Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 11, 2019

Bernie Sanders' army of fervent progressives will be up for grabs in 2020 even if the Vermont independent makes another bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders may find himself a victim of his own success in driving the party to the left with his 2016 run. The field of Democratic presidential hopefuls includes at least a half-dozen candidates who've adopted in whole or in part the platform that helped Sanders build a loyal following of young voters and liberals: Medicare for all, a $15 an hour minimum wage and debt-free college education.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sanders risks falling behind the Socialist youngn's unless he starts stating his positions on cow farts, eliminating air travel, and paying people unwilling to work.

#1 | Posted by Spork at 2019-02-11 08:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This headline would have been unfathomable one year ago.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:17 AM | Reply

Historically, fringe elements in parties tend to peak quickly then get swallowed up by late adopters and the electorate becoming wise to the fallacy or impracticability of their platform ideas.

The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, shortly after Obama's inauguration in 2009 it erupted (much like Progressivism did in 2016) and by early 2010 34% of Republicans identified as Tea Party. Similarly, as of January 2018 44% of Democrats identified as Progressives.

After crushing in the mid-terms, by mid 2011, however, Tea Party identification had slid to 18% and the latest polls show Progressive identification doing the same, down to 26%. Some of this is attributable to post election malaise, but studies have shown that voters became disillusioned when the promises made by the TP candidates never came to fruition.

By 2013 Tea Party identification was down to 10% and is now down to 4% in the GOP.

Bernie led the charge, but as more Proggies climb into the Klown Kar and make unsupported promises like the Green New Deal, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar trendline for Progressivism.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 11:54 AM | Reply

"Sanders risks getting 'out-progessived' by 2020 Dem lineup"

I think he'd be just fine with that. He's been waiting for it to happen for what, 30+ years?

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-11 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Of course the democratic primary will be very progressive.

But It it'll stop there. The winner will run back to the center. They have to in order to win electoral college

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- The winner will run back to the center. They have to in order to win electoral college

That's going to be hard to do with them all trying to be leftier than thou in the primary.

Voters in the Rust Belt said that Bernie had pushed Clinton just far enough left to make them uncomfortable with her, which threatened the under-educated white male Trump vote's majority status.

Then there is the Purist Theory that the farthest left will be able to beat God or anybody, because that's a reflection of their own position.

If only that were true. Maybe it will be; maybe the Trump Pendulum Swing will be that strong going back the other way.

Then we can thank Trump for his service.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-11 01:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#6

Congratulations, Corky, you have just won the Coveted Moment of Clarity Award (tm) for today!

Thanks for playing and keep up the good work!

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#7

I'm just glad you finally grokked one of my posts... you must have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. It won't last, though.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-11 02:05 PM | Reply

#8

Don't thank me, you were the one who finally made a cogent, substantive response on a thread.

Well done, I knew you ultimately had it in you!

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 04:55 PM | Reply

If AOC had floated an idea like Green New Deal it was only because of the vacuum created by 2 years of Trump with little mention of Infrastructure broad strokes. Reviving Reagan era Star Wars as Space Force is not infrastructure.
Opportunists like to take swipes at AOC with "radical" and "socialist" but they're not listening only talking. Some don't read these proposals and can only fill space with "whatever".

#10 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-02-11 05:03 PM | Reply

The Dems are gonna lose in 2020.

You heard it here first.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 05:06 PM | Reply

--Opportunists like to take swipes at AOC with "radical" and "socialist"

She calls herself a socialist. How can it be a "swipe?"

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-11 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Opportunists like to take swipes at AOC with "radical" and "socialist"

We prefer "naive", "uninformed" and "inexperienced". The third one time will fix. The other two are on her, and it's looking dim.

#13 | Posted by Spork at 2019-02-11 05:13 PM | Reply

The Dems are gonna lose in 2020.

You heard it here first.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-02-11 05:06 PM

It's a little early to be calling the race, but if they 1) keep veering left without a viable path to the middle during the general election and 2) keep playing the identity politics game, they will probably lose to Donnie Little Hands yet again.

The question then becomes, who do they blame it on next time?

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 05:30 PM | Reply

#14 Funny how you call him "Donnie Little Hands" but still willingly glued your lips to his orange ass.

#15 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Then there is the Purist Theory that the farthest left will be able to beat God or anybody, because that's a reflection of their own position.
If only that were true. Maybe it will be; maybe the Trump Pendulum Swing will be that strong going back the other way.

That's the critical point. Most progressive issues deemed "far left" would actually help middle class people, but Republicans are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year into rooting for billionaires.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#15

Feel free to find any post where I did that.

I would wait, but you can't.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 05:39 PM | Reply

#17 What's your angle here?

Are you so gullible that you're trying to convince yourself that you don't kiss trump's ass constantly?

You're clearly gullible enough to fall for the identity politics of the GOP.

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's the critical point. Most progressive issues deemed "far left" would actually help middle class people, but Republicans are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year into rooting for billionaires."

I remember one of the times that Nader ran, a poll showed that support for nearly every plank in his platform was over 60% when not associated with a particular candidate.

So basically our problem is our fetish for partisan competition more than our inability to know what's good for us.

#19 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-11 05:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

but Republicans are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year into rooting for billionaires.

That's a fair point, but the other side of that coin is that but Democrats are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year that they have their best interests at heart.

Time and again, when they figure out that is not true, they end up voting for someone like Trump.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 05:41 PM | Reply

#18

You have a problem with me linking to stories about politics on a political blog?

Or is your problem that those stories don't support your Narrative...

Funny that none of them are about Trump.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 05:43 PM | Reply

#21 Those are your comments. Just read them and you can see how you spend all day, every day kissing trump's ass and the GOP.

#22 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22

Once again, find one comment on that page where I am kissing "trumps ass."

Looks like someone has been skipping their Reading Comprehension Tutoring sessions again.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 05:46 PM | Reply

Do you really think everyone else is as forgetful as you're claiming to be now?

You've spent weeks defending racist MAGA hat wearers. That's called kissing trump's ass.

I guess you've just been doing it so long and so enthusiastically that you hardly even notice anymore.

#24 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 05:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

but the other side of that coin is that but Democrats are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year that they have their best interests at heart.

Things like M4A and free (for them) public college would objectively help most, if not all, people making $30,000/year. So your attempt to turn this around doesn't really work.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 06:02 PM | Reply

If AOC had floated an idea like Green New Deal it was only because of the vacuum created by 2 years of Trump with little mention of Infrastructure broad strokes.

#10 | POSTED BY LESWIT AT 2019-02-11 05:03 PM | FLAG: I'm pretty sure that obama took care of the infrastructure situation with the shovel ready jobs in his $831 billion stimulus spending ; )

#26 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-11 06:05 PM | Reply

You've spent weeks defending racist MAGA hat wearers. That's called kissing trump's ass.

No, I was defending kids who were getting death threats because of idiots who stampeded to the wrong conclusion after viewing a selectively edited video clip that fit their preconceived bias.

Like you.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 06:15 PM | Reply

#25

I'm not trying to turn anything around, I am talking about historical fact. Google Crossover Obama Voters, better yet, read this:

NYT: The Obama-Trump voters are real, here's what they think

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 06:18 PM | Reply

"Voters in the Rust Belt said that Bernie had pushed Clinton just far enough left to make them uncomfortable with her,"

It was easy to sell her as an extreme leftist even though she really wasn't. I agree Bernie pulled her more to the left than she wanted to go.

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-11 06:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Things like M4A and free (for them) public college would objectively help most, if not all, people making $30,000/year. So your attempt to turn this around doesn't really work."

You just listed two things the Democrats will never never never accomplish. IOW, You made his point for him

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-11 06:21 PM | Reply

#29

I agree with that as well, and that is why I posted, in response to JPW's post, that one of the reasons that they may lose is if they "keep veering left without a viable path to the middle during the general election."

I think they can pander to the Indys and Shreeks of their base as much as they need to, but they need a way to, as Bill Clinton so succinctly put it, "grab the middle" in order to beat Trump.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 06:22 PM | Reply

#28 Fact remains that progressive policies, when implemented without rightwing interference, help working class people and hurt billionaires. There is no economic reason to vote for a Republican if you aren't rich.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#32

"Fact remains"...isn't really a fact as much as a theory, and the Crossover Obama Voters got tired of waiting for that theory to become reality.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-11 06:39 PM | Reply

What i'm getting at is that Dems' problem is messaging, not policy. People are easily frightened by policies that would help them when Republicans successfully convince them to side with billionaires against their own self-interest. That is a messaging issue, not a policy issue.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 07:02 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

How convenient of you to completely ignore the very important "when implemented without rightwing interference" part of Joe's post.

You're a hack and a troll, RoC, but not very good at either.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 07:08 PM | Reply

The Dems problem is both policy and messaging, Joe.

You sound like a right winger talking about how blacks stay on the Democrat plantation.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 07:30 PM | Reply

It's a little early to be calling the race, but if they 1) keep veering left without a viable path to the middle during the general election and 2) keep playing the identity politics game, they will probably lose to Donnie Little Hands yet again.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter

It's a prediction, so there's a good chance it'll be wrong.

I just don't see a promising set of trends and the people who are currently the most vocal are going to be absolutely eviscerated with little to no effort in a general election.

I like Warren the best (for the people, strong advocate for liberal policies but without going waaaaaaay off the "free ---- for everybody!" end) but don't think she'll be able to surmount the stupid native American thing (which is absurd...).

I don't know enough yet about the woman from MN who declared, but the rest of the field seems to be people trying to springboard to a more prominent position and likely aren't serious candidates at this point. Almost as if they're doing the proverbial half hearted run just to test the waters and gain experience, a donor list, email list ect ect.

Hopefully there's a Dem somewhere in the mist who will emerge and be a little more sane than what's currently running.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 07:50 PM | Reply

What i'm getting at is that Dems' problem is messaging, not policy.

Mostly.

I think a lot of independents will be turned off by too much free stuff campaign promises.

They don't mind or even would support more moderate policies aimed at reducing student loan debt, college costs, raising taxes to prop up SS/Medicare/Medicaid and maybe even tax increases on upper brackets to reduce the debt.

But I don't think they'll support mass spending sprees with no clear plan to pay for them or no resolve to what's necessary to pay for them.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 07:53 PM | Reply

"You sound like a right winger talking about how blacks stay on the Democrat plantation."

Great news Joe, you've won over JeffJ's vote!

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 07:54 PM | Reply

There's no guarantee that any woman who runs for President would win... it's never happened before.

Well, unless it's a Kardashian to get enough of Trump's voters.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-11 07:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bernie led the charge, but as more Proggies climb into the Klown Kar and make unsupported promises like the Green New Deal, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar trendline for Progressivism.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter

Yeah we've seen how quickly righties have turned away from unsupported promises like "tax cuts for the rich helps the poor" haven't they?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 08:09 PM | Reply

That's a fair point, but the other side of that coin is that but Democrats are too good at duping people who make $30,000/year that they have their best interests at heart.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter

News bubble test time:

Which party created and funded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and which party is trying to destroy and defund it?

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Dems problem is both policy and messaging,
#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You're not wrong. They focus too much on policy and suck proverbial balls at messaging. That isn't a winning position when the other side is great at messaging and doesn't give a damn about policy.

#43 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-11 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#43 Dr Jones

I disagree. Here's some meaningless messaging that had little to do with policy and everything to do with imaging: Hope and Change.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 09:22 PM | Reply

I disagree. Here's some meaningless messaging that had little to do with policy and everything to do with imaging: Hope and Change.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Here's your daily false equivalency token. Are you saying obamacare wasn't a change that offered hope to many people?

Dems: Messaging combined with policy.
Repubs: Just messaging.

Not equal.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 09:28 PM | Reply

Actually repubs do messaging that is the OPPOSITE of their actual policy the promised. Middle class tax cuts = middle class PAYING for RICH PEOPLE's tax cuts.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 09:33 PM | Reply

Here's some meaningless messaging that had little to do with policy and everything to do with imaging: Hope and Change.

That was brilliant messaging, because it worked. Dems have been floundering ever since.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 09:36 PM | Reply

Joe,

I agree. It was brilliant messaging.

Bad messaging isn't what resulted in the ‘10 wave. That was massive ACA blowback.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 09:39 PM | Reply

I think a lot of independents will be turned off by too much free stuff campaign promises.
They don't mind or even would support more moderate policies aimed at reducing student loan debt, college costs, raising taxes to prop up SS/Medicare/Medicaid

It's weird to see you co-opt a rightwing meme ("free stuff") only to then attempt to differentiate that from tbe very things rightwingers generalize as "free stuff."

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 09:39 PM | Reply

#48 Wrong again. The ACA's unpopularity in 2010 was almost entirely a messaging failure. The ACA is popular today both generally and when you poll on most of its major individual aspects, because people know what it is now. Had Dems been better at selling it in the first place (instead of letting republicans incorrectly but successfully brand it as "socialist medicine" that's going to kill your grandma), it would have been more popular in 2010. Entirely messaging.

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 09:42 PM | Reply

Who are we kidding here? Bernie never wanted to actually enact any of the ideas he stole from other, more intelligent, people.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-11 09:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Bad messaging isn't what resulted in the ‘10 wave. That was massive ACA blowback."

The fact that ACA kepr blowing back all the way to 2017 but never got repealed suggests ACA was a scapegoat for hating Democrats, or even a black President, and ACA was just plausible deniability for the haters (and their supporters.)

The fact that right-wingers had much higher support for ACA than Obamacare tells the same story.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 09:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Who are we kidding here? Bernie never wanted to actually enact any of the ideas he stole from other, more intelligent, people.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner

Yeah that's it. Bernie's been faking for decades. Not the lady who pretended to agree with his agenda at the 11th hour while taking bribe money from plutocrats.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-11 09:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe,

ACA unpopularity had little to do with messaging.

Dems had the bully pulpit and a compliant media. The sausage making process was brazen and occasionally corrupt. The lies were obvious and stinging once they became reality. The rollout of the exchanges was nothing short of disastrous. "If you like your plan you can keep it." Proved to be a debacle. Then there was the unconstitutional structure of IPAB, needless fights like mandated abortifacient coverage. Then, as it was implemented the exchanges neared death spiral proportions as the infirmed signed up en masse and the young and healthy went without and dealt with the toothless penalties.

ACA's unpopularity carried well into its implementation and that's when it was judged more on merit than rhetoric.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:00 PM | Reply

Blah blah blah. The law as a whole has majority approval today, and specific provisions in it like coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and community rating are wildly popular. The fact that it's more popular today than when it was passed is proof that initial messaging was a failure.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-11 10:05 PM | Reply

The law is now a shell of its former self.

The draconian stuff that could potentially make it work from an actuarial standpoint has been mostly stripped away as have all of the mandated coverages.

It never had favorable ratings before it was deconstructed.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:09 PM | Reply

"ACA's unpopularity carried well into its implementation and that's when it was judged more on merit than rhetoric."

Bull.

If it was that unpopular why didn't it get repealed?

Because the hatred of ACA was really hatred of Obama, being directed at Obama's signature and eponymous accomplishment.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 10:11 PM | Reply

"The law is now a shell of its former self."

LOL!

All the more reason it could be repealed with minimal consequence.

But that didn't happen, because you're wrong.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 10:12 PM | Reply

"If you like your plan you can keep it." Proved to be a debacle.

True, but that was a debacle before ACA, and it's still a debacle after ACA... because ACA didn't make any changes there!

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 10:14 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Individual mandate is gone.
Cadillac tax never implemented.
Employer mandate is gone.
Mandated minimum coverages are gone.
Roughly half of the states didn't sign on to Medicaid expansion.
Enrollment on the exchanges fell WAY short of projections.

What remains of ACA is at most a decayed skeleton.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:17 PM | Reply

The fact that it is an unrepealable skeleton is how I know you're wrong.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 10:19 PM | Reply

#61

Yeah, repeal all of the draconian stuff that might make it self- sustainable and keep the goodies all the while funding it with a credit card.

Its foundation has been eroded and its reach minimized.

All that is left is the freebies.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:26 PM | Reply

There isn't much of anything left to repeal. It's been mostly taken apart piecemeal.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 10:27 PM | Reply

"repeal all of the draconian stuff that might make it self- sustainable"

Now why would the GOP want to make it unsustainable???

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 10:35 PM | Reply

Yeah that's it. Bernie's been faking for decades. Not the lady who pretended to agree with his agenda at the 11th hour while taking bribe money from plutocrats.

#53 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-11 09:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Look at the evidence. It's clear.

#65 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-11 10:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Bad messaging isn't what resulted in the ‘10 wave. That was massive ACA blowback.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ

Based on GOP lies and distortions.

Funny how 'Murica! hasn't spontaneously combusted from the implementation of the ACA and, no surprise, people were suddenly unhappy it was being repealed.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 11:04 PM | Reply

"Because the hatred of ACA was really hatred of Obama, being directed at Obama's signature and eponymous accomplishment."

As was demonstrated by the people who said they hated Obamacare but liked the ACA and please don't take that away from them!

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-11 11:07 PM | Reply

Yeah, repeal all of the draconian stuff

Draconian?

Really? Hysterical much?

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 11:08 PM | Reply

#68. JPW.

Can you recommend a better term for the individual and employer mandate? How about the abortifacient regulation ?

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 11:19 PM | Reply

Draconian means "money-saving" now.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-11 11:26 PM | Reply

I was just fine with the individual mandate.

It's my understanding the employer mandate is still in effect.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-11 11:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JPW - The individual mandate was repealed with the new tax law and my recollection is the employer mandate was delayed pretty much indefinitely

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-11 11:55 PM | Reply

my recollection is the employer mandate was delayed pretty much indefinitely

the penalties are still applicable...

Are there penalties associated with non-compliance?
Yes! Employers who fail to comply, or fail to comply on time, or fail to properly document their compliance, will face stiff financial penalties. And they have gone up for 2018: the sledgehammer penalty has been increased to $2,320 annually per full-time employee (minus the first 30 FTEs). The tack-hammer penalty has been increased to $3,480 annually per full-time employee who receives a tax credit!
www.integrity-data.com

#73 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-12 12:05 AM | Reply

The individual mandate was repealed with the new tax law

I know. Too bad the moochers are allowed to avoid their fair share yet again.

my recollection is the employer mandate was delayed pretty much indefinitely

Could be. I was reading the IRS website and it said, if I understood it correctly, it was still on the books. Maybe not enforced, but on the books.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-12 12:06 AM | Reply

Based on GOP lies and distortions.

I disagree, there is no distortion on the cost of the deductibles.

The whole law was passed on a lie and distortion, ask Gruber!!!

"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it's written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not."

#75 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-12 12:08 AM | Reply

"Things like M4A and free (for them) public college would objectively help most, if not all, people making $30,000/year. So your attempt to turn this around doesn't really work."

You seem to be presupposing that by giving poor people more free stuff, it would somehow change the behavior that has left them poor in the first place. If that were true, then lottery winners would not wind up with less money after their windfall than before. Yet 70% wind up broke within seven years.

I think there is some middle ground, offering full scholarships in return for a service contract, similar to ROTC or the service academies, but paying for an education that is going to leave one as the most qualified barista at starbucks really isn't a solid use of taxpayer dollars.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-02-12 06:30 AM | Reply

"Hopefully there's a Dem somewhere in the mist who will emerge and be a little more sane than what's currently running."

Don't you think that sanity is going to be their biggest challenge in gaining acceptance from US progressives? It seems that way to me.

There do seem to be sane Dems ready to throw their hat in, but they're being trashed by the left-wing.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-02-12 06:32 AM | Reply

"Had Dems been better at selling it in the first place (instead of letting republicans incorrectly but successfully brand it as "socialist medicine" that's going to kill your grandma), it would have been more popular in 2010. Entirely messaging."

ACA's biggest hurdles came from not being able to deliver as promised. Remember when the president said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?" It turned out that wasn't the case, and for someone like me, who had no plans to enroll in an ACA sponsored plan, all I saw was a program that had been misrepresented to the public.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-02-12 06:40 AM | Reply

#78 Wow, sorry to hear that. Sounds like an argument against employer-provided insurance.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-12 07:40 AM | Reply

"Historically, fringe elements in parties tend to peak quickly then get swallowed up by late adopters and the electorate becoming wise to the fallacy or impracticability of their platform ideas."

This is right and wrong. The fringes are swallowed, but not by the electorate, almost half which has given up on either party and voting a long time ago. The so-called fringe ideas are popular among the electorate and despised by the 1% and their obedient puppets in Government who listen and legislate only for them. In a review of the last 2000 recent pieces of legislation by Princeton scholars none were passed for the benefit of the 99% unless it was something the 1% wanted anyway. NONE. Government is simply unresponsive to programs which fulfill the constitution mandate of "promoting the general welfare", which can only be interpreted as beneficial to the 99%. This logjam is created by the US broadcast system, which has been thoroughly commercialized on TV and radio. Their monetary demands overshadow all other considerations and have led to personality contests devoid of policy content. Policy matters because it has real world consequences.

#80 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-12 08:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another way to look at it would be, "Democrats finally decide to stand for what Democrats stand for, instead of trying to out-Republican each other."

There's really no reason to believe that people don't want Social Security, Healthcare, a strong economy and environmental laws that aim to save the planet from not-liberals. This is the first time in a long time that the Democratic platform is actually being tested. They aren't talking about what Republicans want to talk about, which is generally the rule in political media circles. Drumpf is the culmination of the Republican dream...he represents the Republican ideal for America. I, for one, am happy to entertain a different idea. HRC was a centrist, who lost to a radical. Time to turn that equation around.

#81 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-02-12 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It never had favorable ratings before it was deconstructed.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

It was deconstructed immediately by repub governors who refused to implement it. We never got to see what would happen if it was fully implemented.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-12 12:55 PM | Reply

"Wow, sorry to hear that. Sounds like an argument against employer-provided insurance."

Did employers ever make the promise that, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-02-12 06:52 PM | Reply

Another way to look at it would be, "Democrats finally decide to stand for what Democrats stand for, instead of trying to out-Republican each other."

If Bill Clinton were running today, he would be eviscerated by the chattering classes on the left for being too centrist. I think that he is representative of the center of the Bell curve Dem. And he was successful because of that, not in spite of it.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-02-12 06:55 PM | Reply

Sanders is the oligarchy's worst nightmare.

#85 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-02-13 02:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort