No comment - what do YOU think?

[Ladoga]

JACOBIN



If Joe Biden Drops Out, Bernie Sanders Must Be the Democratic Nominee

BY

CARL BEIJER

Speculation is growing that the scandal-plagued Joe Biden might drop out of the presidential race. That’s extremely unlikely. But if he does, there’s only one alternative: Bernie Sanders.



A major party’s presumptive nominee enmeshed in multiple sexual harassment and assault scandals dropping out months before the general election is the sort of thing that seems like it could never actually happen — until it does. My bet is still that Joe Biden will power through the uproar over Tara Reade and accept the Democratic nomination in a few months down the road, but I’m not a fortune teller, and neither is anyone else.

Nevertheless, several other people have begun to game out what would happen in Biden were to drop out this late in the race. Some of the darker conspiracies imagine an endgame where Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton are installed by party leaders at the convention, while writers like Alex Pareene imagine a less dramatic scenario: Biden withdraws, his opponents reenter the race, and the primary resumes. Again, I do not think any of this is very likely, but since so many possibilities have been put on the table I feel compelled, as a matter of due diligence, to make a simple point: if Biden leaves, Bernie Sanders will have the strongest claim to the nomination.

The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates.

Looking at these outcomes, it is impossible for anyone other than Sanders to win a majority; improbable that anyone else can win a plurality; extremely likely that he would win a very strong plurality; and possible, though not likely, that he could win an outright majority.

The Convention

It’s difficult to imagine a plausible pretext for denying Sanders the nomination if he were to enter the convention with an outright majority of votes. And looking at the math, this isn’t outside the realm of possibility, especially in this tumultuous primary.

But the most likely outcome, it seems, is that Sanders would enter the convention with less than a majority but a significant plurality. In terms of process, this would send the convention to a second round of voting, releasing all pledged delegates and bringing superdelegates into the fray.

This would be a politically dangerous stage for Sanders, since there are no real rules for who has to vote for him at this point — just arguments. For his part, Sanders would be able to appeal to his plurality, and would probably be able to point to the precedent of Obama as a win under logically identical circumstances. His opponents, meanwhile, would have to rely on all kinds of counterfactual speculation (“if Biden had dropped out earlier Warren would have won!”) and Calvinball maneuvers (“what matters is who has the most first plus second place support, not just first place support”).

Or, of course, they could simply declare the first round of voting irrelevant and win the second round with behind-the-scenes coordination, just as they coordinated to defeat Sanders in February, and perhaps by crowning someone who didn’t run in the primary.

I do not, once more, think that any of this is very likely: politicians in the modern era have learned that they can weather just about any scandal if they’re stubborn enough, and if Biden hasn’t dropped out yet it’s difficult to imagine what would finally push him over the edge. Nevertheless, since most pundits seem more concerned with who could be nominated than who should be nominated in the event of a Biden dropout, it’s worth keeping Bernie’s claim in mind.

 

[outside shooter]

dumb

 

[Neves]

Is this a fan fiction?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

i wonder if the thinking goes the other way. Weld has more delegates than any other Republican, would the GOP be forced to choose him if Trump were to drop out?

 

[Sope Creek]

Is this a fan fiction?

It's Jacobin . . . Ladoga is gaslighting us with Bernie Bros having a collective circle . . . .

 

[82hoosier]

How about Kuchner as VP and Ivanka as UN ambassador?

 

[Ladoga]

i wonder if the thinking goes the other way. Weld has more delegates than any other Republican, would the GOP be forced to choose him if Trump were to drop out?

Don't know about the "thinking". Its an article by a widely viewed socialist publication regarding the Democrat nomination and nominee/candidates and has nothing to do with any other political party. No one would "force" Dems to do anything. They'd approach their problem if they thought it was in their interest to do so. Each party has different approaches and rules to their nomination. This is about the Dems' approach.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Don't know about the "thinking". Its an article by a widely viewed socialist publication regarding the Democrat nomination and nominee/candidates and has nothing to do with any other political party. No one would "force" Dems to do anything. They'd approach their problem if they thought it was in their interest to do so. Each party has different approaches and rules to their nomination. This is about the Dems' approach.

You certainly read socialist magazines more than I.

 

[Cortez88]

You certainly read socialist magazines more than I.

That was my thought. Is Gateway Pundit down? Anyone checked on Townhall?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Joe has already been absolved of any wrongdoing. Absent medical issues he will be the next POTUS

 

[outside shooter]

i wonder if the thinking goes the other way. Weld has more delegates than any other Republican, would the GOP be forced to choose him if Trump were to drop out?

You mean to speculate that, when the 27th allegation of rape, assault, or harassment by DJT emerges, the Trumpettes will suddenly shout out "Wow, this allegation is way different than the other 26, which were all false. I am waking up, now!"

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You mean to speculate that, when the 27th allegation of rape, assault, or harassment by DJT emerges, the Trumpettes will suddenly shout out "Wow, this allegation is way different than the other 26, which were all false. I am waking up, now!"

More likely it will be because he is one big Mac over the line Sweet Jesus. His 43% will never, ever, leave him.

Unless he were to wear a mask. Then they are gone.

 

[hoosboot]

Don't know about the "thinking". Its an article by a widely viewed socialist publication regarding the Democrat nomination and nominee/candidates and has nothing to do with any other political party. No one would "force" Dems to do anything. They'd approach their problem if they thought it was in their interest to do so. Each party has different approaches and rules to their nomination. This is about the Dems' approach.

If YOU don't want to know what Marvin thinks, GreenIronBossierLaCulDeSac, why'd you ask?

 

[Univee2]

JACOBIN



If Joe Biden Drops Out, Bernie Sanders Must Be the Democratic Nominee

BY

CARL BEIJER

Speculation is growing that the scandal-plagued Joe Biden might drop out of the presidential race. That’s extremely unlikely. But if he does, there’s only one alternative: Bernie Sanders.



A major party’s presumptive nominee enmeshed in multiple sexual harassment and assault scandals dropping out months before the general election is the sort of thing that seems like it could never actually happen — until it does. My bet is still that Joe Biden will power through the uproar over Tara Reade and accept the Democratic nomination in a few months down the road, but I’m not a fortune teller, and neither is anyone else.

Nevertheless, several other people have begun to game out what would happen in Biden were to drop out this late in the race. Some of the darker conspiracies imagine an endgame where Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton are installed by party leaders at the convention, while writers like Alex Pareene imagine a less dramatic scenario: Biden withdraws, his opponents reenter the race, and the primary resumes. Again, I do not think any of this is very likely, but since so many possibilities have been put on the table I feel compelled, as a matter of due diligence, to make a simple point: if Biden leaves, Bernie Sanders will have the strongest claim to the nomination.

The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates.

Looking at these outcomes, it is impossible for anyone other than Sanders to win a majority; improbable that anyone else can win a plurality; extremely likely that he would win a very strong plurality; and possible, though not likely, that he could win an outright majority.

The Convention

It’s difficult to imagine a plausible pretext for denying Sanders the nomination if he were to enter the convention with an outright majority of votes. And looking at the math, this isn’t outside the realm of possibility, especially in this tumultuous primary.

But the most likely outcome, it seems, is that Sanders would enter the convention with less than a majority but a significant plurality. In terms of process, this would send the convention to a second round of voting, releasing all pledged delegates and bringing superdelegates into the fray.

This would be a politically dangerous stage for Sanders, since there are no real rules for who has to vote for him at this point — just arguments. For his part, Sanders would be able to appeal to his plurality, and would probably be able to point to the precedent of Obama as a win under logically identical circumstances. His opponents, meanwhile, would have to rely on all kinds of counterfactual speculation (“if Biden had dropped out earlier Warren would have won!”) and Calvinball maneuvers (“what matters is who has the most first plus second place support, not just first place support”).

Or, of course, they could simply declare the first round of voting irrelevant and win the second round with behind-the-scenes coordination, just as they coordinated to defeat Sanders in February, and perhaps by crowning someone who didn’t run in the primary.

I do not, once more, think that any of this is very likely: politicians in the modern era have learned that they can weather just about any scandal if they’re stubborn enough, and if Biden hasn’t dropped out yet it’s difficult to imagine what would finally push him over the edge. Nevertheless, since most pundits seem more concerned with who could be nominated than who should be nominated in the event of a Biden dropout, it’s worth keeping Bernie’s claim in mind.

Tom Crean would be ecstatic. There's a whole lot of deflecting goin' on here.

So, since I won't be voting for any of the fools the Democrat Party might finally choose, I'll answer. Biden's brain won't last a year and most Dems know it and thus hope he'll choose a quality VP. The Bernie idiots know Biden is fading away and thus want to force Bernie through the fence posts. Everyone else knows Bernie will get hammered. The Jacobin crowd, in their mass delusional state, believe Bernie's brand of "socialism" will free mankind and bring eternal peace and prosperity, not to mention free hallucinogenic gold mines.

Since none of this works, mass quantities of Dems are hoping a golden knight will ride to the rescue. Hillary? Michelle? Cuomo? Petey? Fauxchohontas? Who the hell knows?

Meanwhile, the Bernie idiots are hoping they can split the gap and get Bernie to the finish line. Ain't happening, IMO, as the media is doing all it can to bring Joe home, even if he were to rape somebody on 5th Avenue.

How we ever got to the point where numbskulls such as Trump, Hillary and Bernie could ever be seen as presidential is a question for the ages. When I get to be King we'll not only have a minimum age limit for a presidential candidate, we'll have a maximum limit as well. Maybe 55? Maybe 60?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

JACOBIN



If Joe Biden Drops Out, Bernie Sanders Must Be the Democratic Nominee

BY

CARL BEIJER

Speculation is growing that the scandal-plagued Joe Biden might drop out of the presidential race. That’s extremely unlikely. But if he does, there’s only one alternative: Bernie Sanders.



A major party’s presumptive nominee enmeshed in multiple sexual harassment and assault scandals dropping out months before the general election is the sort of thing that seems like it could never actually happen — until it does. My bet is still that Joe Biden will power through the uproar over Tara Reade and accept the Democratic nomination in a few months down the road, but I’m not a fortune teller, and neither is anyone else.

Nevertheless, several other people have begun to game out what would happen in Biden were to drop out this late in the race. Some of the darker conspiracies imagine an endgame where Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton are installed by party leaders at the convention, while writers like Alex Pareene imagine a less dramatic scenario: Biden withdraws, his opponents reenter the race, and the primary resumes. Again, I do not think any of this is very likely, but since so many possibilities have been put on the table I feel compelled, as a matter of due diligence, to make a simple point: if Biden leaves, Bernie Sanders will have the strongest claim to the nomination.

The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates.

Looking at these outcomes, it is impossible for anyone other than Sanders to win a majority; improbable that anyone else can win a plurality; extremely likely that he would win a very strong plurality; and possible, though not likely, that he could win an outright majority.

The Convention

It’s difficult to imagine a plausible pretext for denying Sanders the nomination if he were to enter the convention with an outright majority of votes. And looking at the math, this isn’t outside the realm of possibility, especially in this tumultuous primary.

But the most likely outcome, it seems, is that Sanders would enter the convention with less than a majority but a significant plurality. In terms of process, this would send the convention to a second round of voting, releasing all pledged delegates and bringing superdelegates into the fray.

This would be a politically dangerous stage for Sanders, since there are no real rules for who has to vote for him at this point — just arguments. For his part, Sanders would be able to appeal to his plurality, and would probably be able to point to the precedent of Obama as a win under logically identical circumstances. His opponents, meanwhile, would have to rely on all kinds of counterfactual speculation (“if Biden had dropped out earlier Warren would have won!”) and Calvinball maneuvers (“what matters is who has the most first plus second place support, not just first place support”).

Or, of course, they could simply declare the first round of voting irrelevant and win the second round with behind-the-scenes coordination, just as they coordinated to defeat Sanders in February, and perhaps by crowning someone who didn’t run in the primary.

I do not, once more, think that any of this is very likely: politicians in the modern era have learned that they can weather just about any scandal if they’re stubborn enough, and if Biden hasn’t dropped out yet it’s difficult to imagine what would finally push him over the edge. Nevertheless, since most pundits seem more concerned with who could be nominated than who should be nominated in the event of a Biden dropout, it’s worth keeping Bernie’s claim in mind.

the DNC would much rather lose every race with Biden, than win every race with Bernie.

that said, those controlling the DNC would rather lose with Biden too.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Tom Crean would be ecstatic. There's a whole lot of deflecting goin' on here.

So, since I won't be voting for any of the fools the Democrat Party might finally choose, I'll answer. Biden's brain won't last a year and most Dems know it and thus hope he'll choose a quality VP. The Bernie idiots know Biden is fading away and thus want to force Bernie through the fence posts. Everyone else knows Bernie will get hammered. The Jacobin crowd, in their mass delusional state, believe Bernie's brand of "socialism" will free mankind and bring eternal peace and prosperity, not to mention free hallucinogenic gold mines.

Since none of this works, mass quantities of Dems are hoping a golden knight will ride to the rescue. Hillary? Michelle? Cuomo? Petey? Fauxchohontas? Who the hell knows?

Meanwhile, the Bernie idiots are hoping they can split the gap and get Bernie to the finish line. Ain't happening, IMO, as the media is doing all it can to bring Joe home, even if he were to rape somebody on 5th Avenue.

How we ever got to the point where numbskulls such as Trump, Hillary and Bernie could ever be seen as presidential is a question for the ages. When I get to be King we'll not only have a minimum age limit for a presidential candidate, we'll have a maximum limit as well. Maybe 55? Maybe 60?

exactly what Bernie policies are you against, and why?

 

[cosmickid]

Don't know about the "thinking". Its an article by a widely viewed socialist publication regarding the Democrat nomination and nominee/candidates and has nothing to do with any other political party. No one would "force" Dems to do anything. They'd approach their problem if they thought it was in their interest to do so. Each party has different approaches and rules to their nomination. This is about the Dems' approach.

It's circle jerk fiction for political dreamers who ignore REALITY. Neither Sanders or Warren are going to win ANY of the remaining Primaries. Biden is not going to drop out-he and the Dems are currently SURGING. A poll from Mont State this week shows (popular) former Montana Governor Bullock with a 7 pt lead over the current GOP Senator Raines. If either Bernie or Warren were the presumptive nominee,that poll would likely say the exact opposite...

It's really bizarre the way you keep linking these obscure left-wing articles that no one's even heard of. I don't know anything about "Jacobin" other than it's relation to the French Revolution, and I'm a person who got a BA in Poly Sci from IU over 30 yrs ago. Mandela was still in prison, Mao was still leading the CCP, and Reagan was barely out of his role as Governor of California. And I Do NOT know of a publication called "Jacobin"- not sure why you think it has relevance for average Dem voters?

This part is PURE FANTASY...

"The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates."

Why in the world would Biden "drop out"? The ONLY people speculating on this are Bernie Bros who lack a grasp of REALITY.
Tara Reade is about as credible as YOU are. She claims to have made an official complaint somewhere in 1993-95 where she basically (in her OWN words) said something akin to Biden made her "uncomfortable". She did NOT mention "sexual harassment" or "assault" and so even if the official complaint is unearthed the most serious "charge" (making her uncomfortable) is not going to rise to the level of the LEAST creepy thing 20+ women have said to describe the actions of Donald Trump...

Then let's look at the HUGE inconsistency problems between what she said just a year ago (and Did NOT say) and then what she is now currently claiming. When she was interviewed by the AP 4 days ago this was the result...

"Tara Reade, the former Senate staffer who alleges Joe Biden sexually assaulted her 27 years ago, says she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment.

“I remember talking about him wanting me to serve drinks because he liked my legs and thought I was pretty and it made me uncomfortable,” Reade said in an interview Friday with The Associated Press. “I know that I was too scared to write about the sexual assault.” (Imo, that description pales in comparison to numerous Beauty Contestants who recall Trump walking into the dressing rooms unannounced, but maybe that's just me)...And we're not even into the various RAPE allegations against Trump yet...

Reade told the AP twice that she did not use the phrase “sexual harassment” in filing the complaint, but at other points in the interview said that was the behavior she believed she was describing. She said: “I talked about sexual harassment, retaliation. The main word I used – and I know I didn’t use sexual harassment — I used ‘uncomfortable.’ And I remember ‘retaliation.’”

So then the AP pointed out what she had TOLD THEM just last year...

"Reade described the report after the AP discovered additional transcripts and notes from its interviews with Reade last year in which she says she “chickened out” after going to the Senate personnel office. The AP interviewed Reade in 2019 after she accused Biden of uncomfortable and inappropriate touching. She did not raise allegations of sexual assault against Biden until this year, around the time he became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."

"According to a transcript of her 2019 interview with the AP, Reade said: “They have this counseling office or something, and I think I walked in there once, but then I chickened out.” She made a similar statement in a second interview with AP that same day, according to written notes from the interview.

On Friday, Reade said she was referring to having “chickened out” by not filing full harassment or assault allegations against Biden. In multiple interviews with the AP on Friday, Reade insisted she filed an “intake form” at the Senate personnel office, which included her contact information, the office she worked for, and some broad details of her issues with Biden."

"During one of the April 2019 interviews with the AP, she said Biden rubbed her shoulders and neck and played with her hair. She said she was asked by an aide in Biden’s Senate office to dress more conservatively and told “don’t be so sexy.”

She said of Biden: “I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.”

https://apnews.com/aec7beb03e9e0e0e6e3c58111293e0ea

So that is the way she felt in both 1993 and 2019. And for some reason she never felt the need to bring up any of this at any point from 2007- 2016 when Biden was running for and eventually serving as VP. Now that's interesting because even though the Obama campaign would be vetting Biden for any hint of scandal that could unwittingly derail Obama, the fact is that both the McCain and Romney campaigns would be looking just as well. I'm guessing that Palin's staff, in particular, would have salivated at the prospect of her showing up to debate Joe and being able to casually drop a juicy bombshell out of nowhere...

Yet NONE of that happened, and it also did not happen in any of the years he was out of Govt service, or even in 2019 when he was not even yet the target of Trump's Ukraine fiasco. ONLY after Bernie was toast (after the March 10 Michigan Primary) did she suddenly run to CNN and change her story COMPLETELY, adding a whole new dimension that she NEVER mentioned before. These blatant inconsistencies should give even a blind partisan like you significant pause and cause alarm bells to bellow at a deafening level...

Now on the other hand if you want to read an accusation from a woman who has NEVER wavered from what she told friends in 1993, up thru what she said in June 2019 and including what she is saying currently in court, then I give you E Jean Carroll's account of Trump raping her in 1993 in a Bergdorf Dressing room. A truly fascinating account of true depravity which up till this point has been largely ignored, but will likely not stay in the background for much longer...

Carroll being crowned Miss Indiana University in 1963. Photo: Elinor Hendrix/Courtesy of the author

When I entered Indiana University, I was the most boy-crazy 17-year-old in the nation.

If you’d met me during my freshman year, you would never have imagined I was born to be an advice columnist. But imagine it now. Thirteen miles from the Bloomington campus, there I am: young Jeanie Carroll, driving with a boy down a hilly back road in Brown County State Park, where IU students go on October Sundays to supposedly look at the famous leaves.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

 

[hoosboot]

Tom Crean would be ecstatic. There's a whole lot of deflecting goin' on here.

So, since I won't be voting for any of the fools the Democrat Party might finally choose, I'll answer. Biden's brain won't last a year and most Dems know it and thus hope he'll choose a quality VP. The Bernie idiots know Biden is fading away and thus want to force Bernie through the fence posts. Everyone else knows Bernie will get hammered. The Jacobin crowd, in their mass delusional state, believe Bernie's brand of "socialism" will free mankind and bring eternal peace and prosperity, not to mention free hallucinogenic gold mines.

Since none of this works, mass quantities of Dems are hoping a golden knight will ride to the rescue. Hillary? Michelle? Cuomo? Petey? Fauxchohontas? Who the hell knows?

Meanwhile, the Bernie idiots are hoping they can split the gap and get Bernie to the finish line. Ain't happening, IMO, as the media is doing all it can to bring Joe home, even if he were to rape somebody on 5th Avenue.

How we ever got to the point where numbskulls such as Trump, Hillary and Bernie could ever be seen as presidential is a question for the ages. When I get to be King we'll not only have a minimum age limit for a presidential candidate, we'll have a maximum limit as well. Maybe 55? Maybe 60?

Well...that's a silly concern trolling rant. "Biden's brain", which has the benefit of years of leadership, legislative, and policy experience to help lead in trying times like these, is of little concern to me. He'll be a great response to the times if he is elected President. The allegations he is facing are much more concerning, so I'm following that carefully. That said, absent substantial additional developments, I suspect that Biden will be the nominee, that he will nominate a high quality VP, and that he will continue to run a strong campaign despite all of the breathless "concerns" from people who state up front that they wouldn't consider voting for him anyway.

If only those folks would work as hard at nominating someone of substance in their own party as they do at concern trolling nominees they would never vote for.

 

[cosmickid]

Tom Crean would be ecstatic. There's a whole lot of deflecting goin' on here.

So, since I won't be voting for any of the fools the Democrat Party might finally choose, I'll answer. Biden's brain won't last a year and most Dems know it and thus hope he'll choose a quality VP. The Bernie idiots know Biden is fading away and thus want to force Bernie through the fence posts. Everyone else knows Bernie will get hammered. The Jacobin crowd, in their mass delusional state, believe Bernie's brand of "socialism" will free mankind and bring eternal peace and prosperity, not to mention free hallucinogenic gold mines.

Since none of this works, mass quantities of Dems are hoping a golden knight will ride to the rescue. Hillary? Michelle? Cuomo? Petey? Fauxchohontas? Who the hell knows?

Meanwhile, the Bernie idiots are hoping they can split the gap and get Bernie to the finish line. Ain't happening, IMO, as the media is doing all it can to bring Joe home, even if he were to rape somebody on 5th Avenue.

How we ever got to the point where numbskulls such as Trump, Hillary and Bernie could ever be seen as presidential is a question for the ages. When I get to be King we'll not only have a minimum age limit for a presidential candidate, we'll have a maximum limit as well. Maybe 55? Maybe 60?

So if you believe that both Biden and Trump are numbskulls, yet you aren't going to vote Dem can one assume you are voting Trump? I guess I don't really care why- just seems to be a minority opinion against "double-haters, who broke for Trump in 2016 when they basically viewed HRC as the Devil Incarnate.

The major difference this year seems to be that people (as a whole) do NOT hate Biden. And a Trump Presidency is now no longer just a theoretical event to imagine, but rather for many people has become an unmitigated disaster. Right now Biden has a huge lead in polling of double haters, a fact completely different from the 2016 race when HRC always trailed or at best was tied. Biden will likely not maintain his 50 pt lead, but Trump is steadily losing Independents and seems to be in near-freefall...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...shows-a-hidden-danger-for-trump-double-haters

Two issues that Trump fans (for some unfathomable reason) seem to feel will work for him are his virus response and comparing Trump's "intelligence" to Biden's. I think the notion either of those bodes well for Trump is just plain ludicrous- they ramp up the base, but in reality, Trump's electoral efforts post-2016 have basically been unmitigated disasters. He singlehandedly mobilized anti-Trump voters in Wisc to turn what would likely have been a relatively close win by an incumbent Justice to retain his seat with little fanfare, into a total disaster where the incumbent conservative Justice Trump tweeted support for lost by over 10%...

As to that "intelligence" thingy... Here's an episode of "Donsplaining", just one of the hundreds of videos out there that shoot that theory all to hell...

 

[cosmickid]

Well...that's a silly concern trolling rant. "Biden's brain", which has the benefit of years of leadership, legislative, and policy experience to help lead in trying times like these, is of little concern to me. He'll be a great response to the times if he is elected President. The allegations he is facing are much more concerning, so I'm following that carefully. That said, absent substantial additional developments, I suspect that Biden will be the nominee, that he will nominate a high quality VP, and that he will continue to run a strong campaign despite all of the breathless "concerns" from people who state up front that they wouldn't consider voting for him anyway.

If only those folks would work as hard at nominating someone of substance in their own party as they do at concern trolling nominees they would never vote for.

The fact that they are pushing Bernie and advocating Biden to drop out tells the whole story. They likely will claim that they don't "believe polls", but they ARE posting on a board full of people who for the most part actually attended or qualified to attend college.
So the high school dropout claim about "polls not working" in actuality is NOT a position they really identify with.

THAT is why they fear Trump having to run against Biden, and are itching for the Dems to do something stupid and replace him on the ticket with someone Trump can beat...

 

[cosmickid]

exactly what Bernie policies are you against, and why?

The ones that alienate a majority of the people who are going to actually VOTE in Nov, and lead to not only a Trump win but Trump gaining seats in Congress. The ones that don't have a prayer of electoral possibility at this particular point in time...

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The ones that alienate a majority of the people who are going to actually VOTE in Nov, and lead to not only a Trump win but Trump gaining seats in Congress. The ones that don't have a prayer of electoral possibility at this particular point in time...

such as??

 

[cosmickid]

such as??

Anything (like Free tuition) that galvanizes younger generation voters who DO NOT VOTE, that at the same time infuriates older voters who DO VOTE who see it as "socialism" and a pandering giveaway. I'm NOT saying those perceptions are accurate or that I agree with them. I'm just saying they infuriate many of the voters who might be inclined to vote for Biden, and consequently when the GOAL above ANYTHING else is to get rid of TRUMP- I oppose them.

I realize it's difficult for young people to accept political reality and realize that you have to wait until the time is right. I was young too at one time, and you sometimes learn things the hard way. I was in Germany when Reagan was elected, so I could basically ignore that tragedy and wait for Clinton's election to correct that mistake. But if you want to use the Democratic party as your vehicle for change then you can't afford to come off as some sort of an outsider and basically alienate the voters who ARE that party. And you can't do ANYTHING without support from the Legislative branch- they make the laws...

 

[Courtsensetwo]

You mean to speculate that, when the 27th allegation of rape, assault, or harassment by DJT emerges, the Trumpettes will suddenly shout out "Wow, this allegation is way different than the other 26, which were all false. I am waking up, now!"

You are correct, Trumpette apologists are on par with Clinton apologists.

 

[cosmickid]

JACOBIN



If Joe Biden Drops Out, Bernie Sanders Must Be the Democratic Nominee

BY

CARL BEIJER

Speculation is growing that the scandal-plagued Joe Biden might drop out of the presidential race. That’s extremely unlikely. But if he does, there’s only one alternative: Bernie Sanders.



A major party’s presumptive nominee enmeshed in multiple sexual harassment and assault scandals dropping out months before the general election is the sort of thing that seems like it could never actually happen — until it does. My bet is still that Joe Biden will power through the uproar over Tara Reade and accept the Democratic nomination in a few months down the road, but I’m not a fortune teller, and neither is anyone else.

Nevertheless, several other people have begun to game out what would happen in Biden were to drop out this late in the race. Some of the darker conspiracies imagine an endgame where Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton are installed by party leaders at the convention, while writers like Alex Pareene imagine a less dramatic scenario: Biden withdraws, his opponents reenter the race, and the primary resumes. Again, I do not think any of this is very likely, but since so many possibilities have been put on the table I feel compelled, as a matter of due diligence, to make a simple point: if Biden leaves, Bernie Sanders will have the strongest claim to the nomination.

The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates.

Looking at these outcomes, it is impossible for anyone other than Sanders to win a majority; improbable that anyone else can win a plurality; extremely likely that he would win a very strong plurality; and possible, though not likely, that he could win an outright majority.

The Convention

It’s difficult to imagine a plausible pretext for denying Sanders the nomination if he were to enter the convention with an outright majority of votes. And looking at the math, this isn’t outside the realm of possibility, especially in this tumultuous primary.

But the most likely outcome, it seems, is that Sanders would enter the convention with less than a majority but a significant plurality. In terms of process, this would send the convention to a second round of voting, releasing all pledged delegates and bringing superdelegates into the fray.

This would be a politically dangerous stage for Sanders, since there are no real rules for who has to vote for him at this point — just arguments. For his part, Sanders would be able to appeal to his plurality, and would probably be able to point to the precedent of Obama as a win under logically identical circumstances. His opponents, meanwhile, would have to rely on all kinds of counterfactual speculation (“if Biden had dropped out earlier Warren would have won!”) and Calvinball maneuvers (“what matters is who has the most first plus second place support, not just first place support”).

Or, of course, they could simply declare the first round of voting irrelevant and win the second round with behind-the-scenes coordination, just as they coordinated to defeat Sanders in February, and perhaps by crowning someone who didn’t run in the primary.

I do not, once more, think that any of this is very likely: politicians in the modern era have learned that they can weather just about any scandal if they’re stubborn enough, and if Biden hasn’t dropped out yet it’s difficult to imagine what would finally push him over the edge. Nevertheless, since most pundits seem more concerned with who could be nominated than who should be nominated in the event of a Biden dropout, it’s worth keeping Bernie’s claim in mind.

Wow turns out even Tucker Carlson agrees with me about Reade- the inconsistency and the questionable timing...

"After reiterating the allegations against Biden, Carlson said, “But there is evidence on the other side as well, and we feel honor-bound to tell you about it. Just last year, Tara Reade told a very different story about what happened with Joe Biden. In 2019, she said he touched her inappropriately on the neck and shoulders. She said not that she was fired for complaining about harassment, much less being penetrated by Joe Biden. She then said she was fired because she refused to serve drinks at an event.”

Carlson then pointed out that Reade was a Bernie Sanders supporter, and questioned the timing and motive behind her allegations against Biden.

“There’s the question of Reade’s politics,” Carlson said. “We normally wouldn’t get into that because it’s not germane. But keep in mind this story is unfolding during a presidential campaign. And it’s also playing out against the backdrop of fierce infighting within the Democratic Party.” Carlson later went on to add, “It’s notable that before Joe Biden started beating Bernie Sanders in the primary, Tara Reade wasn’t attacking Joe Biden, instead she had effusively positive things to say about him. In 2017, Tara Reade repeatedly praised Joe Biden for his work against sexual assault.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...-allegations-against-joe-biden-081305195.html

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Anything (like Free tuition) that galvanizes younger generation voters who DO NOT VOTE, that at the same time infuriates older voters who DO VOTE who see it as "socialism" and a pandering giveaway. I'm NOT saying those perceptions are accurate or that I agree with them. I'm just saying they infuriate many of the voters who might be inclined to vote for Biden, and consequently when the GOAL above ANYTHING else is to get rid of TRUMP- I oppose them.

I realize it's difficult for young people to accept political reality and realize that you have to wait until the time is right. I was young too at one time, and you sometimes learn things the hard way. I was in Germany when Reagan was elected, so I could basically ignore that tragedy and wait for Clinton's election to correct that mistake. But if you want to use the Democratic party as your vehicle for change then you can't afford to come off as some sort of an outsider and basically alienate the voters who ARE that party. And you can't do ANYTHING without support from the Legislative branch- they make the laws...

A), there's zero reason to believe any more would vote against Bernie on free tuition, than for, as very very few would vote against Bernie just on that, while a greater number would vote for him just on that..

few would vote for Trump because they are against free tuition, but more than a few would vote for Bernie because they are for it.

and don't think Covid and a general vs a primary won't bring more young voters out than otherwise.


B), Clinton wasn't much better than Reagan.

NAFTA and letting the banks totally corruptly gamble beyond irresponsibly with money they didn't have, (leading to 2008 debacle), was as bad as killing the air traffic controller's strike, and tax breaks for the rich.

saying that Biden has a better chance vs Trump than Bernie is as false as it was with Hilary, (when polls showed Bernie doing better vs Trump than Hilary), and that falsehood led to Trump winning in 2016.

but keep up with the false propaganda.

and if you think Medicare for all isn't going to be way more popular in Nov than a couple months ago, (when it was already extremely popular), then you're living on another planet.

and don't think the Pubs will let Joe and Hunter's blatant Burisma and Bank Of China corruption get swept under the rug like the DNC and their media did.

Trump will bring it up in literally every debate and rally, and tweet it 5 times a day, and Joe will have some serious esplaining to do on those.

good luck esplaining those away, and "I did nothing illegal", isn't going to cut it when Trump isn't going to let it go like the Dem candidates had to.

as for the "socialism" thing CNN and MSNBC hit Bernie with all day everyday after Nevada, i have a feeling that charge isn't going to have the same impact after Covid as before, and after "socialism" is all that's between many working class and bankruptsey and homelessness, and after the DNC and RNC just spent way more in "socialism" than Bernie was ever proposing, considering MFA, even with far greater coverage, will cost no more or less than we have been spending on private insurance, and a lot more will be without private insurance than last spring.

but just keep making stuff up, cause make believe is all you got.

 

[twenty02]

A), there's zero reason to believe any more would vote against Bernie on free tuition, than for, as very very few would vote against Bernie just on that, while a greater number would vote for him just on that..

few would vote for Trump because they are against free tuition, but more than a few would vote for Bernie because they are for it.

and don't think Covid and a general vs a primary won't bring more young voters out than otherwise.


B), Clinton wasn't much better than Reagan.

NAFTA and letting the banks totally corruptly gamble beyond irresponsibly with money they didn't have, (leading to 2008 debacle), was as bad as killing the air traffic controller's strike, and tax breaks for the rich.

saying that Biden has a better chance vs Trump than Bernie is as false as it was with Hilary, (when polls showed Bernie doing better vs Trump than Hilary), and that falsehood led to Trump winning in 2016.

but keep up with the false propaganda.

and if you think Medicare for all isn't going to be way more popular in Nov than a couple months ago, (when it was already extremely popular), then you're living on another planet.

and don't think the Pubs will let Joe and Hunter's blatant Burisma and Bank Of China corruption get swept under the rug like the DNC and their media did.

Trump will bring it up in literally every debate and rally, and tweet it 5 times a day, and Joe will have some serious esplaining to do on those.

good luck esplaining those away, and "I did nothing illegal", isn't going to cut it when Trump isn't going to let it go like the Dem candidates had to.

as for the "socialism" thing CNN and MSNBC hit Bernie with all day everyday after Nevada, i have a feeling that charge isn't going to have the same impact after Covid as before, and after "socialism" is all that's between many working class and bankruptsey and homelessness, and after the DNC and RNC just spent way more in "socialism" than Bernie was ever proposing, considering MFA, even with far greater coverage, will cost no more or less than we have been spending on private insurance, and a lot more will be without private insurance than last spring.

but just keep making stuff up, cause make believe is all you got.

You can keep shouting at clouds for years to come, but Bernie's political career is over. Time to find a new champion.

He got two H2H shots in the Dem primary system..... came close once, got blown out in the 2nd. His trend was down, not up. And that was against a couple of pretty lame candidates. Best of luck with your socialist candidate next time around.

 

[mcmurtry66]

A), there's zero reason to believe any more would vote against Bernie on free tuition, than for, as very very few would vote against Bernie just on that, while a greater number would vote for him just on that..

few would vote for Trump because they are against free tuition, but more than a few would vote for Bernie because they are for it.

and don't think Covid and a general vs a primary won't bring more young voters out than otherwise.


B), Clinton wasn't much better than Reagan.

NAFTA and letting the banks totally corruptly gamble beyond irresponsibly with money they didn't have, (leading to 2008 debacle), was as bad as killing the air traffic controller's strike, and tax breaks for the rich.

saying that Biden has a better chance vs Trump than Bernie is as false as it was with Hilary, (when polls showed Bernie doing better vs Trump than Hilary), and that falsehood led to Trump winning in 2016.

but keep up with the false propaganda.

and if you think Medicare for all isn't going to be way more popular in Nov than a couple months ago, (when it was already extremely popular), then you're living on another planet.

and don't think the Pubs will let Joe and Hunter's blatant Burisma and Bank Of China corruption get swept under the rug like the DNC and their media did.

Trump will bring it up in literally every debate and rally, and tweet it 5 times a day, and Joe will have some serious esplaining to do on those.

good luck esplaining those away, and "I did nothing illegal", isn't going to cut it when Trump isn't going to let it go like the Dem candidates had to.

as for the "socialism" thing CNN and MSNBC hit Bernie with all day everyday after Nevada, i have a feeling that charge isn't going to have the same impact after Covid as before, and after "socialism" is all that's between many working class and bankruptsey and homelessness, and after the DNC and RNC just spent way more in "socialism" than Bernie was ever proposing, considering MFA, even with far greater coverage, will cost no more or less than we have been spending on private insurance, and a lot more will be without private insurance than last spring.

but just keep making stuff up, cause make believe is all you got.

Wow you’re out there if you don’t think Biden has a better chance than Bernie. Bernie’s policies have already been vetted and the voters said no. Add the undecided voters and trump would beat Bernie in a landslide even if we eclipse a million Covid deaths.

Soft on crime. Raise taxes for new social programs. Raise minimum wage to 15 bucks. Consider reparations. Roll back charter schools. Free college. Forgive student loans. Roll back abortion limitations. His stance on illegals blah blah blah. That’s a small group of supporters who are aren’t very reliable when it comes to showing up to vote.

Not a chance. Let’s just hope biden’s mental health is good because he’s the best chance to oust trump. By nov I suspect the economy’s engine will be knocking and the virus will still have us all in some kind of bizarre limbo. It’ll be ripe for biden to win.

 

[Digressions]

You can keep shouting at clouds for years to come, but Bernie's political career is over. Time to find a new champion.

He got two H2H shots in the Dem primary system..... came close once, got blown out in the 2nd. His trend was down, not up. And that was against a couple of pretty lame candidates. Best of luck with your socialist candidate next time around.

The worst thing Bernie ever did was brand himself a socialist. It was unnecessary, inaccurate, and politically untenable.

The one good that came from it, is he has ripped that mantra from the Republican playbook. It will be much harder for Republicans to use that scare tactic this fall. They will-of course- try, but even the most out of touch voter should know by now that AOC's wing of the Democratic party lost in the primary.

Or, IOW, if a "swing voter" votes against Biden this fall- because Trump accused him of being a socialist- that was never really a swing voter anyway.

 

[DrHoops]

LOL

JACOBIN



If Joe Biden Drops Out, Bernie Sanders Must Be the Democratic Nominee

BY

CARL BEIJER

Speculation is growing that the scandal-plagued Joe Biden might drop out of the presidential race. That’s extremely unlikely. But if he does, there’s only one alternative: Bernie Sanders.



A major party’s presumptive nominee enmeshed in multiple sexual harassment and assault scandals dropping out months before the general election is the sort of thing that seems like it could never actually happen — until it does. My bet is still that Joe Biden will power through the uproar over Tara Reade and accept the Democratic nomination in a few months down the road, but I’m not a fortune teller, and neither is anyone else.

Nevertheless, several other people have begun to game out what would happen in Biden were to drop out this late in the race. Some of the darker conspiracies imagine an endgame where Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton are installed by party leaders at the convention, while writers like Alex Pareene imagine a less dramatic scenario: Biden withdraws, his opponents reenter the race, and the primary resumes. Again, I do not think any of this is very likely, but since so many possibilities have been put on the table I feel compelled, as a matter of due diligence, to make a simple point: if Biden leaves, Bernie Sanders will have the strongest claim to the nomination.

The Primary Votes

The pre-convention math is straightforward. To see the range of possible outcomes, let’s imagine that Elizabeth Warren — who is currently trailing in third place — wins all of the delegates that Bernie does not. Here are four scenarios:



SCENARIO A — Warren wins 100 percent of remaining delegates. She would capture a plurality of the vote, but fall far short of a majority.

SCENARIO B — Sanders wins 19 percent of remaining delegates. With just this meager performance, Sanders would capture an insurmountable plurality.

SCENARIO C — Sanders meets 538’s current delegate average, wins 31.5 percent of remaining delegates. The math would change, of course, if Biden dropped out — but if Sanders simply matches his current performance in the remaining states he would hold a commanding lead of nearly 400 delegates. For perspective, this would be more substantial than Obama’s 2008 primary win over Clinton, where he beat her with a plurality by 294.5 delegates.

SCENARIO D — Sanders wins 71 percent of all remaining delegates. This would give Sanders a majority of delegates.

Looking at these outcomes, it is impossible for anyone other than Sanders to win a majority; improbable that anyone else can win a plurality; extremely likely that he would win a very strong plurality; and possible, though not likely, that he could win an outright majority.

The Convention

It’s difficult to imagine a plausible pretext for denying Sanders the nomination if he were to enter the convention with an outright majority of votes. And looking at the math, this isn’t outside the realm of possibility, especially in this tumultuous primary.

But the most likely outcome, it seems, is that Sanders would enter the convention with less than a majority but a significant plurality. In terms of process, this would send the convention to a second round of voting, releasing all pledged delegates and bringing superdelegates into the fray.

This would be a politically dangerous stage for Sanders, since there are no real rules for who has to vote for him at this point — just arguments. For his part, Sanders would be able to appeal to his plurality, and would probably be able to point to the precedent of Obama as a win under logically identical circumstances. His opponents, meanwhile, would have to rely on all kinds of counterfactual speculation (“if Biden had dropped out earlier Warren would have won!”) and Calvinball maneuvers (“what matters is who has the most first plus second place support, not just first place support”).

Or, of course, they could simply declare the first round of voting irrelevant and win the second round with behind-the-scenes coordination, just as they coordinated to defeat Sanders in February, and perhaps by crowning someone who didn’t run in the primary.

I do not, once more, think that any of this is very likely: politicians in the modern era have learned that they can weather just about any scandal if they’re stubborn enough, and if Biden hasn’t dropped out yet it’s difficult to imagine what would finally push him over the edge. Nevertheless, since most pundits seem more concerned with who could be nominated than who should be nominated in the event of a Biden dropout, it’s worth keeping Bernie’s claim in mind.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The worst thing Bernie ever did was brand himself a socialist. It was unnecessary, inaccurate, and politically untenable.

The one good that came from it, is he has ripped that mantra from the Republican playbook. It will be much harder for Republicans to use that scare tactic this fall. They will-of course- try, but even the most out of touch voter should know by now that AOC's wing of the Democratic party lost in the primary.

Or, IOW, if a "swing voter" votes against Biden this fall- because Trump accused him of being a socialist- that was never really a swing voter anyway.

Bernie’s a gadfly. The opposite of anything I would ever vote for, but as a gadfly I think he can retire a success. He’s championed something and sustained it for a very long time, and made it a topic of discussion and consideration.

 

[Digressions]

Bernie’s a gadfly. The opposite of anything I would ever vote for, but as a gadfly I think he can retire a success. He’s championed something and sustained it for a very long time, and made it a topic of discussion and consideration.

As I've said before, Bernie was to the right of Eisenhower on many issues. Tax rates, infrastructure, protectionism, ect.

Would you have considered him a gadfly if he said, "I'm going to spend the same percentage of GDP on infrastructure, as Ike did. I'm going to use tax incentives and tariffs to protect the American worker, and ensure that wages go back up to a proportionate amount, that resembles something much closer to the 1950's than where we are today. I'm going to raise taxes on the wealthy, but the top marginal rate will still be 35-40% below Ike's top marginal rate."

What would you be saying about him, if he would have ran on an even more progressive platform, and labeled it, "A Return to Eisenhower's America"? I don't think Roosevelt or Ike would have branded themselves socialists, or even Democratic socialists, even though- according to Bernie's definition of socialist- that's what they were.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The worst thing Bernie ever did was brand himself a socialist. It was unnecessary, inaccurate, and politically untenable.

The one good that came from it, is he has ripped that mantra from the Republican playbook. It will be much harder for Republicans to use that scare tactic this fall. They will-of course- try, but even the most out of touch voter should know by now that AOC's wing of the Democratic party lost in the primary.

Or, IOW, if a "swing voter" votes against Biden this fall- because Trump accused him of being a socialist- that was never really a swing voter anyway.

In addition, he doesn't understand the Nordic model he supposedly supports. He is stuck in the Nordic model from 1970, which was proven unsuccessful. The Nordic countries, for example, have tremendous amounts of free trade.

Nordic countries tend to eschew government regulation of business by having very high union participation. Over 60% of all workers are unionized. So Sweden, for example, has no minimum wage. The US union rate is around 10%. Maybe if we had strong unions we could cut back on government regulation? Of course many conservatives heartily oppose both unions and regulation because Ayn Rand wrote some books.

From a CNN article:

But it is a market with many differences from the United States. All Danish citizens have access to child care, state-guaranteed medical and parental leave from work, free college tuition in which students receive a paycheck from the government during enrollment, free health care and a generous pension, all of which Sanders supports.

"Free" is actually the wrong word to describe these services. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world, including a 25% tax on all goods and services, a top marginal tax rate hovering near 60%. The top tax rate in the U.S., by comparison, is less than 40%.

But there are aspects to the Danish model that you would never see on Sanders' policy platform. As a small country heavily reliant on trade, Denmark imposes minimal tariffs on foreign goods. Businesses here are only lightly regulated. The corporate tax rate is much lower than in the United States, which has one of the highest in the world. There's not even a minimum wage in Denmark, although most workers are paid high salaries in large part due to the strength of labor unions. And in the past few years, Danish voters elected a right-of-center government, which has been instituting reforms that have put tighter restrictions on access to the long-held safety net.
​

I am starting to think we could solve our inequality issues by eliminating the minimum wage and pass real reforms to strengthen unions. The minimum wage sets a floor that traps prices low. Paying $11 with an $8 minimum wage sounds like a great deal, but it isn't. That $8 is way too low historically, so people are trapped in just above minimum wage jobs. If all of McDonalds was unionized (and protected), I suspect their workers would do better.

 

[mcmurtry66]

In addition, he doesn't understand the Nordic model he supposedly supports. He is stuck in the Nordic model from 1970, which was proven unsuccessful. The Nordic countries, for example, have tremendous amounts of free trade.

Nordic countries tend to eschew government regulation of business by having very high union participation. Over 60% of all workers are unionized. So Sweden, for example, has no minimum wage. The US union rate is around 10%. Maybe if we had strong unions we could cut back on government regulation? Of course many conservatives heartily oppose both unions and regulation because Ayn Rand wrote some books.

From a CNN article:

But it is a market with many differences from the United States. All Danish citizens have access to child care, state-guaranteed medical and parental leave from work, free college tuition in which students receive a paycheck from the government during enrollment, free health care and a generous pension, all of which Sanders supports.

"Free" is actually the wrong word to describe these services. Danes pay some of the highest taxes in the world, including a 25% tax on all goods and services, a top marginal tax rate hovering near 60%. The top tax rate in the U.S., by comparison, is less than 40%.

But there are aspects to the Danish model that you would never see on Sanders' policy platform. As a small country heavily reliant on trade, Denmark imposes minimal tariffs on foreign goods. Businesses here are only lightly regulated. The corporate tax rate is much lower than in the United States, which has one of the highest in the world. There's not even a minimum wage in Denmark, although most workers are paid high salaries in large part due to the strength of labor unions. And in the past few years, Danish voters elected a right-of-center government, which has been instituting reforms that have put tighter restrictions on access to the long-held safety net.
​

I am starting to think we could solve our inequality issues by eliminating the minimum wage and pass real reforms to strengthen unions. The minimum wage sets a floor that traps prices low. Paying $11 with an $8 minimum wage sounds like a great deal, but it isn't. That $8 is way too low historically, so people are trapped in just above minimum wage jobs. If all of McDonalds was unionized (and protected), I suspect their workers would do better.

That’s tough Marvin but I disagree it has anything to do with Rand’s books. I think the idea of unions and the purpose of unions is great. The problem is they ran amok. You can’t have guys making a $100k a year with a GED at Chrysler. And I had many friends that did so for years until they closed shop here. The cost of it is untenable when you throw in pensions/benefits/worker’s compensation/taxes, etc.

Minimum wage wasn’t intended to sustain a career. It was for part time work and kids, etc. Fixing minimum wage isn’t the answer imo it’s training/educating people so they can do better than minimum wage. In that respect we just continue to fail.

Somewhere along the line the price of everything in relation to earnings went nuts. A work truck is $45k. A decent house in most cities is $300k plus. College is absurdly expensive. Folks are going to have to do a lot better than minimum wage to live a decent life or go live off the grid. The cost of living is absurd.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That’s tough Marvin but I disagree it has anything to do with Rand’s books. I think the idea of unions and the purpose of unions is great. The problem is they ran amok. You can’t have guys making a $100k a year with a GED at Chrysler. And I had many friends that did so for years until they closed shop here. The cost of it is untenable when you throw in pensions/benefits/worker’s compensation/taxes, etc.

Minimum wage wasn’t intended to sustain a career. It was for part time work and kids, etc. Fixing minimum wage isn’t the answer imo it’s training/educating people so they can do better than minimum wage. In that respect we just continue to fail.

Something like 10% of all Americans work in a restaurant. Sure, many are kids but many are not. That is an industry rife with low wages.

Another major employer is tourism. Hotel workers in most communities are not much above minimum wage.

Retail is another example. A whole lot of businesses are open during the day when little Johnny and Suzie are in school.

I agree with you that training has a big role to play. But training in what? We do need welders (though the need is sometimes exaggerated). We need STEM, but like it or not most people don't want to become an engineer.

The starting wage at Cook in Bloomington for a line worker is $11. That isn't far off from what McDonalds pays. Granted, I am sure that goes up, but it doesn't go up a whole lot. I have never met anyone who came from Cook who had good things to say about their wages. It sure isn't Cummins (the other town I am greatly familiar with).

I've heard of a lot of things compared to scales, the kind where you put an item on both sides to get the weight. Scales will go too far one way then too far the other then work their way to balance. Unions were out of balance one way, now they are out of balance the other. It is time to work them back toward that equilibrium.

Looking at COVID, which works better. Having the government issue one set of rules for all businesses everywhere or have a business negotiate with its labor force for a set of rules that works for both?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Something like 10% of all Americans work in a restaurant. Sure, many are kids but many are not. That is an industry rife with low wages.

Another major employer is tourism. Hotel workers in most communities are not much above minimum wage.

Retail is another example. A whole lot of businesses are open during the day when little Johnny and Suzie are in school.

I agree with you that training has a big role to play. But training in what? We do need welders (though the need is sometimes exaggerated). We need STEM, but like it or not most people don't want to become an engineer.

The starting wage at Cook in Bloomington for a line worker is $11. That isn't far off from what McDonalds pays. Granted, I am sure that goes up, but it doesn't go up a whole lot. I have never met anyone who came from Cook who had good things to say about their wages. It sure isn't Cummins (the other town I am greatly familiar with).

I've heard of a lot of things compared to scales, the kind where you put an item on both sides to get the weight. Scales will go too far one way then too far the other then work their way to balance. Unions were out of balance one way, now they are out of balance the other. It is time to work them back toward that equilibrium.

Looking at COVID, which works better. Having the government issue one set of rules for all businesses everywhere or have a business negotiate with its labor force for a set of rules that works for both?

Tough questions I know. I’m in the manufacturing sector. What we do and the factories we work with are all small time. Rural mostly. Wife sews at the factory for $9 an hour husband drives a truck and together they do fine. The factories employ maybe 100 to 150 people. Towns give them tax abatements etc. $15 hour they cannot do. It would put them out of business. The margins are too tight. This is where the trump rhetoric resonates with people. If these plants didn’t have to compete with China then they probably could make it because the entire space could raise prices on the products without competition of Chinese manufacturing. And this is a story that plays out all over America. It’s the diversity of our country that makes us great but it’s also our biggest challenge. What’s good for retail wages in Brooklyn is bad for rural Illinois.

 

[UncleMark]

That’s tough Marvin but I disagree it has anything to do with Rand’s books. I think the idea of unions and the purpose of unions is great. The problem is they ran amok. You can’t have guys making a $100k a year with a GED at Chrysler. And I had many friends that did so for years until they closed shop here. The cost of it is untenable when you throw in pensions/benefits/worker’s compensation/taxes, etc.

Those UAW contracts were outliers, but they are what people point to when discussing unions. The vast majority of union workers made/make far less than that, usually just enough to have a modest middle class life. The working class heroes here in Bloomington who worked at GE and Westinghouse and RCA and Otis were all unionized, but no one was "making a $100k a year with a GED". They made enough to have a modest home in Highland Village, have a pickup and a "wife car", and be able to go to Dollyworld once a year. The stereotype of the lazy union worker "making a $100k a year with a GED" is bullshit.