now that Trump is safely past the primaries, what does he have to lose by sharing a stage with Bernie? He’s eager to pander to Sanders’s audience on trade; a joint forum with mega-ratings gives him the opportunity to do that. He also wants to broadcast his message that “the system is rigged” to Bernie fans, who are feeling more receptive to that message than ever given Hillary’s big lead with Democratic superdelegates. Trump’s approach at a debate with Sanders would be pure sweetness, flattering him for his populism and trying to enlist him as a de facto ally in their shared belief that Hillary Clinton is simply awful. He’d probably half-jokingly offer Sanders the bottom of the ticket. A debate with Bernie is a direct pipeline to the independents and lefties Trump is hoping to convert to his cause. Even if he does come off as having barely any idea of what he’s talking about on policy, plenty of anti-Hillary voters won’t care. The “system is rigged” rhetoric has a strong pull on people, and Hillary Clinton is the system. Bernie would be hard-pressed to disagree.

Meanwhile, on Sanders’s end, what does he gain by debating Trump? He gets another night in a big media spotlight before the primaries end, and then … what? The delegate math is what it is; Hillary’s going to be the nominee. Spending an hour arguing with Trump won’t change that. He’d gain a big audience for an evening to broadcast his socialist message, but he’s destined to have that anyway in July when he inevitably lands a showcase speaking slot at the convention. Meanwhile, by bigfooting Hillary and stepping into the role of Democratic debate partner for the presumptive GOP nominee, he’s going to piss off a lot of Democrats, especially if Trump manages to use the debate to maneuver Bernie into agreeing with him about some aspect(s) of Hillary’s awfulness. And those pissed-off Democrats won’t just be stalwart Hillary fans and establishment Democrats, whose opinions don’t matter to Sanders. There are bound to be members of his own coalition who, despite being disappointed by the primary, are already reconciling themselves to backing Clinton in the name of defeating Trump. Sanders agreeing to play a supporting role in what would mainly be a Trump media stunt aimed at peeling off swing voters wouldn’t sit well with them.

[Fitzy]

I'd disagree, there's nothing to gain for Trump and everything to lose.

If Sanders beats up on him, Trump comes out looking poorly, possibly killing his current momentum.

If Trump does better than Sanders, he could kill what little momentum Sanders has, bringing a true end to the Democrats race and Clinton's full warchest targets Trump.

The article seems to be describing some sort of joint appearance. I don't see Sanders doing that. Instead, he would want to show that the polls are right, he is the candidate who can defeat Trump. Him sitting back and allowing Trump to flatter his supporters gains him nothing. Worse, if he comes off as sympathetic to Trump, he could very easily lose the influence he is gaining. That would end any hope of pulling the party to the left. I would think Sander's would be playing to win in any debate with Trump.

So it makes perfect sense for Trump to say no in my opinion.

[LordMortis]

I'd disagree, there's nothing to gain for Trump and everything to lose.

If Sanders beats up on him, Trump comes out looking poorly, possibly killing his current momentum.

If Trump does better than Sanders, he could kill what little momentum Sanders has, bringing a true end to the Democrats race and Clinton's full warchest targets Trump.

The article seems to be describing some sort of joint appearance. I don't see Sanders doing that. Instead, he would want to show that the polls are right, he is the candidate who can defeat Trump. Him sitting back and allowing Trump to flatter his supporters gains him nothing. Worse, if he comes off as sympathetic to Trump, he could very easily lose the influence he is gaining. That would end any hope of pulling the party to the left. I would think Sander's would be playing to win in any debate with Trump.

So it makes perfect sense for Trump to say no in my opinion.

Concurred on all counts. I don't know if it was calculated or Trump's off the cuff, "no one cares what I actually" say presence but he had everything to gain by extending the offer and hoping Sanders would ignore it but when everything problem is labeled as the nail that Sanders is will get Trump elected... Or something to that effect.