Not "third way", but the actual Third Way group, the one that keeps trying to get Dems to cut Social Security.

Of course, an advocacy group that wants to see Social Security cut is going to do anything it can to stop Bernie Sanders.

Care to name names?

policies. The people who wrote this article are from Third Way. I don't know what names you mean.

You can't answer my question.

No Democrat had been in the Whitehouse for 12 years so it was somewhat of a gimmick.

No Democrat has used it since except as a label to malign those they feel are not pure enough.

If they're still around they don't have much pull

They also write articles for places like Washington Post, also attacking Bernie.

I don't know how much pull the really have, but they are getting exposure in the media. So people should know that articles like this one are written by professionals who get paid to try to keep Democrats from adopting progressive goals.

I like that you act as a quiet hammer that sits until you see a chance to drive your point home.

rly? reach much?

Bernie promised us a pony!!!!YAY!!!!

Yes, that's their position on Social Security. They've wanted to cut it they entire time they've been in existence.

get real.

Jonathan Cowan is still president of Third Way, and the people writing these anti-Bernie smears work for him on his quest to cut Social Security and get the Democrats to adopt all kinds of other Republican policies.

On the other hand, we can also pretend civility is important to us and invoke it in a fit of peevish self-righteousness, yet ignore it when convenient to our own narrative. Holding others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to is simply part of politics.



"Amiright?"

They would be attacking Warren like they are attacking Bernie.

"are probably dead"? seriously? that is your argument?

One would think Bernie's followers would love that.

You are presenting half-truths in a way that entirely misleads.

And all the other ways that people try to cut Social Security. Third Way is basically a smorasbord of Social Security cutting.

Which, look, if you or anyone else is actually in favor of these Social Security cuts, then, by all means, listen to what Third Way says!

And like I said, I'm fine with people having different opinions. Just let's be honest about it. Yeah, if you're into using Social Security cuts to reduce the deficit, then Third Way is your kind of joint!

It's obvious to everyone that there's a contingent of centrist Dems that want to cut SS and Medicare. This isn't a purity test, it's a fact. It's a big tent, and some people in the tent want to cut SS. Fine! I'd rather have a Dem that wants to cut SS than a Republican any day. Just everyone should be honest about it. The Dem voters that want SS cuts would probably appreciate that.

Unless it involves changing the eligibility requirements of SS and Medicare... or freezing spending on these programs.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

. . . "feeding off the government teat" (in the minds of Republicans), and makes the program more vulnerable to future cuts.

but when means testing is raised we suddenly care what Republicans think?

We've entered the silly season.

. . . NOT!.

Spare me.

Goodness me!

If. Sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45 states and Kevin McCarthy will be speaker of the House

But I do think it’s important that everyone knows who Third Way is. And that Third Way is strongly in favor of cutting Social Security.

The people who wrote this article work for Third Way. They literally get paid to try to stop Dems from taking progressive positions. That is their job.

And people should know that.

Maybe you’re right about Bernie losing in a landslide. I don’t think so. But whatever I think, I’m not going to give much weight to people who get paid to drag the Democratic Party to the right.

"a chunk" of the Democrats, which you seem to define as anyone who doesn't back Bernie for the nomination.

Your posts indicate that you think that anyone even an inch to the right of Sanders is 'dragging the party to the right.'

I think you should know that.

You're welcome.

This poster, well I'm really starting to wonder who or what is it. Just wondering

He's REALLLLLLY making a splash. And I know nothing much outside of the stuff that most people know of Bloomberg. It's just he comes in at 12%??!?!! Whoa.

In case their current fave fails.

But right now all he is doing is pulling JB’s polling numbers down.

to be the nominee.

He will only widen the gap.

now. JB needs to assess this situation and make adjustments. There is a reason why bloomberg is at 12%. People want to see a good fight and after all these debates, I think people are tired of dem on dem infighting. People want to see a fighter. And right now, Bloomberg looks refreshing as he is throwing punches at trump. I think the other democratic candidates need to take notes here.

any other candidate in calling it a “battle for the soul of the nation” and went on to develop this theme by pointing out exactly how Trump threatens our very democracy. Did you miss his speech after El Paso?

I don’t think anything Bloomberg has said comes close to drawing such a substantive study of Trump’s unfitness to lead our country while further he has connected Trump and the rise of fascism in Europe, showing how Trump destabilizes our alliances and our role in the world as a “beacon of democracy.”

His comments on Trump’s immigration policies, coddling racists, betraying ideals enshrined in our founding have not been made more sharply and he has challenged Trump with out let up, even in the face of criticism earlier for doing so during a primary.

You seem to have missed Booker and Harris too. Actually, though Biden has dedicated the most energy to fighting Trump as opposed to his rivals, all candidates, pre-dating Bloomberg’s arrival have landed some real punches at Trump and the folks who brought him, Republicans.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/07/joe-biden-reminded-all-us-what-presidential-president-would-sound-like/

Bloomberg came in later and hasn't veered from attacking trump. He's stayed focued. He's really smart in how he's handling this campaign so far. Policy wise, I love Warren. But I wish she'd take a page out of Bberg's book.

which would be a nightmare scenario for Joe.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

It's time to nominate Bernie, who has the only true aggressive progressive vision that looks after the workin class on Main Street!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

Check out 1972.

We lost until we got moderate.

I'm a lifelong socialist. Starting when is was a rebellious teen in the sixties. All my feistyness never did a thing. We were on a long losing streak until "third way" (please notice the lower case) candidates got in to actually make progress. Did they make as much progress as I would have liked? Nope. Did they make more progress than a losing candidate? Yep.

It is a short-sighted and parochial view to believe that all of a sudden the majority of Americans have become wild-eyed radicals. It comes from people who spend too much time with people who think just like they do. Yes, all your friends at the local wine bar think like you. But that doesn't extrapolate to the whole country.

He will lose by 45 states, we'll lose the house and republicans will have 60+ in the senate.

However, people wearing blinders are oblivious to reality.

In fact, McGovern did NOT lose among Baby Boomers (those who were old enough to vote in 1972). His loss occurred primarily because of the WWII generation, and was because of his anti-war stance. It was inconceivable to WWII generation voters (most of them anyway) that their government would have lied to them about the reasons for going to war in Vietnam. To them, if a war was on, then it must be WWII all over again. Boomers should know better, as they knew better in 1972.

The notion that 1972 is a better indicator of what is likely to happen in 2020 than 2016 is kind of absurd on its face.

was filled with political dirty-tricksters who were ready to spread any lie, fabricate narratives, steal DNC information, and were unburdened by principles.

The field day the dirty-tricksters had with the Tom Eagleton fiasco didn't help.

Dear sweet George McGovern had may wonderful qualities--chief among them integrity--but he did not have the street toughness necessary to prevail against Nixon and his band of dirty-tricksters.

McGovern lost 49 states by proposing fantastical economic plans that would turn the US into a fantastic benefit state that would be financed with a. 100% inheritance tax or every family with assets over $ 500,000. The Democratic primary didn't critically examining the cost and a landslide was guaranteed in the first week of the campaign and we lost 49 states.

Bernie Sanders is creating exactly the same dynamic.

Let's do some quick math on Bernie's plans. The total cost of his plans are way north of $30 trillion increase for 10 years ( his green plan calls for $ 17 trillion plus "Medicare for all" plus universal free college, etc)

That is equivalent to an increase of $ 100,000. In taxes per person over 10 years or an average cost of $10,000 per person per year .

Your assertion that he lost because of his antiwar stance is beyond ridiculous, by 1972 a large majority was against the war, including quite famously Walter Chronkite.

In the first week of the campaign McGovern kicked Thomas Eagleton off the ticket and offered the position to every major politician and had to settle with Shriver who never held public office.

You can try and rewrite history but public support for the war didn't exist ( Nixon actually ran against the war with his "secret plan to end the war", there was no pro war candidate in 72).

Sanders will deliver the 2nd largest landslide for Republicans in history.

Warren's plans are much more sensible than Bernie's except when she tries to outrank him (a la MFA). Her tax plan on 2% over 50 million on assets is brilliant but unfortunately requires an electorate that will read and consider and the American electorate didn't bother to read the Muller Report.

Those of us who lived through the McGovern disaster never want to repeat it and Sanders is McGovern 2.0. The war had nothing to do with it.

And to think that it re-elected "I am not a crook" Nixon. It still galls me to this day.

Trump and republicans would eviscerate, pulverize and decimate Bernie in a few days with massive oppo with his essays, videos, out of wedlock child that he did not support and his not having any gainful employment until he was well in his 30s.

They must have tons of stuff on him which is why they want him to be the nominee.

If you dare to question him you get nailed by his "loyal followers" who think if you don't love him you aren't a democrat.

I’m pretty sick of hearing this, as are many other thinking Democrats.

Gore. Kerry. Clinton. All supposedly moderate with crossover appeal. Look how that worked out.

Trump. A loose cannon weirdo even by GOP standards. Look how that worked out.

I am utterly done listening to claims by scared centrists about how this candidate or that can’t win because they don’t match the profile that hasn’t won since 1996.

Link to tweet

Gore actually did win. And he would have won by a lot more had the media not torpedoed him during the debates.

Kerry lost after the country rallied around Bush after 9/11. It is amazing that he did as well as he did, especially since a majority of Americans still supported the Iraq War at that point. I think he benefited from the trust that the Clinton/Gore years gave most Americans in the Democrats' ability to manage the economy.

Clinton would have destroyed Trump if it had not been for the fake email scandal. James Comey dominated that election from start to finish. And no matter what the media likes to claim, HRC was the candidate most trusted to manage the economy.

the Country in a BLUE WAVE VICTORY in 2018.

You Do Remember that, don't you?

this forum has been overtaken by trolls.

but, i think the rules have been loosened a bit during the primaries and the discussion is limited to this forum. IMHO a message from 2011 does not serve us correctly. Heard a commentator mention 1972 election a few days ago. Come on friends this is 2020!

The voters are screaming for change. The country has been drifting right for the last 40-50 years. Today's Democrats are further right than Dwight D. Eisenhower. The TEA party wanted change, unfortunately they were taken over by the republicans. The occupy wall street folks wanted change, unfortunately they had no actual goal.
The Democrats must offer real change or they are doomed to fail again.

Because if it's the former, that bot sure has been playing the long game. Gothmog's been a member since April 2004.

So what?

count on it.

Every one of our candidates from the first time I was aware of it was blasted as "the most liberal".

My candidate can win. At least he doesn't tell people to go vote for Rump. I'm not gonna do that.

Disgusting to say the least.

it 5 points in swing districts. This article isn’t about 10-year old musings on social security. It’s about the losses that supporting Bernie’s current plans have cost Democrats.

Let’s not help Republicans win again.

DT and all his lies & antics, but if we nominate Bernie, we'll never get them. In 2015 I was a firm Bernie supporter. I even voted for him in our primary. Now I feel he's too LW for the moderate voters to support. Lots of them hated Hillary, mainly because the Pubs spent YEARS berating her. Now, AFAIK there's no hate of any of our candidates so we just need to nominate a candidate that will appeal to the most voters to win!

but the title of the article is dead on. He'd get crushed in a national election. The past British election should have buried the idea that "to beat a crazy faux-populist we should try an unapologetic socialist."

Better messaging.

Go ahead and use it.

You say: “ In the three onetime Blue Wall battleground states, she topped him by over 45,000 votes, though he beat her in Wisconsin and edged her by a point in Michigan. In Ohio, Clinton won by 14 points and nearly 166,000 votes. The best you can say about this Sanders argument is that he didn’t lose as badly“.


I say: In 2016, Sanders got MILLIONS MORE VOTES than Bidan got.


Jesus- instead of cutting down your competition, how about you tell us why we should consider your candidate’s positions?

Threads like this simply tell me why I made the correct decision to go with BERNIE.

P.S.- I’m from Michigan, and I know LOTS of republicans who will vote Sanders instead of Trump, but would hesitate if Biden is the nominee.

I don't post here often, but there is something no one seems to ever say - Sanders is a Democrat only when it is convenient for him. Mind you, I agree with some/many of his ideas that he states publicly, but he only declares himself a Dem when he wants to run for president. That alone should make Dems wonder what the heck he's up to. In the last election, once he lost to Hillary in the primary, he immediately switched back to whatever it is he is. Why is that?

Why the hell would anyone who has seen his waffling between 'democrat/independent/socialist' trust him to stick to the Dem platform? If he happened to get nominated whose to say he doesn't go so far left that he dooms any chance of unseating our current a-hole? Especially once the pubbie machine goes all in on the "he's a socialist" thing. (Don't get me wrong, we do really need to do that, but let's be realistic, the majority of the electorate will never follow. Our first priority needs to be dumping the current a-hole - I won't even say his name.)

Basically, I don't trust Sanders. Why should I trust some mook who declares himself a Democrat only when it serves his political aspirations. Is he a Trojan horse candidate? I don't necessarily think so given his history, but do you really want to stake our future on some knob who only will declare himself a Dem when convenient?

And even though he caucuses with the Dems now, how much support would he actually have among the Dems in Congress once he starts proposing legislation outside of the Dem comfort zone. (And again, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what he might propose, but, in the end, he does need Dem support to get anything passed.) Somehow I think we may end up with a more dysfunctional gov't than we already have. Much as I might like an independent thinking person leading the country, there's idealistic aspirations versus reality. You know damned well the pubbies will never go along with any of his ideas. The Congress needs to be in Dem control for any action for the people to pass muster. It really is that simple. While I might admire the idealism of the Bernie folks - please stop and think about the reality of what the electorate, as a whole, will accept. Small steps, small steps, painfully slow as they may be.

than others in expressing them. Don't be intimidated by a post count.

Are very worried about the medicare for all.
They are Democrats against it.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I'm not sure what you think it proves.