Que? I don't think you understood the context of my post. I suggest you read the article I replied to.
All very true on Klobuchar. Many people don’t want to hear someone throw cold water on attractive (yet politically unachievable) ideas like M4A, free college, canceling student loan debt, etc. They just want to live in a fantasy world where a Sanders or Warren Presidency accomplishes all of those things on day one. It’s funny, one of the things I most appreciate about Klobuchar is her willingness to explain the process. What requires congress vs. executive action. That distinction is, oh, so important. How to implement real change, and the importance of protecting the House and retaking the Senate for tackling the larger more structural issues. That it’s not just about winning the White House. ....and yet I guess people find that boring and uninspiring, and here we are again: at your original point. As for Pete, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. Him being gay is likely one of the main reasons people noticed him in the first place — a gay guy....running for president? Really? — and yet they take a look and notice all of his positive traits and natural skills as a politician that have nothing to do with him being gay. His demeanor as the level-headed intellectual that articulates his thoughts clearly and coherently, and its essentially the polar opposite of what we have currently in the White House. He’s not my candidate, but I think it’s fair to say he got where he is on his own merits.
I don't think goals such as M4A will ever happen if our politicans don't advocate for it in their respective primaries. If they are already defeatist about the concept stating that they should take a slow approach, that slow approach will eventually just turn into accepting the status quo. I think in the primaries, politicans should advocate for what their ideal solution is and work on negotiating in the general. There is so much inertia to not change the status quo, that being lukewarm on your ideal policy desires means that it's going to fizzle out by the time you get in office where you become content in not tackling systemic issues.
Something you have to realize is that many , if not a majority of Americans are pretty comfortable the way things are and don't particularly want drastic changes , just some minor tweaks to the system. As for universal healthcare , I think its only a matter of time before we move to a single payer system. Some of that other stuff , like college debt .... not happening. That's a decision made as a consumer.
I still maintain that putting any of the older candidates forward as your nomination is a set up for failure. They will not engage the younger voters, which is what the Dems need. That is the crowd that sees Trump for what he is. There's a certain part of the 40-50+ crowd that is mesmerized by Trump and they'll show up to the vote no matter what. That will not be reciprocated for Dem Voters if you put forth Sanders, Biden, or even Warren. Quite honestly, I hope it's not of them. I could live with Pete. I know Klobuchar is a long shot, but she'd be okay. But in a perfect world Yang would get the nomination. Obviously, this won't happen. I think he's got a good shot at surprising people in Iowa, and I think he'll do better in the second wave of states. He's riding some momentum, but he's too centrist, in my opinion, to get the nod. He's what the country needs though. The opposite of Trump. Still and outsider, so he'd pull that crowd from Trump. Smart guy who can legitimately surround himself with great thinkers, and keep them. His Freedom Dividend is the correct answer to raising minimum wage. And he, unlike any of the other major candidates, seems to get some of our biggest threats at hand. I have a hard time voting for anyone that wants to raise minimum wage to $15. Yang has a sensible alternative to this, much like many of his other policies. He's my guy. Not being on the debate stage may have winged him on national numbers, but he's not worried about that. He's going to surprise some people when they start rolling out results.
Washington Post loving it https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...341040-3802-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
That is just untrue they have talked plenty about that stuff I just saw them talking about the Iraq war yesterday. And his gaffs are always talked about. So why should the media talk about this stuff but when they talk about factual stuff with Bernie it is a hit piece?
Are you Ann Althouse? Because this is the same bullshit exscuse that you are trying to use. Yeah its the Democrats who are being crazy yet I guess you or Ann have no issues with Republicans or all the **** they did with Obama or are currently doing. How do you feel about what the Senate did with the Supreme Court under Obama. How about the lying Trump does on a daily basis. Be gone with this Bullshit.
You sound like all those bigots who claimed that black voters only voted for Obama because he was black. Example #100 of Bernie Bros sounding like Trump voters.
That does not look good for Bernie, makes me think he actually said it? I still think its a manufactured issue.
Yes I am saying what about Trump because she is saying she will vote for him when he is the craziest of all. It's in direct correlation of your post. Do better O's.
Why is M4A the holy grail? Politicians don't have to advocate for it to solve the problems of healthcare.
