After that, Chavez ran off the rails.  

Otto Reich was an apologist for U.S. intervention in Guatemala....really bad guy.

Assuming no oppo sticks, extremely unlikely, he might win NH.  But I don't see where he wins after that.  And a NH win is easy to dismiss. It's a favorite son win. He's from a neighboring state.

In the even more unlikely event that he wins in both Iowa and NH, and Biden isn't in the race, some other institutional Dem will enter the race.

Hillary will still win though.  She's good in the trenches.

Remember, she almost beat Obama.  And he was a once in a lifetime candidate.  And had the press and the institutional party behind him.

I've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders's proposals would carry a "price tag" of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

(1) Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" the Journal comes up with--$15 trillion--would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie's agenda--tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave - and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

(3) Many of these other "costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

(4) Finally, Bernie's proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren't really "spending" at all, but investments in the nation's future productivity. If we don't make them, we're all poorer.

That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

Bernie CAN win a general election. But there are things that must be done in order to do it.

I am willing to take this quote with a hefty grain of salt since Sanders has praised the new British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, which in this rightwing capitalist country, sadly, takes courage.

Incidentally, or not so incidentally, the supposed link between Chavez and Sanders was Sanders helping to "negotiate the purchase of discounted heating oil from the Latin American country for a number of US states." Good for Sanders!

I think that if Sanders keeps being Sanders, and focuses on things like income inequality he will win.

The senator's stock speech on "millionaires and billionaires," resonates and his left-ward domestic policies have impacted those of Mrs. Clinton. If it is a point to be made, he has made it.

Sander's supporters ought to not only have confidence that Sanders can win the general election, but also, be prepared, as Sanders too needs to be prepared, for the Republican onslaught.

 The misguided, but tepid, attack by a Clinton-friendly PAC is not even a warm-up for what would surely come if Sanders was the Democratic nominee.  If socialism and, even communism, are either unknown, yesteryear, or ancient history, depending on birthdays, those ideologies will be rekindled in a manner that would be unrecognizable to Marx.

 And, that would be just the beginning.  For those who favor the ideas of Sanders, the specter  of economic collapse in so doing will be the boogeyman. As the WSJ pointed out already, Sander's programs will cost "$18 trillion over ten years."   Of course, the biggest part was single payer health insurance that accounts for $15 trillion of it--and is not a cost on top of what we now spend, but rather, what we are already paying for, just a change in how to pay for it.  The Sander's campaign was slow to react, and seemed unprepared, if not surprised, at such a presentation of his ideas.

And, then there will be the ugly and nasty, such as to his citizenship as harped on by NPR's Diane Rehms. And, although Trump's military experience is par excellence owing to his teenage years at a military boarding school for the unruly, Sanders can not expect the same teflon justifications and defense.

This made me laugh-

Christian columnist Chris Queen argued this week that Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' anti-poverty proposals went against biblical teachings because the "God of the Bible is not a socialist."

Bernie could definitely beat Donald.

But if this is a sincere question:

If stating one's opinion equates with a "lecture," what can possibly be said in disagreement?

I will attempt an answer:

How we read & interpret things (none / 0) (#189)
by christinep on Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 06:27:41 PM MDT

If the patronizing-shoe fits, dear SJ,
Kindly think about wearing it.

Not to mention have zero reading comprehension -- if you even bothered to read it*:

I put that shoe on myself in the very comment you are responding to. And now I'll go the next few weeks or months without responding to your self-victimization and/or word salad except with, possibly, ratings.

You are, of course, free to do the same.