he has already moved left of Obama. It is inevitable. Times have changed and people are ready for a more progressive agenda. Hillary also moved left in 2016. It is what Democratic voters want.

Plans for the country. He needs to stick with the values he has had all his life.

In record numbers.

or stay where it is?

nt

I would guess not given your avatar.

Bryant

move left. He can just picks some of the most popular progressive policies to adopt. Legal weed and guaranteed paid family leave for everyone are easy first steps right now.

Joe clearly appeals to the majority of Democrats and left-leaning Independents as he is now, and he leads Trump in approval ratings, swing states, and pretty much everything relevant to November. Why should he change? Besides, voters see through that.

The time to set the agenda is after one wins the race. Can't set the agenda if we don't win first. If we want Joe to sign progressive legislation, get him a solid Congress that will place that legislation on his desk.

Would be foolish to tinker with what is working.

And how we win in November.

Joe is decisively beating Sanders pretty much everywhere because of who he is. The same is true with regard to why he's leading Trump in approval, swing states, and everything related to November.

I am left of Joe, but I don't want a candidate who blows in the wind and won't fight for what he believes in.

For the record, I think Joe will get more accomplished than Bernie could have for liberal policies, I think him fighting from his position makes progress more likely.

...and as a trusted one with an eight year record of service as VP he is clearly to the left of those running our government now.

Please, for the sake of not being where we presently are, can we just focus on building a coalition to wipe the rot out of our current plague (maladministration)?

Nothing else can happen if we lose our country.

In the end, we MUST unite behind either Bernie or Joe, if we are to have any hope in defeating the Fascist-in-Chief!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

That subset of Sanders supporters were never going to vote for Biden, regardless.

(Not in response to anything you specifically said.)


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2020, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

doctored videos of Biden?

It is about if you are happy with DT or not.
It is about if you want a future or not.
This is our last shot at saving our country.

Bernie has a less than 1% chance according to 538, less enthusiasm from his base than in 2016, a recent heart attack, and a pandemic to face.
The fat lady is belting out her encore.

Besides, another couple weeks won't hurt anything... we're still in MARCH!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

will lose five badly... the other two, Sanders will also lose but not as badly...he is done and should concede. The math is the math.

M4A is not a "left" thing, it is progressive because a bigger push than to wish it is needed, same as "Free Education".

My husband has Medicare and uses a part B provider. I have coverage through the ACA. Our income is in the range of where we receive a generous subsidy. It makes the monthly cost of my coverage about the same as his part B amount. My max out of pocket is about $800, so I'm basically getting everything -- prescriptions, etc. -- for no copays. He, on the other hand, has to pay facility fees for surgery centers (he is having cataract surgery, and will end up paying about $800 per eye under medicare).

If I were to have the same surgery, since I've met my max out of pocket, it would cost me $0.

It's true that insurance is too expensive for people over a certain income, and deductibles are ridiculous. There are people in conservative states who are being deprived of medicaid coverage because they didn't expand the program.

Building on the ACA could lead to a better Medicare. The public option, which Biden endorses, will be closer to Bernie's vision for Medicare for All than traditional Medicare is today. The public option will be a single-payer option.

I think, if they have an intelligent, nuanced discussion, that Sanders and Biden can accomplish the same goals by building on the ACA as a platform.

given the deep hole the Gameshow-Host-in-Chief has dug for our country!! It feels like we're over a cliff... the only uncertainty is when do we go splat!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

That's why I think the ACA may be the way to get there that's closer to Bernie's vision. I could be wrong, but we're both on the same side I think with viewing healthcare as a human right.

with nothing but a little oxygen in Italy as they suffocate or the coming rationing plan out of the UK. We can do better. We can use a public option to immediately improve the ACA and reinstate premium support...and then obtain universal coverage.

It's up to voters to put a Dem House majority, and a Dem Senate super-majority in place. Let them work out how to improve, bolster, replace, existing healthcare approaches. If it's an improvement, and both houses pass it, I'd bet Joe would sign. He might want some clue as to how it's paid for, but I'd bet most plans could be paid for within the current medical/industrial complex of spending.

A BS approach (by which I mean Sen Sanders) should address everyone, and address private insurance, veterans administration, medicare and supplementals, medicaid, executive and union "cadillac" plans, TriCare, etc, etc. It's a big job. I hope we can get there, but I'm more of an "incrementalist" (or, in some views, "chicken&quot .

And while Bernie has been trying to make him out as a traitor to the proletariat and a corrupt tool of the capitalist oligarchy or some such watered-down '60s Marxist claptrap, in point of fact Biden is solidly liberal and not a "centrist," whatever that even means. Most Democrats, with the exception of some young, mostly non-voting "voters," don't seem to be buying what Bernie is selling, so why should he change his message just so he doesn't get booed by the bros at the convention?

For example, Biden, like all the other candidates, supports universal health care. But universal health care isn't necessarily Medicare for All; it can be any arrangement by which everyone has access to good, affordable health care. Everyone wants that, but there's a cost no matter how it's done, and Bernie has never explained how his version can be paid for. With a 60% top tax rate as in Denmark? That won't fly here, but that's what it costs there. Are Bernie and his supporters going to go to the convention and hold their breath until they turn blue in order to get the party to include M4A in its platform when nobody has been able to explain how to pay for it (Warren came closer but even her numbers have been questioned)?

Two men, no crowds, discussing where we need as the left/Democrats to go from here. This is GOOD people.

My fundamental point is that there are things that Joe can do to harness BS's movement. I'm not smart enough to know what they are, but I would much rather we find some areas together.

I agree that my man Joe is the right person at the right time. But are there meaningful things he can do?

The goals are similar, the methods are where the differences reside. The differences between the two are often overblown by Sanders and his supporters, because that's his thing - he stands alone as the solution to everything and alternatives aren't acceptable. That's a silly assertion, of course, but it makes it appear there's a huge chasm between the two when there simply isn't.

Since you mentioned M4A, I'll use it as an example. Biden believes that we should move toward universal health care, including a public option. While the end result isn't the same as M4A, it's much more realistic, much more likely to be implemented, and much less likely to disrupt the whole system for a time.

Sanders supporters insist that it's all or nothing, and even Sanders has said that Biden wants to return 80 million people to uninsured/underinsured, which is complete nonsense.

There's really finding middle ground when one side of the equation is intractable and uses rhetoric that is clearly false.

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

Short answer NO, do you really think losing all of the country except for the coasts is a good idea?

fix all trump and gop has broken. That will take time even with a democratic senate and house

to get some consensus between them. It can’t just be either/or. If Bernie wants to beat Trump, he needs to meet with Joe and hammer out some connective campaign issues to unite the Party.

But Medicare Public Option is about as far left as he can on healthcare.

College loan forgiveness? Yes.
Free 4-year degrees from community colleges? Yes.
Climate change? Yes.
Election reform? Yes.
Money is politics? Yes.
Return to Clinton tax rates? Yes.

Lots of common ground and space to move left. But there are limits to that movement. Or we will lose.

College Loan Forgiveness & only half of the "Free 4 years of Community Colleges", although most community colleges only have two-year degrees.

I don't know that he ever said "four year", that is a bachelor's degree, I think Joe stopped at "two-year" degrees.

This is right from his website:

"Vice President Biden proposed to make two years of community college tuition-free for hard-working students."

The difference with Sanders is that ALL EDUCATION, not private, will be FREE, the way if should be.

And to me, this is troubling (from his website as well):
And, students who do want a bachelor’s degree could then transfer to a four-year school, including to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions that play vital roles in their communities.

It doesn't seem, from that statement that it is a universal coverage? Only "Minority-Serving"???

I pretty much trust his judgement and ability to keep an open mind.

right now U.S. electorate wants sanity and moderation.

Sanity will remain, and in future years the populace may agree left is better (to some extent,) but not now.

No other choice if he wants Bernie voters’ support.

the Democratic “establishment”?

My initial response would be NO! But I am willing to hear your definition.

Medicare for all? NO! At least, not now. The main reason why Biden is ahead, the main reason why we have not heard about this form Harris, Booker and Warren was because it cannot win votes.

We flipped the house by moderates. By promoting the ACA. Biden ran on improving the ACA. Let him.

And, frankly, for the second time Sanders got close on destroying the party. Perhaps he, and his supporters still want to.

Let Sanders and his "revolutionaries" form their own party. Or, let them come to us, in the middle to work together.

Under no circumstances, in my opinion, should Biden cower to them. This will be a certain way to lose in November.

Time and again the same polls found that, once it is explained to them - elimination of private insurance, trillions of dollars - they do not support it.

AOC did not flip a Republican seat. She and her pals were elected from safe Democratic seats.

You do not consider blaming the "Democratic establishment" an attempt to destroy the party? Perhaps I should have added: the party as we know it that clearly is not what you prefer.

Yes, cowering. The majority does not want M4A, at least not now. Or were you asleep last Tuesday and yesterday?

Free healthcare with a little bit of a raise in taxes.

Instead of no healthcare with a bit of raise in taxes plus a bit of a raise in co-payment. plus a bit of a raise in premiums, pus a bit of a raise in medicines that don't cure and only hide the symptoms, plus a bit of less coverage...I mean, what is there to understand?

Please provide those polls that time and time again, after its explained to them, they back their support. The only way I can think of that happening is if republicans, or the insurance industry are doing the explaining, I don't see anything about M4A that would scare anyone.

Can you please provide those polls that "explain" to people what M4A means please? I would love to see them because I have never seen people doing polls explaining anything, if they do then the polls is irrelevant. Polls are supposed to 1) not have leading questions, 2) the people who conduct the polls are not allowed to explain anything to people, polls are supposed to find out what people think, not what people think after you have convinced them of what you want them to believe.

I would love to see the polls you talk about, which of course, are not polls.

Or even read more on these pages because it was posted several times.

Either way, Google is your friend, unless it is, like everything else Sanders says, is "corrupt." The catch all answer

Democratic Voters Don’t Actually Understand ‘Medicare For All,’ New Report Says

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/medicare-for-all-poll-democrats_n_5d08264de4b0886dd15db364

Two-thirds of Democratic voters think that people with employer coverage could hold on to their policies under Medicare for All, according to the Kaiser study, which used a nationally representative sample of more than 1,200 adults.

In reality, both the Sanders proposal and its House counterpart, from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), would prohibit the sale of private insurance that is “duplicative” of what the new government plan would offer.

That would effectively wipe out existing employer policies. Private insurers could still offer supplemental plans, but only to pay for extras, like cosmetic surgery and premium hospital rooms, that the government plan didn’t cover.

Veterans of past health care policy fights, including many sympathetic to Medicare for All in principle, have warned about this kind of disruption and its potential to alienate voters ― especially with Republicans and with advocacy groups that represent the health care industry already making a big issue out of it.

That is patently false. The vast majority of pickups were moderate Democrats in purple or right-leaning districts.

AOC didn't flip a seat. She kept a D seat in a very blue district.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-house-will-have-just-as-many-moderate-democrats-as-progressives-next-year/

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18071700/progressive-democrats-house-midterm-elections-2018

get the moderate voters he needs to defeat Trump. He can always move further left after he takes office and has a Democratic Congress to work with.

If it ain't broken? don't fix it.

Good one Arkansas Granny.

He already has the moderate coalition in line. He needs (hell, the party definitely needs) the younger voters. Are we just going to have two parties comprised mainly of elderly people, with a large swath of young left out in the cold? Joe has a solid record of conservative positions, he can afford to move left on a few policies to help motivate younger voters to turn out.

left.

We are now in the general election. We need joe to act like he is already potus, starting with naming his economic and hhs team.

to a majority of voters.

What policies are popular with the majority of voters.

Those policies and issues tend to be to the "left" of what Biden projects.

It certainly is possible for Biden to at least give lip service to theses things while still keeping his centrist credibility.

People always spoke of moving to the left in the primaries and into the center for the general election.

Although Sanders and others on his side claimed he has won the ideological battle, other than their declaring that, what makes it true?

I heard Sanders obnoxious end to his speech - where he essentially took essentially every Democratic issue - including ones that Biden and others have fought for their entire careers and positioned "Joe" as against them and demanding to know why.

In some ways, this is what I have seen on twitter. I have seen hundreds of people responding to Kerry's WWZero actions on climate change demanding to know - why, if he was for fighting climate change, he did not endorse Bernie. The fact is that Kerry, Gore, Markey and many others have tons more credibility on this issue. Though Kerry was clearly the essential negotiator to get the Paris Accords, Obama gave him the backing to do so and as teh US/China agreement was reached, many people in the Obama administration helped get the rest of the world on board - including the VP! As to Sanders, I can think of NOTHING he did on this issue in the Senate or the House - other than sign on to the Green New Deal.

Elizabeth Warren in her comments on Biden had a succinct defense against Sanders' nonsense. In addition to saying Joe Biden was a decent person, she said that their goals were in the same direction. All of the animosity sprouted by Sanders in that "Joe" part of the speech was that Biden would not commit to exactly what the "revolution" demanded - forgetting that Senator Sanders in 2010 said there were only 10 Senators for M$A. He KNOWS that even if he became President -- he could not get Congress to pass that!

Hillary adopted almost all Bernie's positions and it ended up hurting her with her coalition.

He is capturing voters we lost in 2016. It would crazy to change course now... irrespective of Sanders' threats.

I don't think that's a leftward move. It's more of an acknowledgement of Sanders' base and their hurts and needs.

Biden began this process in his Tuesday speech where he asked them to join us. I hope Sanders helps.

the loser. Perhaps if Sanders had moderated his message and moved to the center he might have been more successful. Now he's in no position to impose his purity tests on Joe.

The point is to capture as many people in the country as possible, not to alienate the majority while pandering to a minority.
Moving to the left is for primaries. Moderating is for the general. The primaries are now no longer in question, and the farther left proposals have shown to be losing. We are pretty much heading into general election territory right now.

The suggestion that Biden should now move to the left is entirely bad political advice, I hope not intentionally so.

You need to chill with that condescending tone.

The idea here is to get more voters to support Joe and the down ballot Ds.

It's just a question as to how we get more voters, like younger voters. The ones I know are still apathetic. Not getting the youth vote, for example, is a real problem. There are many things one could do to "move to the left" (e.g., make Elizabeth Warren the VP) that will consolidate, rather than fragment, the vote.

To reiterate, the issue here is getting as many votes as possible. Someone else suggested "empathy" with the progressive movement. Maybe that's a euphemism to "moving to the left".

When BS drops out and announces he supports Joe, I might agree that "we are pretty much heading into general election territory right now." That hasn't happened, and if Joe can unify the base of likely voters to include some folks who are apathetic, that is much more likely to be a vote for the Ds than a Trump supporter.

more people would have voted for Bernie instead of all the others. Don't you think?

He may have a more progressive VP, but he's not going to adopt the Sanders platform

sanders not dropping out may help Biden. sanders keeps on losing primaries by large margins nnly strenghten's Joe's position https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/11/no-surprise-bernie-sanders-is-still-all-about-himself-never-party/