I am okay with Bernie over Trump. I prefer that to a younger version of him replacing Trump 4 years from now. He is a 4 year president and then hopefully someone can come in that doesn't suck.

bearister said:

---

*I prefer Bernie to tRump. I think we can recover from a Bernie presidency but not so sure we can claw our way back from tRumpus Redux. The damage that fat orange f@uck will do to the environment and the SCOTUS with another 4 years in the Oval is a horrifying prospect. This still doesn't answer your question but my feeling is Bernie looks like he is going to get the nomination and win California in the General whether I vote for him or not. The people facing the real moral dilemma are those in the handful of key Electoral College states that hate Bernie and tRump equally.

---

The one problem I have with Trump is him blowing up the deficit with welfare for the rich, not the middle class.

And then there were four: Bernie, Liz, Joe, Mike.

Who drops out next, Mike or Liz?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

And then there were four: Bernie, Liz, Joe, Mike.

Who drops out next, Mike or Liz?

---

Liz, but not for a long time.

Professor Bearitas said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

And then there were four: Bernie, Liz, Joe, Mike.

Who drops out next, Mike or Liz?

---

Liz, but not for a long time.

---

Warren and Bloomberg are trying for a convention draft.

At this point there are three acceptable nominees to come out of the convention.

1. Bernie cuz he got the votes
2. Biden cuz he got the votes
3. Michelle Obama because no one else can get the votes, the whole party loves her, she doesn't want it won't pander for it and needs to be begged

3 isn't happening just pointing out she is the only candidate not in the race that has any chance of getting drafted and not alienating the party.

If both Biden and Bernie come up short, Bernie has to be on the ticket to signal unquestionably that he supports it and the party supports him. Biden Bernie might not be the best ticket, but it might be the only ticket

I think the discussions we have been having are now academic. If the country is able to successfully negotiate its way through the COVID19 outbreak, Trump skates to victory. If we have significant impacts (TBD on exactly what that means), Trump will be the scapegoat and Bernie will tout how M4A would have been better (Biden will point out that him not being an anti-science liar would have been better).

I think "success" will largely depend on how bad things get outside the country but I think anything in the neighborhood of 100k dead americans will be impossible for Trump to overcome. It would mean that our healthcare system was pushed far beyond the brink and potentially millions of Americans will have suffered catastrophic financial distress. The human impact plus the economic impact will be staggering. Anything less than 20k deaths will be a relief and Trump will rightfully tout how he navigated us through the worst public health crisis in the last 20 years. I hope that's what happens although it would mean 4 more years of Trump.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think the discussions we have been having are now academic. If the country is able to successfully negotiate its way through the COVID19 outbreak, Trump skates to victory. If we have significant impacts (TBD on exactly what that means), Trump will be the scapegoat and Bernie will tout how M4A would have been better (Biden will point out that him not being an anti-science liar would have been better).

I think "success" will largely depend on how bad things get outside the country but I think anything in the neighborhood of 100k dead americans will be impossible for Trump to overcome. It would mean that our healthcare system was pushed far beyond the brink and potentially millions of Americans will have suffered catastrophic financial distress. The human impact plus the economic impact will be staggering. Anything less than 20k deaths will be a relief and Trump will rightfully tout how he navigated us through the worst public health crisis in the last 20 years. I hope that's what happens although it would mean 4 more years of Trump.

---

This is why I'm upset with those spreading misinformation here. 20,000 deaths is not a relief.

China did nothing for over a month while the disease transmitted among a highly urban population. China hasn't reached 3000 deaths and the rate of new cases in the country is dropping every day. It was 202 yesterday its lowest since early January.

Yes, the scary numbers are in the range of possibilities. So are some not so scary numbers. 20,000 is not on the good end of possible results. We should be doing everything possible, no matter how disruptive to make sure we don't get to the scary numbers, but don't let people throwing outnumbers like 100 million dead color your judgment. 20,000 dead would be a disaster

I also don't agree politically. No one knows what a reasonable number is for this, so you can claim victory or defeat with any final number

OaktownBear said:

---

I also don't agree politically. No one knows what a reasonable number is for this, so you can claim victory or defeat with any final number

---

I definitely don't agree that the Coronavirus response will make-or-break Trump's reelection. If it goes really badly, then yeah, that probably would destroy his chances (much in the way any kind of market crash pretty much destroys the sitting President). But if we largely remain status quo . . . Trump is still underwater in job approval and always has been. He's hardly home free.

So begins Team Bloomberg's ads for Joe...

Older people who feel unsafe seek the familiar. That's why they're flocking to Biden


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/biden-older-voters-safety-super-tuesday-coronavirus?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

bearister said:

---

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Country run by investment bankers, just like under Obama.

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Country run by investment bankers, just like under Obama.

---

Obama raised taxes and regulations on investment bankers. Trump cut them.

Weird how some people call that the same.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Country run by investment bankers, just like under Obama.

---

Obama raised taxes and regulations on investment bankers. Trump cut them.

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Who got bailed out, apology boy? Mortgage lenders or borrowers?

Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Country run by investment bankers, just like under Obama.

---

Obama raised taxes and regulations on investment bankers. Trump cut them.

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Who got bailed out, apology boy? Mortgage lenders or borrowers?

---

Bush bailed out the banks

Obama bailed out neither but did bail out the auto industry saving numerous jobs (probably including mine).

Weird to call them the same.

dajo9 said:

---

Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

Inside a future Biden administration: His possible picks for VP and Cabinet - Axios


https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-cabinet-vice-president-picks-b17882ac-3953-450f-8afb-38a3c8dcda57.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

---

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Country run by investment bankers, just like under Obama.

---

Obama raised taxes and regulations on investment bankers. Trump cut them.

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Who got bailed out, apology boy? Mortgage lenders or borrowers?

---

Bush bailed out the banks

Obama bailed out neither but did bail out the auto industry saving numerous jobs (probably including mine).

Weird to call them the same.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

"Typically, such losses would be shared between debtors and creditors, through a deal like the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s or bankruptcy reform. But the Obama administration took a different approach. Rather than forcing some burden-sharing between banks and homeowners through bankruptcy reform or debt relief, Obama prioritized creditor rights, placing most of the burden on borrowers."

"Obama's administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) referred criminal cases to the Justice Department and was ignored. Whistleblowers from the government and from large banks noted a lack of appetite among prosecutors. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder ordered prosecutors not to go after mega-bank HSBC for money laundering. Using prosecutorial discretion to not take bank executives to task, while legal, was neither moral nor politically wise; in a 2013 poll, more than half of Americans still said they wanted the bankers behind the crisis punished. But the Obama administration failed to act, and this pattern seems to be continuing. No one, for instance, from Wells Fargo has been indicted for mass fraud in opening fake accounts."

"Third, Obama enabled and encouraged roughly 9 million foreclosures. This was Geithner's explicit policy at Treasury. The Obama administration put together a foreclosure program that it marketed as a way to help homeowners, but when Elizabeth Warren, then chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, grilled Geithner on why the program wasn't stopping foreclosures, he said that really wasn't the point. The program, in his view, was working. "We estimate that they can handle 10 million foreclosures, over time," Geithner said referring to the banks. "This program will help foam the runway for them." For Geithner, the most productive economic policy was to get banks back to business as usual."

"Nor did Obama do much about monopolies. While his administration engaged in a few mild challenges toward the end of his term, 2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power has concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush's before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead, in the past few years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy."

And speaking of Wells Fargo:
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/813632098/wells-fargo-board-members-resign-days-before-set-to-testify-before-congress?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

It looks like Biden is taking Michigan, which will turn tonight into a big victory for him. Does Sanders stay in or does he drop out?

golden sloth said:

---

It looks like Biden is taking Michigan, which will turn tonight into a big victory for him. Does Sanders stay in or does he drop out?

---

He stays, IMHO, unless his wife persuades him it ain't worth dying for what may be a lost cause.

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Hypothetical: If your vote for Biden resulted in a loss of the election for the orange demon, would you so cast it?

If not, why not?

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Bernie got his fair shot this time. He had high name ID going in. He was basically a national politician for four years. Several debates got high ratings. Turnout was up.

He just didn't win. That's how it goes sometimes.

sycasey said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Bernie got his fair shot this time. He had high name ID going in. He was basically a national politician for four years. Several debates got high ratings. Turnout was up.

He just didn't win. That's how it goes sometimes.

---

Yea, particularly if you look at the results of today. It was essentially a two-person race (Tulsi doesn't really count) and Biden beat Sanders in places he won against Clinton. This was a fair fight, and it turns out that more democrats wanted the moderate than the progressive. Biden won not only in the suburbs, and with black voters, but also with white working class rural people. That last one is the stinger, that should be Sanders' bread and butter.

That said, Bernie's revolution was successful in that a 'moderate' democrat in 2020 would have been considered a 'progressive' in 2012. The whole party moved left, and they are bringing young people, and the suburbs with them. A public option was toxic a decade ago, now its considered moderate.

bearister said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Hypothetical: If your vote for Biden resulted in a loss of the election for the orange demon, would you so cast it?

If not, why not?

---

No. Why would I support a corrupt Democratic establishment over a corrupt Republican president? Neither has shown me they're any better. I'll put my energy and resources into getting Republican senate incumbents out of office.

golden sloth said:

---

A public option was toxic a decade ago, now its considered moderate.

---

It's still considered toxic

Professor Harry Edwards said:

---

bearister said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Hypothetical: If your vote for Biden resulted in a loss of the election for the orange demon, would you so cast it?

If not, why not?

---

No. Why would I support a corrupt Democratic establishment over a corrupt Republican president? Neither has shown me they're any better. I'll put my energy and resources into getting Republican senate incumbents out of office.

---

Professor Harry Edwards said:

---

bearister said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Hypothetical: If your vote for Biden resulted in a loss of the election for the orange demon, would you so cast it?

If not, why not?

---

No. Why would I support a corrupt Democratic establishment over a corrupt Republican president? Neither has shown me they're any better. I'll put my energy and resources into getting Republican senate incumbents out of office.

---

The Democratic primary was not rigged. Biden simply won (and Biden was not my guy). If you look at Sanders' he was never able to expand upon his base, even with name recognition, more money, and a more motivated base Sanders was not able to build a coalition of anyone but the hardcore. Sanders only jumped out to a lead because there were so many moderates splitting the vote early, not because people were voting for him. Again, he failed to build upon his base. Biden won fair and square, not by the DNC's orchestration.

And, if you try to convince me that the election was actually rigged, bring something more substantial than 'The Hill' opinion pieces where the hosts angrily speculate unsubstantiated claims with the hope the viewer consumes them as facts.

Professor Harry Edwards said:

---

bearister said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Hypothetical: If your vote for Biden resulted in a loss of the election for the orange demon, would you so cast it?

If not, why not?

---

No. Why would I support a corrupt Democratic establishment over a corrupt Republican president? Neither has shown me they're any better. I'll put my energy and resources into getting Republican senate incumbents out of office.

---

Compare and contrast Biden's corruption with tRump's corruption to support your contention that it is no less enabling of corruption to vote for Biden than to vote for tRump.*

*I am actually trying to learn here since it is clear you are well read on the subject of politics (and certainly more so than me).

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Harold Hill said:

---

bearister said:

---

If Biden is the nominee and Bernie tells his supporters to vote for Biden, will you Bernie supporters on BI vote for Joe?

---

I'm not a Biden voter. I vote the way I want to, not the way a politician tells me to.

If you'd wanted a team effort, maybe you should have treated all members of the team the same.

---

Bernie got his fair shot this time. He had high name ID going in. He was basically a national politician for four years. Several debates got high ratings. Turnout was up.

He just didn't win. That's how it goes sometimes.

---

Yea, particularly if you look at the results of today. It was essentially a two-person race (Tulsi doesn't really count) and Biden beat Sanders in places he won against Clinton. This was a fair fight, and it turns out that more democrats wanted the moderate than the progressive. Biden won not only in the suburbs, and with black voters, but also with white working class rural people. That last one is the stinger, that should be Sanders' bread and butter.

That said, Bernie's revolution was successful in that a 'moderate' democrat in 2020 would have been considered a 'progressive' in 2012. The whole party moved left, and they are bringing young people, and the suburbs with them. A public option was toxic a decade ago, now its considered moderate.

---

Yes, the party is being pushed to the left anyway, regardless of whether or not Bernie is the nominee. Joe Biden is a guy who basically tries to stay in the middle/mainstream of wherever the Democratic Party is at any given time, so him having such a progressive platform tells you how the ground has shifted.

2016 vs now basically tells you that working-class whites in the Rust Belt really hated Hillary. They seem to like Biden more than they like Bernie.