HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bernin4U » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Oct 16, 2015, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 812

Journal Archives

Superdelegates should throw their vote to the most electable.

Seems to me, if superdelegates have any real purpose, it's to ensure that the candidate to win the party nomination is the one proven to be the most electable.

A candidate who doesn't energize voters in blue and purple states, who doesn't energize the largest voting bloc (independents), but does strongly energize the opposition, should be exactly the type of candidate to be overridden by the supers, no matter that said candidate managed to win the popular vote.

So, red states gonna decide this muthafukka?

Or is MI gonna pave the way for the big blues to finally get their say for a change?

Remember when DFA had that poll

...to determine which candidate to endorse, only if a supermajority could be achieved, and Bernie CRUSHED it, with a record-breaking 87%?

Then MoveOn did their own poll, and Bernie once again PWNED it with 78%?

Go ahead and support HRH if you must. If you're sold on her at this point, then trying to talk you out of it will be about as productive as trying to talk you out of your religion.

But do everyone a favor and give it a rest that she's, by any stretch of the imagination, the more informed choice.

Building the Yes We Can congress: Grayson and Canova

These two Berniebros need our support!

We all know Alan Grayson. Tim Canova is primary-ing our pal DWS. A couple articles by him:


Perhaps we need a running list of all the Berniebros (includes women, of course) who belong in the Yes We Can congress.

MoneyNuking Bernie = Sorry, nothing left for you, 3rd Way Dems!

Dunno bout you, but the Dem reps in my state (especially the ones who long ago threw in with you-know-who) are going to be hearing a lot of, "Sorry, I already gave all I could afford to where it mattered." Likely for quite a while.

The demographics of political revolution


Most of the article discusses about how millennials seem to understand what's going on. But too many of them are stopping short of showing up at the voting booth to make it happen.

Something that got my attention is this:

The Bernie Sanders coalition is not just young. It is also rather white. This raises another question: Why would young, college-attending or college-educated white people—historically among the winners of the American system—be so eager to replace it?

Indeed, several older commentators have expressed horror that young people would embrace a revolution to make the U.S. more like a northern European economy. David Brooks’ exasperation is representative. “It’s amazing that a large part of the millennial generation has rejected” the American consensus that free markets are the way “toward individualism, achievement and flexibility,” he wrote.

The idea that young white Americans should be less revolutionary because their demographic has historically thrived misses two factors. First, it fails to reckon with the last decade—the rise in student loans, the rise in youth unemployment, the fall in wage growth, and social unrest. Second, it doesn’t acknowledge that a long period of economic progress followed by a concentrated period of financial strain is precisely what creates the perfect conditions for upheaval.

James Chowning Davies, a 20th-century American sociologist, observed that if you look at the history of political revolutions, it’s not the poorest who start them, nor is it the richest. Instead, the conditions for revolution are ripest “when a prolonged period of economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal.” Indeed, if you look at the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, those whose felt the promise of hope felt the deepest indignation. Davies called it “the revolution of rising expectations."

Various economic demographics behave differently due to different psychologies. So those who stand the most to gain from big changes generally aren't the most likely to be the first ones pushing for it.

Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton

"I don't know," "We'd want to look into it," "We'll need to work on it." These are the kind of answers you don't want to hear from a job candidate, let alone a presidential candidate.

In his time, Bill Clinton could rock the microphone like nobody's business. He could sell ice to eskimos. One wonders how much of a contributor this was towards the contempt that the repubs held for him.

They tell me Hillary looks so presidential. Perhaps. But I wonder, do they watch her with the sound turned down? Or perhaps more likely, when she speaks they're somehow hearing 1990's Bill Clinton as much or more than her.

Man, if Hillary supporters were even a tenth as critical

...of their own candidate, as they are of the rumored supporters of the other candidate.

The Huerta video

Not sure if this is it? Issue seems to be that they're asking for someone neutral to do it.


"The instrument of thwarting history"

IFILL: Senator, do you worry at all that you will be the instrument of thwarting history, as Senator Clinton keeps claiming, that she might be the first woman president?

SANDERS: Well, you know, I think, from a historical point of view, somebody with my background, somebody with my views, somebody who has spent his entire life taking on the big money interests, I think a Sanders victory would be of some historical accomplishment, as well.

While Bernie's answer certainly wasn't wrong, this is one area where I wish he would have really gone off and rocked it.

Some historical accomplishment? No, Bernie, you're killing it. Shattering records for small donations. The only modern candidate to refuse SuperPACs. The only one to refuse any corporate money. Winning despite the playing field being 90% tilted against you. The first to show that America is more than Christianity. The only candidate to stand against NAFTA, IWR, DOMA, TPP, and KXL. The first to have family experience the Holocaust. Etc, etc.

F the first woman president. Women have been leaders around the world for centuries. Is their track record something we should be that proud of?

Let's have the first modern president who is 100% by, for, and of the people. Nothing more American than that.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »