Why Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Will Win the Presidency with Robert Reich

[Newest Reality]

Even if you disagree with his prognostications here, the background information about why there is a problem with it is important. It seems like what we are really up against together is becoming clearer and more focused and we have to confront it for many good reasons.

One way or another we have real fight ahead to resume and strengthen the power of our democracy. the point is that we all get on board in the most general sense, see through the facade pasted on the mainstream and get real about it. Out power starts with our numbers.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains why Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are best positioned to beat Trump in 2020.

[re-posted in DP by member request]

[Tiggeroshii]

1. 100%

k/r

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Yup yup... though you heard it here first!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Quackers]

116. I know you support a Bernie and Elizabeth ticket but

I have been curious, why do you think if one of them gets the nomination, they’ll pick the other as VP? Please don’t think I’m picking on you, I’m genuinely curious. You have had them grouped together for as long as I can remember since this sub opened. Do you have a preference of which one gets the nomination?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

135. I appreciate your curiosity... don't feel "picked on" at all. I've had Bernie & Elizabeth

grouped together since about early 2014, or soon after Bernie started seriously talking about running for the 2016 Presidential nomination - can't remember the exact date - but, yes, for a VERY LONG TIME. They just seem to be political and idealogical "soul mates," complimenting each other very well on most progressive issues, although I do wish they came out of different parts of the country, rather than both being Senators from the Northeast... though, perhaps, that's why they align so well. TBH, however, I seriously don't think it really matters much anymore, as it once did.

Bernie and Elizabeth also compliment each other very well in terms of personality and temperament... and it helps tremendously that Elizabeth is, perhaps, the most COMPETENT female candidate - notice, I didn't say most QUALIFIED, as that distinction belongs to Hillary - to EVER run for President.

In answer to your other question, as I've stated many times, Bernie is my #1 preference, although I could EASILY throw my support over to Elizabeth for President if that's the will of primary voters and caucus goers... TOGETHER, however, I truly believe they are UNSTOPPABLE, and as I've predicted for all these years, that's EXACTLY what I see happening. I see Joe fading, just as he did in the previous two primary contests he lost in 1988 and 2008. Indeed, together, Bernie and Elizabeth have the best chance of rallying the base, bringing in lots of new voters - especially young ones and those who've never voted before - and uniting our Party following their nomination in a way that will handily defeat that "tRumpster fire" occupying our White House and his RethugliKKKon henchmen in the General Election.

Just remember where you heard it first!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hortensis]

162. Reich's lying. He KNOWS this isn't true.

We really can lose in 2020 despite Trump/GOP crimes, and nominating a 1930s-style socialist with a 50-year history of extremist positions and statements -- whose candidacy was also promoted by Russia! -- would be the most sure way.

[TidalWave46]

2. He could have just said Warren.

No need to bring her down with the attachment. Then again, that wouldn't have made as good of an anti-establishment fear rant.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. It's only a rant if it isnt backed up by anything.

Warren and Sanders are two peas in a pod with their economic policies, and it isn't a stretch to say that scares a lot of people whose wealth will be affected. Those people are making investments as political donations in order to secure their largest investments.

[TidalWave46]

18. "It's only a rant if it isnt backed up by anything."

That is not a qualification for a rant.

They aren't two peas in a pod with their economics.

This seems more like trying to attach a failing beast to a rising beauty.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. They are two peas in a pod with their economics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/warren-and-sanders-policy-mates-11571181041

Medicare for all and taxing the wealthy to rebuild the middle class are the crux of each of their campaign platforms.

[TidalWave46]

24. No, they are not.

You highlight a huge difference. Not even close. One has a way to pay for single payer. The other just throws a bunch of thoughts at the wall(no way to pay for it at all). Warren literally had to do Sanders heavy lifting. She was willing to take the hits.

Murdock telling you they are two peas in a pod should flip a switch for you. Murdoch want to connect them to hurt Warren who he views as a threat. Reich wants to attach Sanders to a winner.

[Tiggeroshii]

26. Um. Did you see them on the debate stage defending each other's medicare for all policy?

Strange they would do that if they were completely different.

Also, they both are taxing the ultra wealthy to pay for it. No other candidate comes close to proposing that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. You nailed it! Bernie & Elizabeth are basically in tune wit each other & will make one helluva team!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[StrictlyRockers]

27. Sanders is surging in the polls and Warren is dropping.

It's hard to figure out, because their policies are almost identical.

Why do the voters prefer Sanders over Warren? I don't know, it is hard to figure out.

If you look at their economic policies, they are extremely close. These two are also great friends...as they should be...and as their supporters should also be...because their polices are EXTREMELY close to each other.

[Tiggeroshii]

35. 100%

But many of their supporters dont love each other and hopefully one will back the other early on to avoid destroying each other.

[StrictlyRockers]

54. Solidarity

#WarrenSanders2020 or #SandersWarren2020

I'm totally into it.

[Tiggeroshii]

55. Agreed

Although I can see the latter getting a lot more support among Democrats.

[brooklynite]

126. I concur that Warren is dropping...

...but in the aggregate, I'm not seeing much forward motion for Sanders, much less "surging".

https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/

[Tiggeroshii]

144. Keep your eyes peeled.

You'll see it quite soon!

[StrictlyRockers]

154. Yeah the Sanders surging is mostly aspirational at this point.

But I did go volunteer and make phone calls for him for a couple of hours last night.

So the surging is pretty much guaranteed now!!

[sheshe2]

163. Thank you! nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. You said it!! The Sanders/Warren team is unstoppable...they will CLOBBER Dolt 45 & his Rethug pals.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hortensis]

45. :) Like hell they are! If she doesn't despise him as much as

he does her, just privately and, imo, for far more cause, I'll eat my keyboard.

They're SO different people. Both VP Biden and SecState Hillary wanted Warren for their running mate. Neither would touch Sanders with a 10-foot pole. Lol, remembering his unsolicited announcement that he told Hillary he wouldn't be interested in the position after she paid him the courtesy of meeting with him.

And if for some political reason he could have ended up VP, he would have been constantly fighting with the mainstream Democratic president, offending Democrats in congress (as he always has), causing trouble for the administration with the press (as he always has as a senator and now presidential campaigner), and even his staff would have been fighting among themselves and with the staffs of others, as they do, and he would have ended up effectively self-exiling himself across the street. We know that because that's been his pattern for going on 30 years in DC. Remember, exactly zero out of hundreds of his colleagues who knew him supported him when he announced he was running in 2016? There are reasons for that, and none of them are that they're corrupt and he's a corruption-fighter.

In contrast, there are also reasons Warren was placed on a genuine leadership track upwards by her admiring colleagues among our senate leadership.

[Tiggeroshii]

46. Did you not see them defending each other on m4a on the debate stage?

Sure didn't look like they were sworn enemies there, at least!

[Hortensis]

48. No, I didn't watch them. I record the debates but only

watch bits if something makes me want to. Because they're not the real people or the real issues.

Remembr, congress legislates and controls the purse. Not presidents. And we're liberal Democrats, the kind of people who created separation of powers and don't do authoritarian following.

All these people claiming they'd create this and that major programs and legislation are deceiving their listeners. Sanders was doing it to such good effect, I guess some (not all!) of the others scrabbling for traction felt they had to pretend they could also. This is an ethics issue, btw.

Also btw, most of the legislators who created the ACA, the greatest achievement of many of their careers in this unfortunate conservative-dominated era, are still in congress. They're not about to repeal Obamacare and go off on "adventures in healthcare" to please the populists right and left who've had a strange hair up their butts about Obamacare since the beginning.

[Tiggeroshii]

49. M4A is far more popular than the ACA ever was.

Yet the ACA passed and was signed, despite it at first having no to little support. Medicare for all would prove far more successful as it starts off with a much larger base.

[Hortensis]

50. Only those who don't know what it is. Most of those had

that hair about the great achievement of Barack Obama's Democratic administration from the beginning and refuse to consider any dangers or problems to it.

Support among the rest falls dramatically when they learn, not from Sanders, but from others just what he proposes to replace Obamacare with.

That's without anyone also explaining the grave dangers of trying to dismantle the ACA while mostly simultaneously implementing it over most of a decade -- while Republicans implacably determined to destroy both programs would be gaining and hopefully losing power in congress and the WH, and nonstop court battles waged against both.

[Tiggeroshii]

51. ACA had less than 20% support when passed.

No matter how it is worded, m4a has consistently been far above that.

On edit: actually they seem to have similar levels of popularity. ACA started at around 40% support when passed according to rcp.

[Hortensis]

52. You believe what you want. Many very smart, competent and

honest experts in healthcare policy are fighting to make sure you have good healthcare in the future. Whether it has the label and provenance you want or not.

[Tiggeroshii]

53. Sure.

We can agree there.

Even if we disagree on some specifics.

[PufPuf23]

94. M4A is more like prior to 1990s Democratic proposed healthcare plans

and like health care now available in most other 1st world economies (Canada, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Japan, etc.) whereas the ACA is a historically GOP approach and more like RomneyCare in MA or the proposed DoleCare, neo-liberal solutions in structure.

M4A is why I favor Warren.

[Tiggeroshii]

95. It seems to make more sense... ACA is I think identical to Nixon's proposed plan

[Gothmog]

164. Some sanders supporters are really pushing this concept

There are some who are pushing this concept to prevent a "neo-liberal from becoming the nominee https://theintercept.com/2020/01/09/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-progressives-delegate-count/

“We cannot sit on the sidelines as we watch this primary play out and allow a neoliberal be elected,” said Ana María Archila, co-president of Center for Popular Democracy Action, explaining CPDA’s endorsement of Sanders in December. “If we stay divided, the corporate Democrats will pick the nominee.” Nathan J. Robinson, editor of Current Affairs magazine and a Sanders supporter who has repeatedly made the case for harsher criticism of Warren, made a similar point: “Bernie represents a historic opportunity that must not be missed. If people sit on the fence for it, Biden may very well win this primary.”

[George II]

3. We're going to elect two Presidents next year?

[Tiggeroshii]

5. We are going to elect Bernie, and Warren will be his VP.

or vice versa. That seems like the only option to me towards accomplishing what he saying, anyways.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. Why didn't I think of that!! Hahaha!! Bernie & Elizabeth will make one helluva team!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tiggeroshii]

44. Bluestate you've been ahead of the game for a while now!

I'm hoping that one drops out and endorses the other shortly after super Tuesday. And then a VP announcement!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

136. Thank you for that Tiggeroshii. That's EXACTLY what is going to happen... count on it!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

7. The left can see the writing on the wall that neither can win a primary...so the idea is to run as

a team and try to force a brokered convention...we would lose so badly if this came to pass but luckily,I think rank and file Democrats have more sense, and Biden will win the nomination and there will be no brokered convention.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. It's the key to victory, as I've predicted for many years!! Time to face the political reality!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Demsrule86]

63. The reality is that neither Warren nor Sanders will be the nominee...there will be no

brokered convention...thank God...or we would lose.l There is not enough support for either...primaries are individual things...now if one wants to drop out...maybe the other picks up support...but I find it unlikely...consider what we need to win in the rust belt...left won't do it...I say this sadly.

[redstateblues]

132. Thanks for bringing the topic back yo reality. Neither will win the primary

Bernie joining forces? LOL

[PufPuf23]

98. Obviously that was not what Reich said. nt

[Demsrule86]

6. Reich is delusional...Neither Sanders nor Warren will win the nomination nor would they win a

general...Sanders has more of a chance as he built up some good will in Mid West states where we must win in 16...but Warren not so much, and both would be disastrous down ballot in red or purple states. We would be fortunate to keep the house and we might as well kiss our chances in the senate goodbye if either Warren or Sanders is the nominee...they have of course my vote in a general. I believe Biden is the most electable Democrat in our party.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. They are the only candidates that have a shot at bringing in any serious coattails in red or purple

states.

Bernie built that good will in the midwest because of his policies, not his charm. Warren's policies are identical in the fundamental ways as his. They are the only ones who will actually bring out the necessary turnout in the right places.

[Demsrule86]

9. I think both will lose the EC...Sander has a bit of a chance...but they will be branded socialist...

already saw it in the primary...and M4A is a loser in the general.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. When was the last time a candidate was branded socialist?

Oh yeah: Each and every candidate we've ever had. Somehow it didn't really do anything.

[TexasTowelie]

59. Yes,

but only one of the candidates has accepted that brand and promoted themselves as a socialist. The other candidates have emphasized that they are not socialists and support capitalism.

[Tiggeroshii]

70. Whether or not he accepts it, people who want to believe it, will.

People who know better, will.


The branding is de facto. If the policies are more socialist, they are called a socialist. If they arent remotely socialist, they are called a socialist. History shows that voters vote on policy and platform, not labels.

[PufPuf23]

99. Warren and Sanders are not socialists and Sanders is a social democrat.

Social democracy has the programs to support and lift the less economically fortunate but is a capitalistic framework. In socialism or in democratic socialism the means of production are owned and controlled by the state rather than private enterprise. Note the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy as political philosophies.

Both Warren and Sanders do not promote socialism but do promote a flattening of wealth and income. Warren does it as a Democrat while Sanders has spent his political career as an Independent that happens to be a social democrat in political philosophy. They both propose a menu of tweaks to capitalism to redistribute income and wealth and opportunity to be more inclusive and fair.

To call Democratic primary candidates socialism is what a right wing person would say.

[TexasTowelie]

106. Please don't be condescending to me.

I know the differences and I also know that the words "I am a socialist" have come from directly from Bernie. Bernie has also stated that he his personal goal is the foundation of a third party.

[PufPuf23]

108. Seriously that is a 44 second 1989 video of Bernie Sanders.

Sanders is a social democrat in action and in policy from his career.

I see you are a Sanders supporter for 2020 (I am not but currently do favor Warren and Sanders would be good as VP).

Are you a socialist?

I do not think socialism would be good nor viable in the USA. Pretty sure Bernie Sanders would agree. But our capitalism certainly could use some tweaks to function better.

This seems a little weird to me but I do not intend to be condescending or hostile in anyway. I did not even note your name on the post until your reply and it is rare I have any problem with you posts.

[Tiggeroshii]

110. Just a heads up

Many folks here are choosing candidates they obviously do not support as their preference. Not sure why, but it seems to be a trend of sorts.

[PufPuf23]

119. Thank you.

I'm not a regular in the Primaries Forum (and not a believer in picking candidate at this stage in the election cycle but would pick Warren as of today).

[Tiggeroshii]

120. Good choice!

[redstateblues]

134. Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist

[TexasTowelie]

142. I'm not a socialist

even though I leaned that way at one point in time. However, there is no way to reconcile socialism with the economic realities in this country. As you pointed out, it isn't viable in the USA. I'm not as certain as you are that Bernie would agree. Bernie has policies advocating for nationalization of industries dating back to the 1970s and continuing through the present. See posts #131 and #140.

Bernie has moderated his calls on nationalization of key industries over the past few decades to enhance his electability, but as his supporters frequently state, he has always been consistent. Therefore, I think the 1989 video defines him as much today as it did three decades ago. Post #131 provides the most recent examples that demonstrate he still believes in socialist policies.

[Tiggeroshii]

109. ...uhhuh

While in practice his policies are undeniably capitalist. Can you cite a specific policy of sanders that fits within the scope of the definition of actual socialism? If not he might just be a sino("socialist" in name only).

[TexasTowelie]

131. Yes, I can cite at least one specific policy that fits the definition of socialism.

Bernie does not believe that any utilities should remain in investor hands and believes that there should be massive public takeover of the nation's electrical grid.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22025/bernie-sanders-calls-to-seize-the-means-of-electricity-production-climate
(rated as having a bias towards the left)

=====

Bernie has also called for the Internet to be classified as a utility. From the first example, we can make a logical guess as to what the next step will be which is to nationalize it. Imagine the consequences regulating the content available on the Internet?

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-internet-as-utility-plan-explainer-2019-12
(also rated as left of center)

=====

Bernie also wants the clean energy program under the Green New Deal to be nationalized

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/08/23/bernie-sanders-wants-to-nationalize-clean-energy/
(a publication from the photovoltaic community, media rating bias unknown)

All of those examples appear to fit the definite of socialism (a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole), so thanks for asking. I've only started and I expect that there are other examples, but I believe that I answered your question. QED.

[Tiggeroshii]

138. I would argue that none of those examples fall under the "means of production" taken over by the

State. Which is not the same as nationalizing clean energy programs (which we already have) or placing a new utility under the category of a utility, or having the government control utilities which we also already do in many ways -and yet are still not socialist.


Until he proposes the complete takeover of our economy to be controlled by the government (as opposed to limited control), I wouldn't think he would fall under that framework as much as my Marxist, pinko commie butt would like.

I guess I could dream though, right?

[TexasTowelie]

140. You can argue it,

but you wouldn't be successful from the viewpoint of most people. Nice try though.

You wanted examples and I provided them to you, QED. Once the ball gets rolling though, do you believe that Bernie wouldn't try nationalizing other segments of the US economic system? There are other examples of Bernie promoting nationalization in major industries mentioned in this article:

Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html

The article discusses Bernie's stances dating back decades and includes

• The energy industry
• Electric and telephone utilities
• Public ownership of banks, corporations and the major industries
• Socialized medicine and public ownership of drug companies
• Taxing assets at 100%

That list also doesn't include his most recent opposition to corporate media. There really aren't many other economically significant industries left that aren't mentioned with the possible exception of transportation, but if Bernie saw an advantage of doing so he would most likely add it to the list.

During his 1974 Senate run, Sanders said one plan to expand government included making it illegal to gain more wealth than person could spend in a lifetime and have a 100% tax on incomes above this level. (Sanders defined this as $1 million dollars annually).

"Nobody should earn more than a million dollars," Sanders said.

I wonder if Bernie feels the same in 2019 as he did in 1974 now that he is a millionaire?

I believe that I've proven my point.

[Tiggeroshii]

143. Sigh

Good luck with that!

[TexasTowelie]

148. You too.

I can only refer to the words and actions provided by Bernie himself. There are benefits and liabilities for being consistent and being adaptable as well.

[Tiggeroshii]

149. Cheers

[NurseJackie]

158. "I believe that I've proven my point."

I believe that I've proven my point.

Yes you did. You certainly did.

(Nice silver-platter by the way.)

[redstateblues]

133. Bernie is a Democratic Socialist not a social democrat. Bernie claims he is a

Democratic Socialist. Toxic in the GE

[NurseJackie]

159. This would be playing on a nonstop loop on every TV and Facebook page...

This would be playing on a nonstop loop on every TV and Facebook page... courtesy of the GOP.

[Demsrule86]

67. You can't make people believe Biden is a socialist...he is too well known...but Warren and Sanders

they will be branded socialists...and M4A is a big loser in the general...probably the primary too.

[Tiggeroshii]

71. Right wingers believe trump is a better Prez than Lincoln.

I'm pretty sure they can be convinced Biden is a socialist. It worked for Hillary -and especially Obama.


But somehow nobody cared. Just like they wont care about what labels are thrown at Bernie, willingly or not.

[Demsrule86]

87. We need three states...MI, WI and PA...the policies advanced by both Sanders and Warren will not

work in those states...it is that simple.

[Tiggeroshii]

91. They will.

It is that simple.

[PufPuf23]

100. You are probably wrong. nt

[Desert grandma]

129. Totally agree with you.

It is all about the electoral college and the rust belt. I like Warren and Sanders, but my priority is getting rid of the Orange Buffoon. I believe Biden is the only candidate that will carry the rust belt. He has roots in Pennsylvania and he is very popular with labor. As far as the southern states, especially those with significant African American voters, I think Biden is by far the preferred candidate. I do believe he will be the nominee. If he is, we will win the general election. If another candidate turns out to be our nominee, that person will get my vote in the general. Vote blue, no matter who.

[guillaumeb]

28. Except that siongle payer is popular among actual voters.

Not so much in insurance company circles, where billions are being spent to sow fear.

[TexasTowelie]

62. Until the voters learn how much it will cost,

then the popularity of single payer nosedives.

[guillaumeb]

64. Single payer is cheaper in every country where it exists.

Insurance company propaganda cannot remove that fact.

[guillaumeb]

66. From an earlier post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212766458

[Demsrule86]

65. It is not popular. This is why Warren is slipping IMHO.

[guillaumeb]

68. The insurance profiteers are spending billions to frighten voters.

And judging by some responses here, it is working.

[TexasTowelie]

72. What is said and posted on DU

is not indicative of what is occurring with actual voters. Ultimately, most voters will make their decision who to vote for based upon how it effects their pocketbook rather than rolling the dice and the risks that entails.

[guillaumeb]

73. But that narrative of supposed higher cost is untrue.

And we must fight that with the truth.

[TexasTowelie]

75. The thing is that the narrative can't be proven as untrue.

Trying to make comparisons with what occurs in other countries isn't going anywhere. Furthermore, the cost control measures mentioned in M4A involve cutting payments for services which will be portrayed as rationing by the opposition. That won't fly with voters. Posts on social media aren't going to influence most voters, but you're welcome to keep trying.

[guillaumeb]

76. Alternate facts are believed by some.

We agree on that.

And de facto rationing occurs here. It is called lack of access to needed care.

[Demsrule86]

88. I am familiar with Medicare as my sis in law has it and it is not that great...why would I support s

something that will lead to rationing? And which will have mediocre coverage because the 'basics' will be covered. We can make something new instead of starting over again using the ACA and adding a public option...in the end, we will have a better program...and we will never never get M4A through...zLet me say, I will never forgive those who advance M4A publicly if we lose in court because SCOTUS feels they can vote to get rid of the ACA since it is under attack by Democrats...we would have nothing and nothing is what we would end up with. We lost a majority in order to pass health care and save lives and I am furious that M4A is even mentioned while the ACA is under attack in court.

[guillaumeb]

92. Most seniors have a positive opinion of Medicare.

And there is no rationing in Canada. That too is insurance company propaganda.

[PufPuf23]

102. Medicare saved my life.

So far (cross my fingers) I am a multiple cancer survivor granted still under treatment (which will probably continue until I am no more and be primarily paid for by Medicare).

[guillaumeb]

111. Congratulations, and further good luck.

I find it amazing that people complain about Medicare. It requires one to ignore the fact that seniors overwhelmingly like Medicare.

[PufPuf23]

121. Thank you. I cannot see why someone eligible would not like MediCare and

want Medicare expanded and simplified.

Maybe they have only experienced only medical care where costs and insurance cost and quality are not the issue as experienced by the vast majority of people or have no first hand experience and have set beliefs and biases?

[Demsrule86]

130. We are not Canada and it will happen here...as for liking it...it is all that is available but the

truth is it is expensive, doesn't pay for long term care and some seniors can't afford it...can't pay for the medicine either. When sisi in law had hip done, hubs and I paid the 2500 that would be her share or the doctor would not have fixed the hip...I am not impresssed...sure I will take it at 65 but I can see better plans...more for our century.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. +1,000,000!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TidalWave46]

25. Look at Reichs smirk as he starts the video.

He knows it's funny. He also knows his main readership of today doesn't care how he enters into his anti-establishment rants.

[Demsrule86]

69. The thing is he creates false expectations...neither are going to be the nominee.

[beastie boy]

11. A professed capitalist and Democrat on the same ticket as a professed socialist and an Independent?

Ha!

The chance of this happening is the same as an Eastern Orthodox and a Lutheran sharing the Papacy!

[Tiggeroshii]

12. I mean, it's about as reasonable.

The differences are superficial, and the fundamental commonalities are overwhelming.

[beastie boy]

14. As fundamental commonalities between Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants are overwhelming

And the differences between them are superficial. And history is full of examples of one peacefully and willingly ceding power to the other for the common good, right?

[Tiggeroshii]

16. The examples of warren and Sanders are just a little less charged

Than centuries of distrust and resentment between religious groups of people.

[beastie boy]

22. Just a little bit. But you got to start somewhere!

The stakes are a bit lower too: the victory in the Primaries vs billions of immortal human souls.

[Newest Reality]

13. It may not have been clear...

Near the end of the video, he makes it clear that it is an either or point he is making about the two candidates.

He is not necessarily suggesting that one choose the other as VP if nominated, though you could consider that one of many potentials.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. I think in order for Warren people to get behind Bernie in the primaries, she would NEED to VP.

She wouldn't be so restricted in her choices though and I personally wouldn't be as excited if he were VP as opposed to somebody younger.

[beastie boy]

20. My point, and I apologize for the facetiousness of it, is the two are ideologically incompatible

in any capacity, despite the similarities in their respective platforms. If the current dynamics between the two is any indication, it is far more likely that the relationship between the two will be fighting tooth and nail for the title of a kingmaker at the Democratic Convention, never mind the nomination. Reich touches on this point but, understandably, does not elaborate on it because doing so will expose his sentiment for what it is: wishful thinking.

[Jose Garcia]

15. 2018 Robert Reich: Odds are against Dem takeover of House

Rampant voter suppression and years of political gerrymandering make it unlikely Democrats will win enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives, said Robert Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and former secretary of labor to President Bill Clinton.

Reich, speaking at a Tuesday evening panel about the midterm elections, said that he doubts Democratic voters are enthusiastic enough to outvote pro-Trump voters in districts engineered to favor Republican incumbents.

“I want to make sure we face the reality,” he said in his opening remarks. “State after state after state is engaged in a degree of voting suppression that is unprecedented in the modern era. I’m talking about the last 20 to 30 years. It is going to be very hard for Democrats in this election."

https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/10/31/robert-reich-odds-are-against-dem-takeover-of-house/

[Tiggeroshii]

19. Everything he said was true.

And yet we won.

[revmclaren]

30. No...

Everything he said was wrong about losing, and we won. Even with voter surpression.

People do look at past records of the talking heads...in the real world and here on DU.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. Why do you think they were wrong?

[revmclaren]

38. Even with voter surpression we still won.

It's voter turnout for the candidates that matters, not popularity at rallies or on social media. Experience and trust matters. Talking to voters and not at them matters. Alienating voters matters.

This has always been true.

Promises are only pretty words.


But you know that.

ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. 100%

But i don't think that makes him wrong.

To me he was speaking of the really real threat of voter suppression, etc. and making the point of why strong voter turnout is so important.

[Cha]

56. Yeah, BS said he didn't think so, either.. they were

both WRONG.

And, look how much we're doing in the House because BS & RR were Wrong.

[TexasTowelie]

80. Reich's statements are heavily influenced by being in academia.

Being surrounded by students who have never earned a paycheck and who see proposals regarding free tuition and student debt forgiveness it leads to a disconnection with what is occurring outside that insulated environment.

[PufPuf23]

107. You pretty much slime many students who work and

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2019, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

attend school concurrently and/or go to school after work experience.

The student that does high school and then goes straight to a 4 year school, particularly oops meant to type private not public universities, is the exception.

I have two degrees from Cal (where Reich is an academic), 1970s and 1980s. Started the BS age 21 when I was already a career Fed in a technical job series and I needed a degree to be a professional. I was able to work 20-28 hours a week on detail from my regular Fed job in a Fed research lab then in Berkeley. The last two years I was also the caretaker on a wealthy person 2nd home in Piedmont.

Quit Fed service in mid 30s for a Cal Haas MBA. Started work as a TA and part time work for a SF real estate firm almost immediately. Before the year was up I was doing consulting as well as coursework and had more income than I had as a GS 11 Fed; the consulting work birthed my Applied Management Project and I went direct from Cal to a prominent management consulting company (who had also consulted the client that used my skills). Cal was relatively cheap compared to current costs but I assume that the "free" school touted by pols would be to bring all public universities to the opportunity once provided by the University of California system. The only student loan I took out was as a grad student to purchase my first pc along with a printer, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, and Debase.

The Cal MBA program then required at least 3 years experience between bachelors and entering the MBA program.

What I observe is that the student loan program is abused but more by shady schools that survive financially by luring students with student loans, where the students ring up astronomical student loan debts, too often without getting a degree much less work (which is fine by me as the goal of education is far more than a job and $$). The students themselves are victims in having large loan debt from over-priced education that can't be or is life crippling to repay. Thanks to the assistance of Joe Biden student loan debts cannot be dismissed in bankruptcy.

[The Valley Below]

114. Go Bears!

[TexasTowelie]

147. You mentioned what was occurring back in the 1970s and 1980s.

I did not intend to disrespect you and I commend you for obtaining further education and degrees, but I think that both of us will agree that the situation has changed since that time.

I do believe that there is a larger percentage of students who are attending college that probably are not college material as the number of remedial courses offered at universities increases. As far as the bankruptcy law changes that occurred while Biden was in office, the student loan debts weren't being paid and that financial burden was passed along to all taxpayers as banks wrote off those losses. While I have some sympathy for those students who were lured into college, I wasn't responsible for incurring that debt so why should I be expected to pay something that provided no benefit to me? If the students are intelligent enough to get into college, then they should also be intelligent enough to read and understand the contract they are signing. Those students gambled and it didn't pay off for them; however, that should not absolve them of the responsibilities they committed to.

I graduated with a BS degree in math from a private liberal arts college in 1987 and also held two part-time jobs while I was a student. I couldn't find employment when I graduated because the economy in Texas was decimated after the oil bust. My professors urged me to get a post-grad degree, but it wasn't feasible since my father was more or less forced into taking early retirement while my brother quit his job and couldn't find work--the entire family was scraping by. I returned to a public university the fall after I graduated and started to work on a teacher certification since it would pretty much guarantee that I could find employment. The faculty at that university asked why I didn't go into the post-grad program and I told them that getting a degree in math which concentrated mostly on theory wouldn't get me job, while the teacher certification would. I withdrew from the public university at Thanksgiving because I finally received a job offer at the state insurance department, I was burned out being in the classroom, and I was going to have to either find another roommate or move from where I was living, plus my heart wasn't in it to become a teacher. Even though the job only started at $16K a year, it was a better financial choice than incurring another $15K in debt and staying in college for another 1.5 years. It was a shame because I had a 4.0 GPA during the three months that I attended school, but I couldn't ask my parents to keep supporting me financially while I obtained either the certification or a post-grad degree.

About four or five years later, I thought about getting my masters degree but it wasn't possible with the full-time work schedule and the fact that I would have to commute 35 miles each way in rush hour traffic to get to that same public university I attended after I received my bachelors degree. That university was not well-respected academically (it was considered the party university of Texas) and a cost-benefit analysis of the situation lead me to believe that I would have been throwing away my money. I also served as the treasurer and regional president of the public employees association as an unpaid volunteer so it isn't as though I was being selfish.

I felt that it was a better investment to take the classes in computer training offered at work rather than incur student debt and my decision was correct. Looking at the situation in hindsight, I would have served myself better by getting a degree in software engineering since that is what my career morphed into; however, those programs weren't very widespread--degrees in computer science were the rage then and the classes that would have benefited me weren't offered in the evenings while I had a daytime work schedule.

It's a shame that some students were lured into taking classes where they did not have the aptitude to succeed or they entered into fields with poor prospects of finding work. However, is it really fair to ask the rest of society to pick up the tab for the decisions made by others who accumulated that debt? That was what occurred prior to the change in bankruptcy laws that removed the ability to discharge student debt. I'm sorry that those people suffered, but should I be made to pay the price and suffer along with them? It's not as though I was making a lot of money myself and I actually had the potential to succeed, but I couldn't further my dreams without quitting my full-time job to take the risk that everything would work out a few years later. In addition, the work I was performing did have a positive effect on the economy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, including businesses, municipalities, physicians, hospitals and the public overall when connecting the dots.

Again, my intention was not to disrespect anyone but to point out that each of us are called upon to make sacrifices. How much is too much to ask for people to sacrifice? As a Democrat, I do believe in fairness, equality, economic and social justice. Those were the values instilled into me by my parents and during my education. I even gave money to the poor when I knew that I was only a few months away from being homeless myself. I was so committed to my beliefs that I tried to kill myself several years ago because I believed that I had nothing else to contribute and that I became a burden on society. I've withstood a lot of physical, verbal and mental abuse before and afterwards; however, I think that I'm on the correct path now so I'll pray for, sympathize and attempt to help others as I try to pay my debts forward. However, I have limited tolerance listening to people whine about student loan debt and bankruptcy laws when they are responsible for their own predicaments.

[PufPuf23]

156. WOW Thank you for the time to compose that history.

When I hear the proposals for "free education" I think back to the original tenets of the University of California, the California State Colleges and Universities, and the two year community college system to provide low cost quality educations to Californians appropriate for the innate varying potential of the students. Now those systems are ever more popular and viewed by Californians, other Americans, and foreign students as sources of quality education but they are much more expensive, not just in student fees but also in the costs of living. So I see low cost public education proposals as going back to prior to the 1990s of California higher education as a model.

I see the very structure of education and student loans as the problem. A college education is viewed now as was a high school education in the past. Plus education is and should be more than the means of getting a job and earning money, you tie the two aspects tightly together and perhaps you are correct as far as reality versus an ideal. But educated citizens are more informed voters and so on, many social benefits to an educated population. Education has in part become more expensive because of the availability of student loans, a chicken and egg situation. Young folks get out of high school and they are expected to go to college and frankly there is not much they can do unless they obtain more education. On completion they often have problems finding employment using their education. The world should not be this way. Some folks scam the student loan system but more frequently they are victims, whether they recognize this or not, of the ever more neo-liberal educational complex run to maximize profit. So I am pretty forgiving towards those that have student loans and not much to show for the money spent and effort. Looking at the individual level (examples are you and I), one finds stories that did not work out so well.

People are happier and more productive when their needs are met. There can still be private colleges but the public colleges need to be more rather than less accessible and not leave students with a legacy of debt. I was extremely fortunate to obtain a quality education (besides the two degrees I attended a year of grad school as a Fed being paid as a GS9 and GS11) and in mid 40s left corporate world to work in research and teach at Oregon State and have an incomplete free PhD from that experience derailed by family matters where I needed to be in California). My Dad lived his entire life except 3 years in Europe WWII in the town nearest to where I live that has maybe 600 people and a 3 room elementary school, HS is 30 miles away on an Indian Reservation where I also graduated. My Dad was educated through 8th grade and drove heavy equipment, crushed gravel, and grew alfalfa among other things. He was way red neck and would love Trump (as he did Nixon and Reagan. I 100% paid for my own college education. Cal was that "hippy school" and about the worse thing I could do was work Fed.

Hope you have a good day.

[Scurrilous]

21. Robert Reich: Don't worry, Hillary Clinton will win the election (NOVEMBER 8, 2016)

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/08/robert-reich-dont-worry-hillary-clinton-will-win-the-election/

[msongs]

29. who seriously believes bernie will accept being vice prex nominee? nt

[TexasTowelie]

74. I agree.

Bernie will never accept playing second fiddle if Warren becomes the nominee. His popularity would plunge if he was considered as a sell-out.

[whathehell]

82. Policy-wise, Bernie and Elizabeth are very close..

Why anyone would view either as a "sellout" for teaming up with the other is beyond me and many others, I suspect.

[TexasTowelie]

84. Warren is a declared capitalist.

Bernie is a declared socialist. That's why either would be considered as a sellout if they teamed up with the other despite the areas where they agree with each other on policy.

[whathehell]

86. As are they all, except Bernie -- Her policies are decidedly not "capitalist"

in the traditional sense of the word, and I suspect she took it merely to look "safe".

[Peacetrain]

32. Elizabeth Warren..yes I can see that.. Bernie Sanders, not a chance in hell

[bluedye33139]

33. Dare I hope?

I think that a strong progressive presidency would be good for America at this historical juncture. I tend to be a boring moderate, but the progressive wing of the party has been very inspiring.

[Newest Reality]

34. Yes.

Nothing is set in stone and I see predictions often that represent a bias. Nobody knows for sure, but would sure like to.

In this case, the underlying message, (not just the candidates discussed) is what stood out most in the video. It captures the spirit of the thing.

[LongtimeAZDem]

37. This is the problem with legalizing marijuana

[cwydro]

47. Huh?

[The Valley Below]

115. LOL

[betsuni]

122. ...

[revmclaren]

141. Reminds me of a song...

ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Hoyt]

57. Reich, Warren, Sanders -- All critical of Obama, and Clinton by association, up to 2016 election.

[Whynotboth]

58. Why not Both !

They have similar goals, and they both want to fight inequality. One is openly more enthusiastic about than the other, but they're basically running on the same principles. What if Warren decided to add Bernie as her VP if she won ? What if Bernie made her VP if he won ?

How much better would they be TOGETHER than separate ? Think about that. They are on good terms with each other, and have discussed their platforms with each other before. This could only be a WIN/WIN either form it might take.

[TexasTowelie]

78. The ticket would go down in defeat.

Two liberal septuagenarians from New England won't appeal to most voters. I don't believe that Bernie is willing to play second fiddle for any other candidate, while Warren already had the offer to be VP and declined--she has more influence as a senator advocating her vision than as a VP advocating Bernie's vision.

[Whynotboth]

79. I think you're wrong.

We need a coming together of two legends like this to make an unstoppable WIN for our side.

[TexasTowelie]

81. You're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

The country tends to more centrist ideals which is why we have never elected a socialist as president.

[Whynotboth]

85. I think the "centrists"...

..are far too far to the right in this country, and that they at least as bad as the far right itself for not getting off the fence. I feel this THIS is the PRIME time for real Progressives to get a huge win. It's the balance our country has needed for at least the last 40 years.

What better time than now ?

How better than combining forces ? ( Not that I'm under any illusion that it WILL happen)

Who better than these two ?

I do apologize for my robust enthusiasm, but really feel VERY strongly about this.

[TexasTowelie]

90. I feel very strongly about winning the election

and having candidates with long coattails that will win state legislative bodies since there will be redistricting after the census. Selecting two of the most liberal candidates will not accomplish that goal and the end result will be that the state legislatures will continue to gerrymander the districts so that the Democrats will be at a disadvantage for the next decade.

The idea that Bernie is popular in the Midwest and Rust Belt states is based largely upon how well he did in the 2016 primaries which included an anti-Hillary component. If the polling can be believed, the results show that Bernie isn't doing as well this year in those states because there other alternatives.

I don't know much about Warren's polling numbers in the Midwest and Rust Belt states, but I will speculate that some portion of her popularity is based upon gender and the desire to have a female president. If Warren does team up with Bernie she could literally be a heartbeat away from the presidency so I can see that some of her supporters might be willing to accept her in the VP role.

[Cha]

83. Because I don't want either one. that's Why.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Newest Reality.

[Newest Reality]

61. You are welcome...

I am finding the comments on this one to be rather interesting and revealing. It is good to see.

Thanks for the K&R!

[at140]

77. Agree, and the reason is they ENERGIZE the base more than others

Centrists will not win in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

89. This is not a base election...this is an EC election...and the voters we need are not 'base' voters.

[at140]

96. May be, but very few elections are won without the base

energized and walking through broken glass to vote. If the base turnout is below par, you have to depend on the "independents", and that is usually a gamble.

[Demsrule86]

127. Much of the base is AA voters and Sanders and Warren do not do well with this base...those

who call themselves the l progressive wing of the party are not the majority of the base...even

[at140]

128. I would like to believe that but, I have a point to make

AA's are what 12% of the population? While Hillary received like 53% of popular vote.
Which means 40%+ votes came from other ethnic groups.

[BeckyDem]

93. You have all the right people freaked out too.

K&R for the future of the Democratic Party and for the good of America.

[JoeOtterbein]

101. BAM!

Now I don't need to add a post! Thanks!

[BeckyDem]

104. ha ha +1

[PufPuf23]

97. Robert Reich is concise and spot on in this video clip.

M4A
Green New Deal
Free (low cost anyway) Pubic College
Campaign Finance Reform
More tax paid by wealthy

------------------------------------------

Sounds good to me. I am for Warren and Sanders, who was my 1st choice in 2016, but favor Warren by far over Sanders. I was for Sanders in 2016 by a process of elimination and a scarcity of candidates. Think Warren Sanders would be a good team and the best Democratic combo for attracting Independents and sane GOP to vote for our, the Democratic, candidate.

Look at the resistance and scorn of moderates in this very thread to a Warren Sanders ticket.

Lots of blame and excuses have been presented for the HRC loss to Trump in 2016. Had HRC asked (or begged for good of Party) Sanders to be her VP in 2016, we Democrats would have beat Trump easily.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

137. You're SO right about RR... and Bernie & Elizabeth, as I've been advocating for many many years.

So many here are trying to downplay their prominence and dismiss their domination of progressive politics, but the writing's on the wall... the will of We The People is not going to be denied!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Kurt V.]

103. I'm giving this a kick without reading the thread. ;)

[highplainsdem]

105. I'll give Reich an A+ for imagination. LOL.

[brooklynite]

112. What is Reich's skill set at political analysis?

[highplainsdem]

118. Hey, he can dismiss moderates as "milquetoast moderates." Leftwingers will adore him.

[PufPuf23]

123. Far more skill at political analysis than you and Buttigieg

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2019, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

to be mildly flippant. (changed by to be in edit)

Reich is intelligent and able to explain his conclusions well.

Don't think Reich has much bias in his analysis. (changed from "Don't Reich he has much bias in his analysis. " for clarity in edit)

Some folks are like a reflex machine.

[brooklynite]

124. I don't disagree that Reich can explain his conclusions, I disagree with the basis of his conclusion

[PufPuf23]

125. Reich is probably too direct and uncomfortably correct too often

to be a successful politician.

[Cha]

146. And, all you have are insults

[PufPuf23]

152. I posted more than "insults" in this thread.

DU is frustrating for some in that others are near professional in peeing in others corn flakes.

Posters that flood DU frequently disparaging others can stand a few digs.

[highplainsdem]

113. You don't hear the main reason Reich did this video until 5:13. He's worried about

Warren and Sanders supporters going after each other.

They will, of course. They've been going after each other for months.

But neither Reich's sales pitch nor that really bizarre image of their faces combined will change that.

[Cha]

145. Thanks for that, hpd.. 'cause I sure

as hell would not even turn on that vid.. the image scared me off.

[PufPuf23]

150. If you did not view the video, why are you even

in this thread except to disrupt and disparage two candidates and their supporters?

[Cha]

151. I'm replying highplainsdem.. It's none of

your business what I say to her.

[highplainsdem]

155. You're welcome, Cha! I found the image off-putting, too, but I wanted to hear Reich's

argument and see if he had any particular reason for putting out this video now.

[Gothmog]

166. Thank you for this observation

I hope that there is not a joint ticket.

[wiley]

153. Oh Dear

He has really gone off the deep end.

[Kahuna7]

157. Wow. He's really getting dragged on the tweet.

Link to tweet

[NYMinute]

160. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt

[Scurrilous]

161. Boink!

[booley]

165. In some ways Sanders already won

Because of him progressive ideas that were ignored as crazy and too out there are being discussed as legitimate and doable.

People will are less inclined to just go back to the old accepted wisdom.

As Sanders has always said, this isn't' about him.

[Newest Reality]

167. I agree.

I think that what all the candidates bring to the table and the debates they spark are extremely valuable in their own right.

These days, it seems that people may want to cut to the chase and that it is only about selecting the candidate in the primaries and that is not all there is to it. The platforms presented actually get some broad, national exposure that might not otherwise have any emphasis.

So, I am thankful to Sanders, et al, in regards to the very vital issues he has targeted. Some of these issues are so vital that many lives and the very future of how the USA is going to go depend on them and they push some of the more distracting, divisive web issues aside.