Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Mr. Smith]

Can a Bernie supporter please explain the federal jobs guarantee to me? It sounds like a genuinely awful proposal.

No job? Job sucks? You can get a job with the federal government for $15/hour with healthcare benefits. Not sure what other details you're looking for.

What will I be doing at this job? Is it a worthy investment of taxpayer dollars? What skills are required? Why would anyone continue to work for under $15 anywhere else if they can just work for the government and make that amount? Where will these jobs be located? What if I don't like my new government job?

1. Who knows. There'll probably be lots of options, just as there are lots of types of federal jobs now.

2. Why wouldn't it be? It's people being employed, that's money being circulated back into the economy. Oh, wait you're one of those "supply-side" people aren't you?

3. Some people just hate gummint that much..

4. See 1. But I imagine wherever infrastructure needs serious upgrades would be a good start.

5. What, you can't just quit like any other job?

[Mr. Smith]

Can a Bernie supporter please explain the federal jobs guarantee to me? It sounds like a genuinely awful proposal.

No job? Job sucks? You can get a job with the federal government for $15/hour with healthcare benefits. Not sure what other details you're looking for.

What will I be doing at this job? Is it a worthy investment of taxpayer dollars? What skills are required? Why would anyone continue to work for under $15 anywhere else if they can just work for the government and make that amount? Where will these jobs be located? What if I don't like my new government job?

1. Who knows. There'll probably be lots of options, just as there are lots of types of federal jobs now.

2. Why wouldn't it be? It's people being employed, that's money being circulated back into the economy. Oh, wait you're one of those "supply-side" people aren't you?

3. Some people just hate gummint that much..

4. See 1. But I imagine wherever infrastructure needs serious upgrades would be a good start.

5. What, you can't just quit like any other job?

1) If we're mostly talking about infrastructure jobs, that doesn't do much for unemployed women, who are generally not very well-represented in the construction labor pool. I suppose there'd be a lot of clerical work opening up too. But a huge portion of mandatory spending in recent years has been on government pensions. Are we seriously going to add another enormous amount of debt to that expense just so we can say we have "full" employment?

2) Most current government jobs aren't a worthy investment of taxpayer dollars, and that's what things look like when the goal is to run the bureaucracy at least semi-efficiently. What happens when the goal suddenly becomes "Hire as many people as you can?" What's to stop the government from hiring four people (and paying their pensions) to do work that just one person could do on their own?

"The money will be circulated back" is meaningless. That has nothing to do with my question.

3) Really? So all the Mexican farm laborers working off-the-books down in the Central Valley will stay on the farms when they find out about this jobs guarantee, just because they "hate the government?" Yeah, that sounds plausible. What will actually happen is that every single undocumented immigrant working under the table will immediately apply for a job with the government.

4) See 1 again. But you also didn't answer my question of what kinds of skills will be required.

5) Okay, so you quit your guaranteed government job. Can you then re-apply for a different job? How much of a say do I have, as an applicant, in the type of job I'm going to get? Is it assigned to me or can I go around applying to different government jobs, do them poorly, get fired, and then re-apply for another one? Wait... can I even get fired if it's a guarantee?

1. Firstly, then this could be a good start to start promoting women on that side of the pool...if that's what someone wants to do. Secondly, who says it's all infrastructure. It's like sjoyce said, there're so many places where there could be jobs, especially with The Green New Deal.

2. Except that it isn't, increased purchasing power from the lowest rungs is per se about as good an investment of taxpayer dollars you can get. You get a lot more trading going on when you have more people being able to spend, you get much more infrastructure built too, and finally...fewer bills pile up too.

3. Not so much them [though I'm sure there might be some more conservative ones thinking like that], so much as the coal miners of West Virginia, the timber workers of Eastern Oregon, the oil workers in West Texas or Montana, and most Big Business workers...these are the types trained to distrust government to the hilt. They won't go for it because the Carol Millers and Trumps and Jim Justices will play to their fears to keep them from trying.

4. Because there're so many options and places, which could mean many skills,....I mean who seriously imagined in their Roarin' 20's minds imagined The Tennessee Valley Authority or the work that made CA-1 so iconic from Big Sur to Santa Barbara?

5. sjoyce already covered this one, I see no point in re-litigating that one

[Mr. Smith]

This "once in a lifetime candidate" talking point is nonsense. Bernie will get nothing done as President. His plan to combat Republican obstruction by holding anti-McConnell rallies in KY is the most embarrassing thing I've ever heard.

When you read Bernie's legislation, it's all "tell so and so secretary to do this", "instruct so and so agency to do that", etc.

There's no detail, no real plan, just "here's what I want to do, now go figure out a way to make it happen."

You see this in his public appearances as well.  Remember the NYDN interview?  Bernie doesn't actually understand the details of what he wants to change, nor does he comprehend what the consequences of his actions would be.

His fifty years of "fighting for us" amounts to a well-refined populist wish list that has zero depth beyond the slogans.  It sounds good, and it gets him elected and rakes in cash.

But if he were ever to become president, and miraculously have the ability to achieve his goals, he'd be like the dog who finally catches the car.  No idea what to actually do with it.

That's why he doesn't have any actual plan for fighting Republicans, or for paying for his schemes.  That's why he doesn't care what economists, doctors, statesmen, and other experts say about his plans.  What's the point?  They're not real plans.  He has no intention of actually enacting them.

FDR's New Deal was also very vague, and Hoover said similar things, and yet we're still talking about it.

Reaganomics were laughed off for similar reasons...now the whole system is run by the dogma of supply-side-stupidity

All it takes is enough syncopancy to turn out, flip the chambers against any opposition, and instructions of the sort fit perfectly, and then there will be enough people to get the tasks done.

Either way, it's still more than just expecting the GOP to bend over because they lost.

[Mr. Smith]

The fact that people are abandoning FDR type, once in a 100 year candidate like Bernie for a fraud like Warren shows they were never progressives.

Anyways, now that many of the Bernie progressives have turned neoliberals, in honour to remind what a historic candidate they once supported. I would like to highlight to letters from decades back one Bernand Sanders wrote -

Mate, FDR was the fraud to Huey Long...himself the once in 50 years candidate to William Jennings Bryan.

100 years later and The New Deal still holds water.

[Mr. Smith]

Sanders doubling his paid campaign staff in California:

https://fortune.com/2019/11/13/bernie-sanders-california-campaign-upping-its-game-ahead-of-super-tuesday-march-3/

He has also jumped into second place in a Capitol Weekly poll of the state, 6 points behind Warren.

If he won California, it would certainly be good for him since it might cancel out Biden winning a lot of Southern States that are also on Super Tuesday. I feel that winning California, Minnesota, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine would be a great day for Bernie.

The problem is that if it's a narrow win for Bernie in California, we might not find out about that until April.

Just a hunch, but Bernie seems like one of the candidates who would lose ground after mail-ins came in, not gain.

How so? The mail-in/absentee ballots tend to be more liberal than the election day vote, not less.

[Mr. Smith]

What you guys aren’t getting is that tweet is highlighting how ignorant of history that tweet is . Civil rights was an issue FDR was pretty bad at , and the idea he was anti war is just hillarious in every way possible

He was by far the best of any of them since the other Roosevelt on the issue, maybe even Benjamin Harrison.

He looks terrible now, but that's really more a statement to how, like most other issues we know of, really altered with WWII.

[Mr. Smith]

Bernie Sanders is breaking barriers with young Latinos. Now he just needs them to vote

As this coming year's nominating contest swirls into view, Sanders, the resilient democratic socialist from Vermont, will be counting on the support of Latinos, a kaleidoscopically diverse voting bloc that could swing races in states like California, Nevada, Florida and even Iowa, to help him -- and the progressive movement he stoked four years ago -- deliver the "political revolution" his supporters, staffers and volunteers have worked for so long to realize. In interviews with leading Democratic Latino strategists, pollsters, activists and Sanders' highest-profile backer, Ocasio-Cortez, a common thread emerged: Sanders, bolstered by notable early investments in Latino outreach and underscored by more nuanced messaging than typically directed at this diverse community, has created a growing sense that he might not only win with the community in states like Nevada and California, but chart out a new path for how Democrats seek and earn Latino support.

Still, many of the same observers warned that the Sanders campaign's ambitions are staked on a strategy that demands a break from historical convention -- drawing out young voters. The median age for Latinos in the US today is only about 28 years old, which offers the campaign some reason for optimism. The Sanders campaign offers "a case study in how strategic, continued, ongoing investment in a community can pay off," said Stephanie Valencia, co-founder of Equis Labs and Obama's deputy Latino vote director in 2008. "And I think one of the things we have come to learn is that there are certain elements within the Latino community who are primed to support Democrats and progressives, but aren't just going to turnout because it's an election. They need a nudge to the polls."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/08/politics/bernie-sanders-young-latino-voters/index.html

It'd be very intriguing to see if such a coalition could circumvent The South altogether, which is allegedly tanked for Biden.

[Mr. Smith]

Answer: It was a concerted effort to halt a progressive from attaining a leadership position.

Tom Perez was considered something of a progressive hero too, up until the moment he dared to challenge Ellison.
Supporting Sanders and his minions isn't the be-all end-all of progressivism.

Then why does he challenge Ellison at Obama's request?

Are you saying that Ellison was entitled to be DNC chair? Otherwise, this question might as well be why did Ellison run for DNC chair.

Ok, so tell me whenever did Bill Clinton specifically tap someone to challenge Fast Terry...or was Fast Terry the challenger?

Who challenged Howard Dean or Tim Kaine? What opposition was thrown out at DWS again?

Gee, I guess the answer is yes.

[Mr. Smith]

Answer: It was a concerted effort to halt a progressive from attaining a leadership position.

Tom Perez was considered something of a progressive hero too, up until the moment he dared to challenge Ellison.
Supporting Sanders and his minions isn't the be-all end-all of progressivism.

Then why does he challenge Ellison at Obama's request?

Are you saying that Ellison was entitled to be DNC chair? Otherwise, this question might as well be why did Ellison run for DNC chair.

Ok, so tell me whenever did Bill Clinton specifically tap someone to challenge Fast Terry...or was Fast Terry the challenger?

Who challenged Howard Dean or Tim Kaine? What opposition was thrown out at DWS again?

Gee, I guess the answer is yes.

The fact that previous elections were not contested is completely irrelevant. Is whoever declares first entitled to be chair? What if Perez had announced before Ellison?

Yes it is. It tells us something about what the role means and the general attitude of the party apparatus. And if Ellison had announced later than Perez, you can no doubt guess how the media would frame it...and I personally would call it a waste, wondering why not stay on in The House and run for Senate at some point.

[Mr. Smith]

Sanders said he will enact national drinking water standards

...

Sanders, a Vermont senator, said instead of spending millions on lawsuits to gut clean water rules, such companies should be paying to clean up contamination. He said as president, he will create national clean water standards for PFAS and other chemicals in an effort to guarantee clean drinking water “as a human right.”

Do people really think we don't already have standards for our drinking water

Not for PFAS, as reported in this article.

The article says Sanders wants to raise the standard from 70 ppt to 15 ppt.

So there is already a standard, Sanders just doesn't think it's strict enough.

And he's not wrong in the slightest.

[Mr. Smith]

Bernie needs to take the gloves off run some negative ads for once. Hammer Joe on wanting to cut Social Security, voting for Iraq. The only way to beat Biden is by driving up his negatives with attack ads.

And how well did that work for trying that on Trump in 2015-6? Hell, how did that work out for Harris [granted, I hardly consider that the primary reason things didn't work out...but still] or Castro?

[Mr. Smith]

Bernie needs to take the gloves off run some negative ads for once. Hammer Joe on wanting to cut Social Security, voting for Iraq. The only way to beat Biden is by driving up his negatives with attack ads.

And how well did that work for trying that on Trump in 2015-6? Hell, how did that work out for Harris [granted, I hardly consider that the primary reason things didn't work out...but still] or Castro?

Because Harris/Castro's hit Biden on dumb stuff, busing & his memory. Hitting Biden on Social Security would resonate since most of his base is over 65 and its always been a third rail issue. Put this clip in a 30 sec ad and it'll leave much more of a mark than busing.

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1212833258863415296

Or Biden walks it back and the over-65s are none the wiser at best, overly forgiving at worst, just like every time Trump was called out over something or another.

[Mr. Smith]

Love to see the liberals running scared; whenever Sanders does well they always pile into this thread. Tremendous!

The liberals are the enemy now? It used to just be the centrists, establishment, moderates, and neoliberals; but now even regular liberals aren't pure enough?

I'm sorry to be pedantic here, but pick a different word.

A good chunk of AOTA here seem to be identifying themselves as liberal, while doing pathetically little to live up the very moniker.

It's really no surprise then those who were proud liberals even as the GOP worked overnight in the '80's to Order 66 the whole idea would be disgusted by the idea of these chickens would hijack the term.

Liberals increasingly is what Moderate/Centrist were back then, all because now, and rightly so might I add, Moderation and Centrism are seen negatively. So where does that leave the ones who stood by during the ideological purge? No wonder Socialism, Social Democracy, and Progressive are the keywords now!

Oh, and that's without the European/Aussie senses of the word coming into play.

[Mr. Smith]

Worth pointing out that at this moment it feels like Sanders has his best chance at being the nominee both this cycle and for the 2016 cycle. Biden is still barely the frontrunner, but Sanders being the Democratic nominee is a stronger possibility every day.

If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire watch the party elite absolutely melt down.

I doubt that. Biden's southern wall is looking pretty sturdy.

Indeed, the real test lies in The West.

Which is stronger Bernie's Western Wall, or Biden's Solid South?

[Mr. Smith]

What a terrible move, part of the reason I was so reluctant to have him as my first choice...it's just too bad the other campaigns have managed to be worse or [like Ojeda], going nowhere.

[Mr. Smith]

I'm not going to go in on Rogan and the perceived controversies surrounding him, but I will agree that it is kind of odd for Sanders to be touting Rogan's endorsement as if he is some kind of hero. He's an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less.

An entertainer with a lot of crossover appeal, which pretty useful when your opposition is trying to stamp you in as communist or "out-of-touch".

[Mr. Smith]

Someone from Bernie Sanders' campaign texts me at least once a week addressing me as Ken, lol.

At least they got your gender/sex correct.

[Mr. Smith]

Lol yeah this ad screams Akin.

Showing Sanders smiling face next to FDR with the slogan "too progressive"?  LOL come on club for growth.

Sanders supporters should really ask themselves why the right is so eager to face their candidate that right-wing PACs are spending real money to run ads helping him.

The Right originally was trying to help Obama over the line in 2008 to sabotage Hillary, and literally didn't change their tune until Obama took a yuge lead and proved unflappable...then they wanted Hillary.

Trump had a coven of leftist support because he was supposed to be the easiest for Hillary to beat.

Oh, and the ultimate sick joke of them all: Reagan was supposed to be the easiest to beat in 1980, certainly not someone who'd take 80% of the states on the map.

Basically: Careful what you wish for...not all these tactics are some kind of genius 1972 ratf^&king.

[Mr. Smith]

I am tired of Bernie's same 'ol same 'ol. He's old and boring, and he doesn't appeal to a wide swath of voters.

That socialism thing is a deal killer for most of America, in my view.

Didn't kill Obama. Nor did racism Trump.

You're smarter than this.

[Mr. Smith]

If Sanders get's the nomination, he will do more to get Trump re-elected than Trump.

I just don't see it. How does he raise money from paycheck to paycheck socialists.

It's like buying an expensive house when you have no money.

The Democratic Primary process is the first part where you are driving around a wealthy neighbourhood looking at real estate and establishing your dream house in your mind, and enjoying the process.

The 2020 Presidential Election is the second part where you are sitting in the bank quietly whilst the bank manager says you cannot afford it.

On Election Day, the 'purchase' decision is made based on the actual reality vs the ideal reality, and Pete and Amy are offering a neighbourhood that is more affordable on the US taxpayer.

I know people want the 'Bernie Ideal' and I do agree with free higher education and free healthcare as a principle.

But it needs to be introduced slowly.

You can't introduce things slowly when the other side is going all out to throw even that out. It doesn't work.

Trump didn't win by asking for self-deportation, he went for a wall!

And how well did incrementally ending Iraq do in 2004 for Kerry?