And while they both have plans, Liz has way more and they are specific.

When she first launched my analogy was that Warren is tackling the disease while everyone else is trying to mitigate symptoms.

To me, Bernie is inbetween. He recognizes there is a disease at work. But his response is "you need medicine" - while Warren's response is "you need this exact antibiotic..."

Bernie believes in socialism because unregulated capitalism isn't good. But he, it seems to me, sort of waves the word around as though the concept, itself, is enough.

Warren agrees unregulated capitalism isn't good but says it can be fixed, here's how. Specifically.

https://thebulwark.com/why-elizabeth-warren-matters/

"For thoughtful Americans across the political spectrum, Warren’s candidacy raises a fundamental question: What version of democracy and capitalism do you want? Warren speaks to the inclusive ideal of fairness, opportunity, and a government responsive to all. She posits a future in which we have a genuine democracy and a market which is truly free."

But after the onset of Hyper Hysterical President Trump Derangement Syndrome??

All of the sudden, William Barr is Mark Pellegrino incarnate..

:eyeroll:

If that is factually accurate, then Democrats have a DUTY to impeach the President...

No politics, No Party Uber Alles....

IMPEACH

Since Democrats are putting Party before Country then the **ONLY** logical and rational conclusion is that it's NOT factually accurate that President Trump is a threat to this country..

It's nothing but hysterical baseless Party slavery fear-mongering..

President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden head to Iowa Tuesday, marking the first time during the 2020 election cycle that the two will campaign in the same state on the same day.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/06/11/trump-biden-campaign-iowa-same-time/1341262001/

That already happened in Pennsylvania...

President Trump's rally had 10,000 in the arena (Max Capacity) and another 5-7K outside looking on by monitors...

Biden's rally was clocked at an impressive 230 souls... :D

Why not?? If RJS was running against President Trump YOU would vote for him???

Why try to shame DH about doing something that you yourself would do??

So, basically, you don't care about Ideological purity.. You just want to beat Trump.. If Hitler was running against Trump, you would vote for Hitler..

Glad to hear you putting your principles in the back seat over assuaging your sore luserism.. I mean that sincerely.. You are not the TOTAL Party slave I have made you out to be.. There is something that's a bigger priority...

Congrats.

I knew ya had it in ya!! :D heh

So what is stopping a potential small money candidate from announcing? Is it because 20% of the electorate is not enough to win? Is it because viable potential candidates know there aren't enough people in the USA who are single issue small donor-ites to push said candidate to victory? Most Americans are not single issue voters. The minority who are back different single issues.

Suppose Rocky Joe Suhayda, current American Nazi Party Leader takes up your challenge, but nobody else does? Are you going to vote RJS?

Virtually everybody but you seems capable of working your small money savior scenario out.

Announce, run and prove us all wrong.

I am not unhappy that Biden is the favorite. On the basis of his relevant experience, political positions, temperament and chances of winning I rank him my first choice at this point. Age counts a bit against him.

I like Sanders' social and economic agenda better than Biden's. Sanders is a seasoned politician, but I rank him less electable than Biden.

I like Warren's agenda as well, but she is still more a technocrat than a politician, and I rank her least electable among the three.

Any in the announced pack (herd? covey?) is better than Trump, so I rank the ability to beat him very highly. Given an electable monkey on a rock versus Trump, I'd vote the Monkey/Rock ticket. I Like OOK!

Apologies...

It came out wrong.. Hence my clarification.. :D

{cough, cough} Bernie Sanders {cough, cough}

Of course I don't know what poll you are looking at (ya have soo many to choose from) but it seems to me that, by definition, Sanders would have to have a lead over the rest of the pack outside the polls margin of error...

Unless the poll you have chosen has a huge margin of error.. But that would render the poll useless...

"And that is how the sausage is made."
-Stig, 11 Jun 19

Hell, even yer sausage fetish is Party loyalty based...

heh :D

Abrams and the Democratic presidential candidates seeking her support are setting the country up for a 2020 election in which neither side trusts the system. Under those circumstances, we can expect that the tradition in which losing candidates graciously accepted their losses will soon be a relic of a bygone America that no longer exists.
https://tinyurl.com/y4f8qte9

In other words.. The Democrat hysteria in the aftermath of the 2016 election, where Democrats freely, fairly and legally LOST the election, is now the new norm...

Thanx Dumbocrats.. :eyeroll:

For readers wondering WHY IOWA First? I recommend NPR's 2016 explanation:

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464804185/why-does-iowa-vote-first-anyway

"Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes — precinct caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, followed by a state convention — it had to start really early. (The Democratic Party held Iowa caucuses first in the nation in 1972; the GOP followed suit in 1976.)"

For practical purposes you can boil this answer down to just "Because."

And that is how the sausage is made.

Interesting...

So, if the voter integrity laws are a "direct descendant" of the Jim Crow laws as Joe Biden claims..

That means it's DEMOCRATS who are responsible for the voter integrity laws in Georgia...

Day follow night...

"You keep dreaming..."
-Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson, THE GIRL IS MINE

Just remember one fact.. The Democrats believed all the polls that said Hillary was going to win..

And all the polls were wrong...

Why set yerselves up to be horribly disappointed again??

Of course, I meant "you people" as in Democrats in general...

:D

Yea?? And how many decades was it since a GOP'er won Pennsylvania..

Once again, Democrats are taking comfort in the past....

2016 repeats itself..

One would think you people would learn...

He's not the only one doing so, either. Biden stumbled last week in his stance on the Hyde Amendment, first answering a question from a voter by indicating that he was against the Hyde Amendment. His campaign then issued a clarification: Biden had misunderstood the question and did, in fact, support banning the use of federal money to pay for abortions. This sparked an uproar among the other Democratic candidates, led by the women. They all decried the Hyde Amendment and condemned Biden for supporting it. Within a few days, Biden flip-flopped and announced in a speech that -- now that Roe v. Wade was under such fervent attack from Republicans -- he could no longer support the Hyde Amendment.

That's what's so bad about what Biden did..

If he had changed his mind on Hyde on his own, it would be defensible..

But he changed his mind on Hyde UNDER PRESSURE (cue Queen/David Bowie song)...

And that looks bad..

Party Purity is rearing it's ugly head (as I predicted it would) and it's only going to grow...

Expect a Party Pure candidate to win the Dem nom..

'Cause you know that's what's gonna happen. Democrats do it all the time. The original Clinton wasn't even a thing until AFTER New Hampshire.

But the inevitability of such a thing happening is just maddening. A month from now we could be talking about Amy Klobuchar and Andy Yang.