The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

[Impartial_Observer]

One of the heavyweights has showed up for the weigh in.

 

[swordfish]

(IMHO) Best chance for the Dems - Sanders/Biden ticket (either way - Biden/Sanders)  Also could be argued - the worst chance......2 old guys with the young Democratic Socialism faction.....

[foxbat]

13 minutes ago, swordfish said:

(IMHO) Best chance for the Dems - Sanders/Biden ticket (either way - Biden/Sanders)  Also could be argued - the worst chance......2 old guys with the young Democratic Socialism faction.....

Biden/O'Rourke.  Biden appeals to the Midwest and is nice to counter Trump's nastiness.  Also appeals to blue-collar guys and, given that he's one of the poorer politicians out there, can fend off the "elitist" part of the ironic GOP attack line.  Family has military background which will allow for a dignified, but potentially biting attack on lack thereof.  O'Rourke, plus recent issues in Arizona, potentially put Arizona in play at the presidential level as well as at the Senatorial level two as McCain's old seat will be up again.  O'Rourke, while probably unable to deliver Texas as a presidential state, would help with getting votes down-ballot.  Cornyn's seat is up too and the Democrat's expect to challenge it although it's probably a longer shot than it was going after Cruz.  Appeals to younger Democrat's, so helps to get out the young vote there.  Florida would also be a target state using O'Rourke as well.  Trump's gone from a positive 22 net rating in Florida in January 2017 to a negative 3.  Nelson ran a horrible, almost non-existent, Hispanic outreach in the recent Senate election.  O'Rourke would not let that opportunity slide.  Toss in the money side of the house and O'Rourke almost becomes a printing press ... especially with small donor.  O'Rourke picked with Biden would also cushion potential blow-back for lack of a female candidate on the ticket.

[swordfish]

5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Biden/O'Rourke.  Biden appeals to the Midwest and is nice to counter Trump's nastiness.  Also appeals to blue-collar guys and, given that he's one of the poorer politicians out there, can fend off the "elitist" part of the ironic GOP attack line.  Family has military background which will allow for a dignified, but potentially biting attack on lack thereof.  O'Rourke, plus recent issues in Arizona, potentially put Arizona in play at the presidential level as well as at the Senatorial level two as McCain's old seat will be up again.  O'Rourke, while probably unable to deliver Texas as a presidential state, would help with getting votes down-ballot.  Cornyn's seat is up too and the Democrat's expect to challenge it although it's probably a longer shot than it was going after Cruz.  Appeals to younger Democrat's, so helps to get out the young vote there.  Florida would also be a target state using O'Rourke as well.  Trump's gone from a positive 22 net rating in Florida in January 2017 to a negative 3.  Nelson ran a horrible, almost non-existent, Hispanic outreach in the recent Senate election.  O'Rourke would not let that opportunity slide.  Toss in the money side of the house and O'Rourke almost becomes a printing press ... especially with small donor.  O'Rourke picked with Biden would also cushion potential blow-back for lack of a female candidate on the ticket.

Not too sure about the O'Rourke ticket.....He flew his arrest(s) for DUI and burglary in TX under the radar nationally thus far, but it will raise up in the national arena.

[foxbat]

3 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not too sure about the O'Rourke ticket.....He flew his arrest(s) for DUI and burglary in TX under the radar nationally thus far, but it will raise up in the national arena.

Rick Scott oversaw one of the biggest Medicare fraud schemes in the history of the country and he was elected governor, twice, and US Senator.

O'Rourke's DWI will be two decades plus in the past by the election and he and his campaign have completely owned his culpability in public statements when running for office since at least 2012.  In Indiana, with the Moped Brigade, it might even get him votes.  The burglary was more of a trespass and was dismissed by UTEP police as a college kids being college kids.  I doubt it would have any major implications on the ticket.  Between GOP candidates with pregnant, unwed kids, Moral Majority candidates with adultery, guys like Menendez being indicted and still winning re-election, and a President who tweets like a petulant teenager, I can't imagine O'Rourke "poisoning" a ticket.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

9 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Biden/O'Rourke.  Biden appeals to the Midwest and is nice to counter Trump's nastiness.  Also appeals to blue-collar guys and, given that he's one of the poorer politicians out there, can fend off the "elitist" part of the ironic GOP attack line.  Family has military background which will allow for a dignified, but potentially biting attack on lack thereof.  O'Rourke, plus recent issues in Arizona, potentially put Arizona in play at the presidential level as well as at the Senatorial level two as McCain's old seat will be up again.  O'Rourke, while probably unable to deliver Texas as a presidential state, would help with getting votes down-ballot.  Cornyn's seat is up too and the Democrat's expect to challenge it although it's probably a longer shot than it was going after Cruz.  Appeals to younger Democrat's, so helps to get out the young vote there.  Florida would also be a target state using O'Rourke as well.  Trump's gone from a positive 22 net rating in Florida in January 2017 to a negative 3.  Nelson ran a horrible, almost non-existent, Hispanic outreach in the recent Senate election.  O'Rourke would not let that opportunity slide.  Toss in the money side of the house and O'Rourke almost becomes a printing press ... especially with small donor.  O'Rourke picked with Biden would also cushion potential blow-back for lack of a female candidate on the ticket.

It's going to be fun to watch. 

One question, since most people who've spent their basically their entire adult life in Washington as a career politician seem to leave with a fair amount of wealth, why is Joe so poor?  

[foxbat]

2 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

It's going to be fun to watch. 

One question, since most people who've spent their basically their entire adult life in Washington as a career politician seem to leave with a fair amount of wealth, why is Joe so poor?  

I'm not sure on Joe's reasons for not capitalizing on politics the way that others have.  I know that, back when he was VP, and Senator, he was known for taking Amtrak back and forth between DC and Delaware.  I saw an article somewhere that Amtrak conductors had estimated that Biden had made some 8,000+ roundtrips on Amtrak during his political career.  Part of that was due to the death of his first wife and child in an automobile accident just after he was elected to his first term in the Senate, but when you hear him talk about what he did on that train day in and day out, staring out the windows and looking at the lights and wondering what the folks in those houses were thinking about and what was weighing on their minds, you get a feel for him as an Average Joe.  He's lived a comfortable life, but he has seemed more interested in doing what we envision our politicians should be doing as opposed to what a lot of them end up doing.  

[Impartial_Observer]

39 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not sure on Joe's reasons for not capitalizing on politics the way that others have.  I know that, back when he was VP, and Senator, he was known for taking Amtrak back and forth between DC and Delaware.  I saw an article somewhere that Amtrak conductors had estimated that Biden had made some 8,000+ roundtrips on Amtrak during his political career.  Part of that was due to the death of his first wife and child in an automobile accident just after he was elected to his first term in the Senate, but when you hear him talk about what he did on that train day in and day out, staring out the windows and looking at the lights and wondering what the folks in those houses were thinking about and what was weighing on their minds, you get a feel for him as an Average Joe.  He's lived a comfortable life, but he has seemed more interested in doing what we envision our politicians should be doing as opposed to what a lot of them end up doing.  

Congress members are typically on the hook for their travel to and from the district to work. Perhaps he's thrifty, I'm sure it's cheaper to take the train. Possibly faster, when you factor in to and from the airport, security, etc., though I'm sure these guys are fast-tracked thru the PITA's that us regular folks have to deal with. 

I may be in the minority here, but most of the average Joes I know, don't wear gold cuff links and fire shotguns in the air. 

He is a slick and polished politician, he says some incredibly stupid stuff, and somehow gets a pass on it. Hence the moniker Crazy Uncle Joe. 

Just seems odd to me, a guy who was in the senate for that long, took multiple stabs at the White House, and the poor guy is broke.....just like the rest of us. 

[Impartial_Observer]

[gonzoron]

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

fire shotguns in the air. 

My dad used to. At 12 am January 1. It was his birthday. He never owned a pair of gold cufflinks though. He did have a bone handled squirrel skinning knife though. But he also never killed a squirrel with a shotgun either. He used a .22. His brother used a .22 pistol.

[Muda69]

How the Next President Could Declare a National Emergency Over Climate Change: https://earther.gizmodo.com/how-the-next-president-could-declare-a-national-emergen-1832636899

Quote

On Friday, President Trump tossed precedent out the window and declared a national emergency to pay for an unneeded border wall he previously promised Mexico would pay for.

His declaration isn’t just setting up a massive court battle. It also opens the door to imagining how a Democratic president could wield emergency powers to tackle climate change, something Republicans are already worrying aboutand Democrats are already embracing as a path forward given the years of Republican filibustering, inaction, and denial.

As it turns out, the president has a few potential avenues to quickly address both fossil fuel production and renewable energy, but the powers aren’t nearly as sweeping as Republicans fear and advocates hope. A climate crisis national emergency declaration isn’t going to lead to the complete decarbonization of the U.S., but it could start to unwind a system that keeps churning carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a dangerous rate.

Imagine that around 11 p.m. on November 3, 2020, CNN calls Florida for Kamala Harris, making it clear Trump will be a one-term president. Democrats also hold the House, but the battle for the Senate comes down to Texas. Beto O’Rourke’s run at John Cornyn’s seat ends like his race against Ted Cruz, with the hope of turning Texas purple dying out in the state’s deep red rural counties. As a result, Republicans hang onto the Senate and with that, any hope of meaningful climate action making it through the legislative branch goes out the window for at least two more years.

Harris said opioids and gun violence are both national emergencies early in the campaign, leaving the door open to her issuing a declaration. But recognizing the urgent message in the UN’s special 2018 report on climate change, imaginePresident-elect Harris instead announces on her first day in office that she’ll sign a declaration for a national emergency to address the climate crisis.

In declaring an emergency, Harris will have to outline what emergency powers she’d use. The Brennan Center for Justice has identified nearly 140 statutesthat any president can draw on when declaring a national emergency that give them power to regulate, move money around, and even use industry to do the government’s bidding. 

All these powers are tied to the idea of a national security emergency, with recent declarations springing up in wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. But as we’ve seen with the Trump wall declaration, presidents have a pretty wide latitude for interpreting what constitutes a threat to national security. A future president may argue there’s ample reason to declare a climate change national emergency, given the myriad ways in which it undermines U.S. security at home and abroad.

“There are very few restrictions on president’s ability to declare a national emergency,” Andrew Boyle, a counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, told Earther. “Certainly around climate change and all the possible ramifications, billions of dollars in devastation climate change can cause, migration issues, food scarcity, all these are things that come with climate change that could inform the basis for president declaring of national emergency.”

...

If a president does go this route, it will almost certainly be challenged in court, much like the Trump administration’s declaration to fund a border wall. Both Hill and Boyle noted that the courts have tended to be deferential to the executive branch on areas of national security, and the border wall challenges will set precedent for any cases around a climate crisis declaration.

 

[BARRYOSAMA]

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Congress members are typically on the hook for their travel to and from the district to work. Perhaps he's thrifty, I'm sure it's cheaper to take the train. Possibly faster, when you factor in to and from the airport, security, etc., though I'm sure these guys are fast-tracked thru the PITA's that us regular folks have to deal with.   TAKING A TRAIN INSTEAD OF AIR TRAVEL SPUN AS A NEGATIVE.  PRETZEL LOGIC.

I may be in the minority here, but most of the average Joes I know, don't wear gold cuff links and fire shotguns in the air. THIS AVERAGE JOE HAS HIS GRANDPA'S GOLD CUFFLINKS.  SHOOTING A SHOTGUN IN THE AIR SEEMS EXACTLY WHAT AN AVERAGE JOE WOULD DO.

He is a slick and polished politician, he says some incredibly stupid stuff, and somehow gets a pass on it. Hence the moniker Crazy Uncle Joe. IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONIKER "CRAZY UNCLE JOE", YOU'VE, BY DEFINITION, NOT GOTTEN A PASS.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID

Just seems odd to me, a guy who was in the senate for that long, took multiple stabs at the White House, and the poor guy is broke.....just like the rest of us. NO ONE SAID HE WAS BROKE, JUST HASN'T FED AT THE TROUGH.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID.  POOR SPIN ATTEMPT.  

 

[foxbat]

6 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Congress members are typically on the hook for their travel to and from the district to work. Perhaps he's thrifty, I'm sure it's cheaper to take the train. Possibly faster, when you factor in to and from the airport, security, etc., though I'm sure these guys are fast-tracked thru the PITA's that us regular folks have to deal with. 

I may be in the minority here, but most of the average Joes I know, don't wear gold cuff links and fire shotguns in the air. 

He is a slick and polished politician, he says some incredibly stupid stuff, and somehow gets a pass on it. Hence the moniker Crazy Uncle Joe. 

Just seems odd to me, a guy who was in the senate for that long, took multiple stabs at the White House, and the poor guy is broke.....just like the rest of us. 

I don't wear cufflinks, but I have a pair that were passed to me by my dad and I believe that they were passed to him from his dad.  I know that we weren't rich growing up ... I didn't realize that chuck steak wasn't a fancy cut of meat until I went off to college.  My dad just made it taste great with this "wine sauce" that he used to make it with.  I thought that certainly you didn't waste wine cooking a cheap cut of meat ... until I realized that the wine came in a gallon jug with a screw top.  As for shooting shotguns in the air, I recall one New Year's eve we were over at a neighbor's celebrating.  My dad had a glass of scotch, and had put it down on the stoop to help us light some fireworks as midnight struck.  Along with the fireworks, you could hear gunfire too.  My dad picked up his glass, took a sip, and noticed buckshot in the bottom of his glass.  I'd contend that Average Joe's are more likely to fire shotguns in the air ... it's the elite conservatives that tend to just shoot their hunting buddies in the face. 😄

[Impartial_Observer]

I know I’m going to ragret (sic) this!

TAKING A TRAIN INSTEAD OF AIR TRAVEL SPUN AS A NEGATIVE.  PRETZEL LOGIC.

How did I spin anything, he took the train, I offered some possible reasons why. There’s nothing between the lines to read.

THIS AVERAGE JOE HAS HIS GRANDPA'S GOLD CUFFLINKS.  SHOOTING A SHOTGUN IN THE AIR SEEMS EXACTLY WHAT AN AVERAGE JOE WOULD DO.

You might have missed the part where I said “wears”, which means you actually have them physically on their person, or in this case their clothes. Congrats on your inheritance, do you “wear” them? I think they look cool as hell, but since I don’t have any shirts with French cuffs, or cuff links, I’m pretty much out. I’ve never fired a firearm into the air, as Foxy pointed out those projectiles will eventually come down. I’ve never seen it done either.

IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONIKER "CRAZY UNCLE JOE", YOU'VE, BY DEFINITION, NOT GOTTEN A PASS.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID

I’m sorry, I got nothing.

NO ONE SAID HE WAS BROKE, JUST HASN'T FED AT THE TROUGH.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID.  POOR SPIN ATTEMPT.

Busted, I took some creative license, he’s not broke. Hasn’t fed at the public trough? HE WAS A US SENATOR FOR 36 YEARS! FOLLOWED BY EIGHT YEARS AS VP! He has a pretty sweet pension package, I’d say he’s got his face buried in the trough. 

[BARRYOSAMA]

11 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I know I’m going to ragret (sic) this!

TAKING A TRAIN INSTEAD OF AIR TRAVEL SPUN AS A NEGATIVE.  PRETZEL LOGIC.

How did I spin anything, he took the train, I offered some possible reasons why. There’s nothing between the lines to read.  YOU INTIMATED THAT HE SOMEHOW GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.  NOT READING BETWEEN BETWEEN LINES.  YOUR BIAS IS PLAIN AS DAY.

THIS AVERAGE JOE HAS HIS GRANDPA'S GOLD CUFFLINKS.  SHOOTING A SHOTGUN IN THE AIR SEEMS EXACTLY WHAT AN AVERAGE JOE WOULD DO.

You might have missed the part where I said “wears”, which means you actually have them physically on their person, or in this case their clothes. Congrats on your inheritance, do you “wear” them? I think they look cool as hell, but since I don’t have any shirts with French cuffs, or cuff links, I’m pretty much out. I’ve never fired a firearm into the air, as Foxy pointed out those projectiles will eventually come down. I’ve never seen it done either.  SEMANTICS, AND YES I HAVE WORN THEM A FEW TIMES.  CRAZY JOE PROBABLY HAS MORE OCCASION TO WEAR THEM THEN I.  

IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONIKER "CRAZY UNCLE JOE", YOU'VE, BY DEFINITION, NOT GOTTEN A PASS.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID

I’m sorry, I got nothing. 

NO ONE SAID HE WAS BROKE, JUST HASN'T FED AT THE TROUGH.  OR MAYBE HE IS JUST STUPID.  POOR SPIN ATTEMPT.

Busted, I took some creative license, he’s not broke. Hasn’t fed at the public trough? HE WAS A US SENATOR FOR 36 YEARS! FOLLOWED BY EIGHT YEARS AS VP! He has a pretty sweet pension package, I’d say he’s got his face buried in the trough. THE NEW NORMAL IS TO CALL THEM "ALTERNATIVE FACTS".  HE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE HIS JOB AND NOT EXPLOITED IT.  SHOCKING, I KNOW.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

YOU INTIMATED THAT HE SOMEHOW GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.  NOT READING BETWEEN BETWEEN LINES.  YOUR BIAS IS PLAIN AS DAY.

Slow down, use your words. I was speaking of all members of congress at the airport, not the train station.

Quote

cheaper to take the train. Possibly faster, when you factor in to and from the airport, security, etc., though I'm sure these guys are fast-tracked thru the PITA's that us regular folks have to deal with.

As it turns out....some do receive preferential treatment.....https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/not-everybody-has-to-go-through-airport-security.html/

And now, as a former VP, he's exempt for life from TSA line.

SEMANTICS, AND YES I HAVE WORN THEM A FEW TIMES.  CRAZY JOE PROBABLY HAS MORE OCCASION TO WEAR THEM THEN I.  

I would argue this isn't semantics, words mean things:

Own:

/ōn/

adjective & pronoun

 

1. 1.

   used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.

   "they can't handle their own children"

verb

 

1. 1.

   have (something) as one's own; possess.

   "his father owns a restaurant"

   synonyms:

   be the owner of, possess, be the (proud) possessor of, have in one's possession, have to one's name, count among one's possessions, have, keep, retain, maintain, hold, be blessed with, enjoy, boast "I own this house"

Wear:

/wer/

verb

 

1. 1.

   have on one's body or a part of one's body as clothing, decoration, protection, or for some other purpose.

   "he was wearing a dark suit"

   synonyms:

   be dressed in, be clothed in, have on, sport; More

Congrats on wearing them, I'm too tight to buy the shirt with the cuffs, and would have VERY few occasions to wear. I bet you looked really cool. When I get inducted into the GID Hall of Fame, can you loan me a shirt and your cuff links, it would be epic.

THE NEW NORMAL IS TO CALL THEM "ALTERNATIVE FACTS".  HE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE HIS JOB AND NOT EXPLOITED IT.  SHOCKING, I KNOW.

I never said he didn't do his job, he's worked in government for essentially his entire adult life, that's the definition of eating at the public trough. When he campaigns he talks about all that is wrong with the country, for the last 42 years, he's been one of the dudes creating that. He's in Germany right now shoveling that crap. I've never used the term "alternative facts", I'm not sure how you perceive anything I've typed as "alternative facts". You keep bringing up my bias, R's, D's, they're two sides of the same coin. 

Look I get it, Biden's your guy, my only point in all of this is it really seems odd to me that he's an anomaly when it comes to career politicians and their finances. I had a local rep that did two stints short stints and fared much better financially. He was taken very good care of following the Obamacare vote based on the fact that everyone knew a Yea vote meant the end of his time as District 9 rep. 

 

[swordfish]

At least he won't have Hillary rigging the game against him this time......

[Impartial_Observer]

8 minutes ago, swordfish said:

At least he won't have Hillary rigging the game against him this time......

[swordfish]

[BARRYOSAMA]

7 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

YOU INTIMATED THAT HE SOMEHOW GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.  NOT READING BETWEEN BETWEEN LINES.  YOUR BIAS IS PLAIN AS DAY.

Slow down, use your words. I was speaking of all members of congress at the airport, not the train station.

As it turns out....some do receive preferential treatment.....https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/not-everybody-has-to-go-through-airport-security.html/

And now, as a former VP, he's exempt for life from TSA line.

SEMANTICS, AND YES I HAVE WORN THEM A FEW TIMES.  CRAZY JOE PROBABLY HAS MORE OCCASION TO WEAR THEM THEN I.  

I would argue this isn't semantics, words mean things:

Own:

/ōn/

adjective & pronoun

 

1. 1.

   used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.

   "they can't handle their own children"

verb

 

1. 1.

   have (something) as one's own; possess.

   "his father owns a restaurant"

   synonyms:

   be the owner of, possess, be the (proud) possessor of, have in one's possession, have to one's name, count among one's possessions, have, keep, retain, maintain, hold, be blessed with, enjoy, boast "I own this house"

Wear:

/wer/

verb

 

1. 1.

   have on one's body or a part of one's body as clothing, decoration, protection, or for some other purpose.

   "he was wearing a dark suit"

   synonyms:

   be dressed in, be clothed in, have on, sport; More

Congrats on wearing them, I'm too tight to buy the shirt with the cuffs, and would have VERY few occasions to wear. I bet you looked really cool. When I get inducted into the GID Hall of Fame, can you loan me a shirt and your cuff links, it would be epic.

THE NEW NORMAL IS TO CALL THEM "ALTERNATIVE FACTS".  HE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE HIS JOB AND NOT EXPLOITED IT.  SHOCKING, I KNOW.

I never said he didn't do his job, he's worked in government for essentially his entire adult life, that's the definition of eating at the public trough. When he campaigns he talks about all that is wrong with the country, for the last 42 years, he's been one of the dudes creating that. He's in Germany right now shoveling that crap. I've never used the term "alternative facts", I'm not sure how you perceive anything I've typed as "alternative facts". You keep bringing up my bias, R's, D's, they're two sides of the same coin. 

Look I get it, Biden's your guy, my only point in all of this is it really seems odd to me that he's an anomaly when it comes to career politicians and their finances. I had a local rep that did two stints short stints and fared much better financially. He was taken very good care of following the Obamacare vote based on the fact that everyone knew a Yea vote meant the end of his time as District 9 rep. 

 

I obviously own them and have worn the cufflinks and your effort to make some sort of weak personal jab at my "coolness" is cute.  Waste of time.

Never said Biden's "my guy". Another conjecture by you trying to mask your biased attack on the fella.  Look, I get it, you don't like to be called on your biases.  Not the end of the world.

[Impartial_Observer]

3 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

I obviously own them and have worn the cufflinks and your effort to make some sort of weak personal jab at my "coolness" is cute.  Waste of time.

Never said Biden's "my guy". Another conjecture by you trying to mask your biased attack on the fella.  Look, I get it, you don't like to be called on your biases.  Not the end of the world.

 

[Muda69]

Bernie Already Won. So Why Run Again?: http://reason.com/archives/2019/02/21/bernie-already-won-so-why-run-again

Quote

Is there another outsider who yanked an unwilling political party further in his or her ideological direction in a shorter period of time than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)? I mean, other than Donald Trump.

Back when he was polling in single digits at the outset of the 2016 presidential primary, Sanders and his position of being against every single international trade agreement since World War II on the inaccurate grounds that they facilitate a "race to the bottom" were still considered outliers within the Democratic Party. By October 2015 his unlikely polling surge helped persuade consensus front-runner Hillary Clinton to downgrade her opinion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership from "gold standard" to junk.

Where are the Democrats now? "It's a pretty safe bet that no candidate is going to campaign as a free trader in the 2020 Democratic primary, setting up the potential for a large-scale realignment on a major policy issue for the party," Voxconcluded this week.

 

Advantage Bernie, if not necessarily the country.

What about Sanders' radical campaign agenda item of providing free college tuition? Two years later, Inside Higher Edreported, "Free college goes mainstream." His $15 federal minimum wage — originally opposed then later adopted by Clinton, despite being warned against doing so by the same liberal economist whose research is most often cited by proponents — was introduced in a House bill just last month.

Back when the 2016 primary was at its testiest, Clinton's favorite critique of the senator's proposals, particularly his "Medicare for all" plan, was that "the numbers just don't add up." This year? Good luck finding a Democratic candidate who doesn't back Medicare for all, at least as a feel-good slogan.

Maybe it took the election of an honest-to-God fabulist as president, but Democrats not named Amy Klobuchar seem to be divorcing themselves from any sense of real-world constraints on their apparently boundless aspirations. "Now it is time to complete that revolution," Sanders told his supporters Tuesday as he announced another shot at the presidency. The word choice wasn't accidental.

In addition to single-payer healthcare, free tuition and the $15 minimum wage, Sanders "will also tout proposals to mandate breaking up the biggest Wall Street banks; lower drug prices through aggressive government intervention; new labor laws to encourage union formation; curbed corporate spending on elections; paid family and medical leave; gender pay equity; and expanded Social Security benefits," the Washington Post reported. And don't forget the Green New Deal!

The real story here is not that Sanders is cranking his Spotify playlist of progressive greatest hits (including stuff I actually like, such as legalizing marijuana, reducing cash bail and adopting a more restrained foreign policy). It's that the rest of the 2020 Democratic field is already with him on most of the economic and budgetary issues that drive his fans wild with happiness and me to drink.

Which suggests the question: Why run, at age 77, when you've already won?

Maybe Sanders wants to prove to himself that the revolution he helped start is real enough to be enacted into society-altering legislative change. Here, despite the persuasive successes listed above, I suspect Bernie and his supporters may again end up tasting bitter disappointment.

Despite the breakout success of such oxygen-gobbling, Sanders-influenced stars as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), it is moderate Democrats, not progressives, who have repainted the House of Representatives blue. The national political media may love telegenic coastal lefties, but the policymaking future of the party probably lies closer to the unorthodox centrism of purple-state nonconformists such as Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

And the track record of big progressive policy ideas colliding with reality is just not great — even in the late stages of a long economic expansion.

Bernie's home state of Vermont passed single-payer healthcare, only to scrap it when the price tag became clearer. Maryland enacted a "millionaires tax" more than a decade ago only to discover that rich people can afford to move. And Californians can testify about the gaps between progressive dreams and on-the-ground costs when it comes to the Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez vision of high-speed rail.

It's possible that these are just growing pains for the revolutionary wing of the Democrats. Maybe there are solid national majorities that will back the kind of economic policies popular in Los Angeles, Seattle and New York. But there's an alternative theory worth considering.

Bernie Sanders, who has been Bernie Sanders almost forever, only became a national phenomenon after emerging as the last real candidate standing against Hillary Clinton, a comparatively inauthentic machine politician who tried valiantly to make her nomination look preordained. Americans don't take kindly to coronations, and many of the Democrats I know who flocked to Sanders did so not because they agreed with him on everything he said, but because he meant it at least.

In a campaign with just two choices, ideology can be overrated, even overlooked. But Democrats are now hurtling toward 2020 with a dozen declared candidates, half of whom agree with Sanders on economics. It's going to take more than a bag full of trillion-dollar promises to make Sanders the "at least I mean it" candidate this time.

 

[Muda69]

[gonzoron]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I hope the Bernie Sanders knock the door down event is on Pay-per-view. And available for offline betting.

[Irishman]

I could not pass this one up. The resemblance is scary 🤣