The Democratic Candidates

mrussel1

Kat not Kate

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

OnWis97 said:

I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.

Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

He was already on her list.

There was someone named Free here back in the Bernie days.  I received a warning or two over my interactions. I never called him a name or anything,  just being me. Kate was very fair and I knew I was walking a line. 

Yeah, I got some kind of warning once or twice myself - Kat is nice about it (until she's not, ha!).

oftenreading

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

OnWis97 said:

I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.

Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

He was already on her list.

There was someone named Free here back in the Bernie days.  I received a warning or two over my interactions. I never called him a name or anything,  just being me. Kate was very fair and I knew I was walking a line. 

Walking a line 

Divide and dissolve 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nVZA5X8Rg


Edit: NOT a dig at anyone, just a line I like ...

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

At the time they had "binders full of strategies " to maximize their voter turnout.  And at the time prevailing thought was things like blue walls existed which meant the electoral college was rigged in their favor even though they had recently suffered a popular victory electoral defeat. 

Then Vlad got involved and the rest is history. 

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
 

benjs

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
 

I agree with everything except Go Joe Go. I'm still undecided on that one.

Lerxst1992

Jason P said:

I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 

The DNC spent millions on sleeper agents with access to military assets impersonating democratic campaigners to help get Hillary elected?

benjs

Lerxst1992 said:

Jason P said:

I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 

The DNC spent millions on sleeper agents with access to military assets impersonating democratic campaigners to help get Hillary elected?

Jason said 'influence', not 'cost', and I tend to agree with him, though no one will ever know the impact of one versus the other. 

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Jason P said:

I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 

The DNC spent millions on sleeper agents with access to military assets impersonating democratic campaigners to help get Hillary elected?

trillions, all culled from the masses of small donor dollars.  

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
 

Agreed as well.  Obama paid a pretty heavy political price and it hobbled his presidency for any real change after that.  People say "what did Obama do", well he did a ton in the first term, particularly the first two years (Stimulus, Card Act, Dodd Frank).  After that, he couldn't get much done, but it was the sacrifice of healthcare.  And every  year it's in place, it becomes more sacrosanct, more untouchable.  That will be his legacy.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
 

Agreed as well.  Obama paid a pretty heavy political price and it hobbled his presidency for any real change after that.  People say "what did Obama do", well he did a ton in the first term, particularly the first two years (Stimulus, Card Act, Dodd Frank).  After that, he couldn't get much done, but it was the sacrifice of healthcare.  And every  year it's in place, it becomes more sacrosanct, more untouchable.  That will be his legacy.  

It is still unfathomable to me that with all the repub pissing and moaning about it and campaigning on replacing it with something better, more beautiful and cheaper, that after 11 years they’ve done zero, zilch, nada. Could have been heroes and cemented congress for at least 3 more election cycles. Brilliant.
 

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.  

I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters

Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  

True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
 

Agreed as well.  Obama paid a pretty heavy political price and it hobbled his presidency for any real change after that.  People say "what did Obama do", well he did a ton in the first term, particularly the first two years (Stimulus, Card Act, Dodd Frank).  After that, he couldn't get much done, but it was the sacrifice of healthcare.  And every  year it's in place, it becomes more sacrosanct, more untouchable.  That will be his legacy.  

It is still unfathomable to me that with all the repub pissing and moaning about it and campaigning on replacing it with something better, more beautiful and cheaper, that after 11 years they’ve done zero, zilch, nada. Could have been heroes and cemented congress for at least 3 more election cycles. Brilliant.
 

If I was a cynical man, I might be inclined to think that Trump lied to me about repealing it day one with something beautiful and dirt cheap.  But I hate to be like that.  

Ledbetterman10

This is hilarious...

https://youtu.be/-oxfzabpTWY

josevolution

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1126611783114838016?s=21
He seems like a good human I’ll have give him a serious look ..

Halifax2TheMax

My nickname for Biden is Country Joe and the Fish. At least that’s what I hear in my head when I hear any reference to him.

HughFreakingDillon

Sloppy Joe for me. I don't care if it's negative. It's awesome! he needs his face on a can! 

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

Sloppy Joe for me. I don't care if it's negative. It's awesome! he needs his face on a can! 

He's more likely to get his face sniffing someone's can.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Sloppy Joe for me. I don't care if it's negative. It's awesome! he needs his face on a can! 

He's more likely to get his face sniffing someone's can.

LOL