We hear some Republicans are running, too This week, our Senate preview will be a little different from the usual format: We're off to Maryland, where the two parties' candidates haven't yet been chosen. Barbara Mikulski, who served in the Senate for five terms,
I'm not saying Hillary's is so much larger though she has received more votes. What I am saying is Bernie's coalition hardly represents a sea change or a "revolution" because it IS much smaller than Obama's in 2008 which was SUPPOSED to constitute a sea change but did not. That's the point I'm trying to make is this whole talk that Bernie Sanders is a revolution sounds like well, bullshit to me which makes me dubious about his lack of commitment to the Democratic Party and his snub about down ticket support. He is not raising money for other Democrats and has been downright stingy with his campaign coffers...all of this makes his strategy seem highly dubious.
The only thing that pisses me off about Bernie Bros aside from the Paultardian resemblance is this idea that they and Bernie Sanders decide who is and who is not progressive or liberal and those who do not support this 'revolution' are soft liberals or Republicans in disguise. I am easily as liberal as any one of the Sanders supporters and I came by my ideology the hard way: growing up in Utah, the reddest state in the Union I had to not only swim against the political stream but I had to defend myself and my views routinely against an ocean of Mormon wingnuts. Because of this I resent being told I am insufficiently progressive because I am dubious about Sanders goals and aims and I support Hillary since she more closely resembles my preferred candidate, President Obama.
Both of these two candidates are actual progressives and neither was so stupid and craven as to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, so that is comparing apples to warmongers. Sorry I can't make that funny or put it in less earnest, stark way.
Marylander here for 5 years (yes, a rookie but I love the state) and I am voting for Edwards hands down. Van Hollen sounds like a great guy but if they are about the same regarding ideology and we are going to lose a woman in the Senate, then Edwards is the one I pick. (Yes, I am a guy).
One of the greatest things Ohio ever did was expand absentee voting. Go to the County Board of Elections or Secretary of State websites, fill out the request for an absentee ballot, print it, and mail it. The ballot comes in the mail, fill it out, and mail it back in.
Opponents claim the stamps needed are a poll tax, but I look on it as a convenience fee.
HillaryMen are just as tribal as Berniebro's. Hillary Clinton is selling some regressive and designed to be too gameable and inefficient policies, that we can't afford. We can't afford not to do some of Bernie's. I'm talking about SS, tuition funding, prescription drug prices, energy transition, Wall Street regulation and taxes.
Nobody complained that Sanders is not a legitimate Democrat until it became impossible to compare and contrast policy proposals. That's one time when the tribalism is a shame. It's no justification for Clinton to sell her tuition plan as better and Sanders' worse for being funded partially with state money (like Obamacare and the Clean Power Plan). I doubt Clinton even realizes her cognitive dissonance, but more importantly, we can't afford her approach that helps big donors at student expense.
When I get my absentee ballot, I go to the County Democrats website. They've got everyone listed, and it's especially helpful with the judge races because they don't show party affiliation for those races.
See that's more of the purity bullshit I'm talking about- who decided that making things 100% government controlled is progressive? That's socialist and we're not all socialists. As for Bernie's ideas, how is he going to pay for them? Because taxing billionaires, exotic Wall Street transactions like high volume trading which mark my words, they'll stop doing and find another way to do the trades to avoid taxes and cutting defense aren't going to foot the bill. The only reason you think they will is if you're using the most skewed projection of rosy revenue ceilings and basement costs which as we know with Obamacare just isn't fucking how things work. So, how is he going to pay for it? Also, that college tuition thing, it's nice but it doesn't help people who have already completed our degrees with debt.
The only way Bernie can pay for the things he wants to do is to raise taxes on EVERYONE and let me tell you, I can't afford a tax increase. Hell, I can barely make ends meet now and that's with a college degree because degrees mean jack shit in this economy. So making college more affordable for a bunch of milennials isn't going to help me and raising my taxes to pay for these things is a non-starter.
In Missouri I do exactly the same, and the envelope is postage paid, but I still have to have my signature notarized. Fortunately the law says that notaries can't charge for absentee ballots, which I suppose is something. I suppose if I had half a million dollars on deposit at my bank, they'd come to my house?????
You could actually compare and contrast how they pay for what they promise. That would tell you if their promises even add up. Bernie would not have to raise taxes on everyone (Vox's calculator is every bit as disingenuous as saying that raising the minimum wage will put too many people and businesses out of work).
Using standard economics modeling, it's not zero sum, either, with you hurting yourself or raising taxes on yourself to help millennials.
But what's really weird is that hiring Bernie Sanders for the job of president just gets that analysis done for you, instead of spun for you. Elizabeth Warren explains in the New York Times what you get, depending on who you vote for to represent you as president:http://www.nytimes.com/2016...
as is said often "a feature, not a bug."
I'm not saying Hillary's is so much larger though she has received more votes. What I am saying is Bernie's coalition hardly represents a sea change or a "revolution" because it IS much smaller than Obama's in 2008 which was SUPPOSED to constitute a sea change but did not. That's the point I'm trying to make is this whole talk that Bernie Sanders is a revolution sounds like well, bullshit to me which makes me dubious about his lack of commitment to the Democratic Party and his snub about down ticket support. He is not raising money for other Democrats and has been downright stingy with his campaign coffers...all of this makes his strategy seem highly dubious.
The only thing that pisses me off about Bernie Bros aside from the Paultardian resemblance is this idea that they and Bernie Sanders decide who is and who is not progressive or liberal and those who do not support this 'revolution' are soft liberals or Republicans in disguise. I am easily as liberal as any one of the Sanders supporters and I came by my ideology the hard way: growing up in Utah, the reddest state in the Union I had to not only swim against the political stream but I had to defend myself and my views routinely against an ocean of Mormon wingnuts. Because of this I resent being told I am insufficiently progressive because I am dubious about Sanders goals and aims and I support Hillary since she more closely resembles my preferred candidate, President Obama.
She is running to replace Van Hollen in the 8th district.
I sent Donna a small contribution, hope she does well.
Both of these two candidates are actual progressives and neither was so stupid and craven as to support the illegal invasion of Iraq, so that is comparing apples to warmongers. Sorry I can't make that funny or put it in less earnest, stark way.
Marylander here for 5 years (yes, a rookie but I love the state) and I am voting for Edwards hands down. Van Hollen sounds like a great guy but if they are about the same regarding ideology and we are going to lose a woman in the Senate, then Edwards is the one I pick. (Yes, I am a guy).
Not Schindler's?
I find their lack of snark disturbing.
One of the greatest things Ohio ever did was expand absentee voting. Go to the County Board of Elections or Secretary of State websites, fill out the request for an absentee ballot, print it, and mail it. The ballot comes in the mail, fill it out, and mail it back in.
Opponents claim the stamps needed are a poll tax, but I look on it as a convenience fee.
HillaryMen are just as tribal as Berniebro's. Hillary Clinton is selling some regressive and designed to be too gameable and inefficient policies, that we can't afford. We can't afford not to do some of Bernie's. I'm talking about SS, tuition funding, prescription drug prices, energy transition, Wall Street regulation and taxes.
Nobody complained that Sanders is not a legitimate Democrat until it became impossible to compare and contrast policy proposals. That's one time when the tribalism is a shame. It's no justification for Clinton to sell her tuition plan as better and Sanders' worse for being funded partially with state money (like Obamacare and the Clean Power Plan). I doubt Clinton even realizes her cognitive dissonance, but more importantly, we can't afford her approach that helps big donors at student expense.
When I get my absentee ballot, I go to the County Democrats website. They've got everyone listed, and it's especially helpful with the judge races because they don't show party affiliation for those races.
i just wish that the ones who are wrong in this argument would admit it and go home.
See that's more of the purity bullshit I'm talking about- who decided that making things 100% government controlled is progressive? That's socialist and we're not all socialists. As for Bernie's ideas, how is he going to pay for them? Because taxing billionaires, exotic Wall Street transactions like high volume trading which mark my words, they'll stop doing and find another way to do the trades to avoid taxes and cutting defense aren't going to foot the bill. The only reason you think they will is if you're using the most skewed projection of rosy revenue ceilings and basement costs which as we know with Obamacare just isn't fucking how things work. So, how is he going to pay for it? Also, that college tuition thing, it's nice but it doesn't help people who have already completed our degrees with debt.
The only way Bernie can pay for the things he wants to do is to raise taxes on EVERYONE and let me tell you, I can't afford a tax increase. Hell, I can barely make ends meet now and that's with a college degree because degrees mean jack shit in this economy. So making college more affordable for a bunch of milennials isn't going to help me and raising my taxes to pay for these things is a non-starter.
In Missouri I do exactly the same, and the envelope is postage paid, but I still have to have my signature notarized. Fortunately the law says that notaries can't charge for absentee ballots, which I suppose is something. I suppose if I had half a million dollars on deposit at my bank, they'd come to my house?????
Hillary.
You could actually compare and contrast how they pay for what they promise. That would tell you if their promises even add up. Bernie would not have to raise taxes on everyone (Vox's calculator is every bit as disingenuous as saying that raising the minimum wage will put too many people and businesses out of work).
Using standard economics modeling, it's not zero sum, either, with you hurting yourself or raising taxes on yourself to help millennials.
But what's really weird is that hiring Bernie Sanders for the job of president just gets that analysis done for you, instead of spun for you. Elizabeth Warren explains in the New York Times what you get, depending on who you vote for to represent you as president:http://www.nytimes.com/2016...