If the only “words and deeds” that you will accept as a change in Biden’s position is “adopted the strongest social programs that Sanders has advocated for”, then you’re never going to be satisfied.
I think its been comprehensively proven that this is in fact not needed
Which modern president who worked for the people won without big donations?
Since when should reality be good enough.
Never! Our system is badly broken until we have comprehensive election reform. Our electoral system is one of our biggest national embarrassments, or used to be before Trump came up with so many more to add to the list.
All I was saying is that we’re not there yet, despite lava’s assertion that it has been “proven” unnecessary.
Meanwhile, candidates need to raise money somewhere, and if Biden, having told some big donors what they want to hear to get their bread a year ago, is now changing his stated policy positions and hiring progressive advisors in such a way as to appeal more to me than to those donors, I’m not going to hold that against him.
Positive? Well, he acknowledged he had a heart attack, so we’re positive that happened. A positive for Sanders is that he didn’t die. The outcome for his campaign wasn’t positive, though.
You overestimate their influence. Sanders condition was reported by his own campaign - not Biden’s. Voting involves a lot of factors - that’s what makes predicting the outcome of elections so difficult. Many voters were influenced by what Sanders had to say on various issues, and they didn’t vote for him because of it.
People who choose not to vote for someone who has had a heart attack because the job they are campaigning for is stressful does not mean they’ve been coerced. Minimizing the impact of age, health, and alienating voters on key issues during the Sanders campaign is like cheering for the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Democrats are like the Republicans, just ten to fifteen years ago in the evil. In 2030 they will wholeheartedly embrace actual fascism like three Greedy Old Pedos do today
Examining who has been contributing to campaigns for elected officials is a real eye-opener:
Here’s 2008 for comparison:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008
A serious heart attack like Sanders had - in the artery called the “widow maker” is certainly a concern for a candidate- but none of the other candidates took advantage of it.
The possibles were quite serious.
“ What we can say is that these researchers were looking precisely at patients like Sanders who had experienced approximately the same problem as his, in the same time frame.)
Here’s what they found: From the day they left the hospital, the one-year risk of at least one rehospitalization for any reason in Medicare beneficiaries who suffered a heart attack like Sanders’ was about 50 percent (the baseline annual risk among his age cohort is more like 1 in 6). Again, by virtue of four incident-free months on the trail, that number is now lower for Sanders. But his chance of another hospitalization between now and November alone likely remains between 30–35 percent. While the daily risk is low, around 0.17 percent, we have more than 250 days to go until Election Day. The risks add up.”-snip
“ So, those are the short-term risks. What are the long-term risks? Again, Medicare claims data, this time analyzed by researchers at UCLA and Duke, provides information. We know that at five years, about half of population who has had heart attacks like Sanders’ remains alive. Once he makes it a full year, his odds of surviving a first presidential term would be about 65 percent, and would be 40 percent for two terms. The risk of a second heart attack during his first term hovers at about 30 percent, and would reach about 50 percent by the end of a second term. (This risk of this outcome in particular might be much higher or lower, but the relevant data from his hospitalization from October remains under lock and key.)”
He’s done remarkably well, thank god. But there’s just no way that it wasn’t a valid concern.
Biden should have one too then, it’s such a great thing?
American socialists need to identify and promote younger, healthier standard bearers
Bullshit. If you really think that the Democrats of today are where the Republicans of 2005-2010 were, you obviously know less than nothing about either the current Democrats or the past Republicans.
And despite what doom-mongering pessimists and bitter-salty Bernie-or-Bust-ers claim, the Democratic party is moving to the left, not to the right.
If by that you mean Biden will never adopt Medicare for All, I fear you are right.
Obama. He didn’t, but could have. But now suddenly you are defining successful politician as “politician that won the presidency”. Sanders, coming in second in the primary of a dozen candidates I call a successful politician. Sanders wining and holding a Senate seat I call a successful politician. And we are seeing many candidates who have adopted this funding strategy win. It is already well established. Politicians do not need big dollar donors, if they have policy positions that voters will support.
Its time we stop apologizing for bad fund raising practices by candidates, even if they are ones we plan to vote for.
Reality shows big donors are not needed. I think Obama proved that before Sanders ever ran for president. I’d say that the reality is this is more Obama’s idea than Sanders.
Certainly positive. Sanders came out of the heart attack in superior health than before. Furthermore at that point his heart health had been thoroughly vetted. His performance after the heart attack validates that. Any other reading of the events is just more spin.
No - I don’t. Talking points are shared, messages are coordinated. News outlets eager for stories lap this up. If Sanders health was faltering following the heart attack - that would be a story. Stirring up doubt about his health and generating fear is coercion.
Thank you for helping me prove my point. This story came out a week before the DNC consolidated their Centrist candidates to Biden. And this was not Slate alone - the story went out on the News Services, and was picked up by dozens of outlets. That wasn’t a coincidence - it was a coordinated psy-op.
Sanders heart attack was at the beginning of October 2019. Doctors declared the outcome good, and Sanders disclosed info from the event. Sanders was visibly stronger and continued campaigning in a vigorous manner.
Four months later with no prompt of recurrence or slow-down that would indicate some trailing effect of the heart attack stories casting doubt about Sanders health start to circulated around a week before what we now know as the consolidation of centrist candidates.
I would understand if Sanders feinted, had a spell, ended up at the doctor again - but there was nothing and every signal was he was stronger than ever. This was a deliberate campaign to undermine Sanders by creating false doubts about his heart, in advance of an important pivot point - where voters would have to choose which candidate to support as their favorite just dropped out.
Stories about “Sanders can’t beat Trump” began circulating at the same time.
I assert this campaign was coordianted by Democrat party operatives, sharing talking points, pressuring candidates to quit, all to undermine Sanders who overtly was working for voters interests, and position Biden, who declared he was working for big money donors, to win the nomination.
Only to someone who came in with their mind made up. You can’t really believe that a health issue this serious didn’t merit reporting in the press. Or serious review of the medical records. His testing data was not released. Just as it took forever to get him to release his full tax returns.
Just as Trump’s doctor’s notes do. Just as Bloomberg’s do. Just as Biden’s aneurysm did.
That a politician releases a letter doesn’t stop the review. And if you’re asserting a deliberate campaign yada yada - show some actual evidence. Anyone coming forward on that? Any leaked docs? You know - anything outside of your imagination?
For some, their candidate of choice is never going to come down from the pedestal where they’ve been placed. Their idols will never have feet of clay. Every failure is someone else’s fault, and the reason they didn’t win is due to some conspiracy. I’m dreading seeing more of this in November when 45 loses.
All of the factors you cite could have, would have, should have come in to play months before this flood of media, conveniently a week before the Centrist consolidation.
Of course I can not have evidence of my assertion, but the timing is evident - indisputable. Draw your own conclusions.
For some - but I do not regard Sanders this way, and this topic is about manipulation of voters by the party - not my allegiance or lack there of for Sanders. I regard these statements as a misdirection from the topic at hand.
I don’t think there was ever a point during the primaries where the support for the more change oriented candidates (Sanders, Warren) exceeded the support for the centrist candidates (Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg et al)
To all: Nobody likes to be told they’ve been manipulated or lied to by the politicians they support. Just try breaching that topic with a trump supporter.
Never the less we are all well served by looking at the sequence of events without bias. The manipulation of issues to tear down Sanders is there - you can not deny it. You may not believe that the Dems would do that, and it is impossible for me to present the proof that you would require due to your own bias.
Suffice to say whether you agree with me or not we would all be better served by vigilance in the face of actions by parties, even the ones we vote for.
You may not believe my assertions, but be sure that many do. And many of those will not vote for Biden, or will not vote for all, raising all our peril of another 4 years of Trump. The youth that failed to turn out for for Sanders had their suspicions that their vote did not matter affirmed by the series of events that I’ve outlined. Missing their votes and breaking their faith has made it so much harder to defeat trump. Your resistance to expecting more from your candidate contributes to this.
