Sanders: I’m Stunned To Be Leading Hillary [VIDEO]

Bernie Sanders today declared that he is “stunned” to be leading Hillary Clinton in two early primary state polls.

“You want me to tell you the truth?” he asked to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview Thursday when asked about his strong showing. “Yes, I’m stunned,” Sanders said. “Look, we have a message that I believed from day one was going to resonate with the American people. … Did I think (the issues) would resonate as quickly as they have? The answer is no.” Sanders said his campaign has received contributions from more than 400,000 people with an average donation of $31.20, while eschewing raising money for super PACs. As for Clinton’s inability to move past the scandal over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Sanders wouldn’t quite say it was hurting her standing. “I think it’s clearly not helping her,” he said. The Vermont senator, who serves as an independent in Congress and has identified as a democratic socialist, was pressed on whether he was a true Democrat. He said it’s “no secret” he’s an independent in Congress, but he has always caucused with Democrats. “I am going to be doing everything that I can to see that the Democratic Party is successful in November,” he said.

  • GarySFBCN

    Don’t count those chickens. It is WAY to early for predictions. But that said, go Bernie!

    • Polling this far out is pointless. At this point in 2007 the presumed nominees for the two major parties were Rudy and Hillary.

  • ab

    I sent him $10

    • lynden55

      Good for you. I signed up for the 10 a month club.

      • LAguy323

        I did as well.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Me 2 and I normally never send $

  • Tony Adams

    There are two people in this race who give the impression of unmitigated honesty: Sanders and Trump. One is refreshing, the other is horrific.

    • Robert

      Excellent observation… So true.

    • HoneyBoySmith

      I can’t find it at the moment, but I recently read an opinion piece that offered the thesis that, of all the Republican candidates, Trump is actually the most reasonable.

      And, scarily enough, the article had a lot of good points. Trump is leveraging right wing racism and rage but offering (with the exception of immigration) some pretty level headed proposals: the rich should pay more in taxes; government officials opposed to marriage equality should either quit or hold their noses and do their jobs; replacing Obamacare with true universal healthcare — of the Canadian or British sort — would not only be morally responsible but it would also be fiscally conservative; Planned Parenthood provides necessary services to people in need.

      Don’t get me wrong; I’d NEVER vote for the man. But, for all his insanity, there is a good argument to be made that EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN RUNNING IS WORSE.

      Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, Cruz, Carson want Christian theocracy. Bush wants to double down on the disastrous policies — tax cuts and foreign wars — of his big brother. Rand Paul is insane. Marco Rubio and Rick Perry are halfwits. Carly Fiorina is proposing to bring to the United States government the policies that brought failure to her companies. Scott Walker is just a nightmare. And, so on.

      • FlKeysKevin

        I’d really like to read that opinion piece.

      • noni

        I think Trump’s gig is to mock the Republicans and politics and elections in general. Most Republicans are too idiotic to notice and have been trained to salivate over anyone being an overbearing asshole. It reminds them of themselves.

      • another_steve

        It could be — emphasis on “could” — that if Trump comes out of the early primaries well and believes he actually has a chance of being the party’s nominee, he’ll tone down the rhetoric, claim he was “just a boy having fun,” and try to begin sounding like a serious candidate with serious positions.

        If that’s the case, the Republican Establishment will REALLY freak out.

        There will not be enough popcorn in the universe for the rest of us.

        • GOOGLE CAREERS PAY $98perHOUR

          my mate’s aunt makes $98 consistently on the PC………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT……qk….

          ➤➤➤➤ http://googleinstantsjobsinsiderqualitywork/get/98$hourly…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛

      • marshlc

        You know what scares me about Trump? The petulant little boy tone in which he said “You’re not being very nice to me” to Megan Whatshername, and then proceeded to personally attack her.

        To him, it’s all personal – notice that there’s very little “Vote for me because here are the policies I wish to implement”. No, it’s “Vote for me because I’m me, and I’m a winner”.

        If by some chance this man becomes President, say goodbye to your Constitution. I hate to go all Godwin here, but the charming speechmaker who rouses something in the hearts of the common man, while leaning on racism and classism, is just ringing a little too familiar right now.

        I think this man is dangerous.

    • Six Pins Delores

      Trump is a beacon of light shown upon the right. 🙂

      • Octavio

        He’s certainly made the Republicans more entertaining than they’ve ever been.

    • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

      Which is which? If you think that a Democratic Socialist can win a national election, all the power to you. And at almost any other time in our recent history I’d be happy to see it. But the Supreme Court is hanging by a one vote thread with perhaps 2 or 3 nominations to be made by our next president. If our next president is theocratic, which is ALL the Republicans have right now, and wins because America gets spooked into choosing between a socialist or a Republican, then G-d help our country.

      • Tony Adams

        Conventional wisdom tells us Bernie cannot win, but viral campaigning is showing itself to be stronger much sooner than anyone expected. Conventional wisdom subscribes to the traditional way to get elected: raise money and lead one of two parties. That system hasn’t changed much since its invention. We still have the electoral college, for example, even though it’s a ridiculous antiquated notion. But we live in a country that can vote for an American Idol during a commercial break. Look down the road to when we will vote for our president online, and to the day when he or she won’t have to spend a penny to get elected. All that aside. What would we think about a Clinton-Sanders ticket?

        • pj

          or sanders clinton

          • Tony Adams

            That doesn’t build the necessary bridge between the old system and the new one. Cautious folks who like his message but fear losing to the Republicans will feel confident that their ticket has roped in the progressives and the youngest voters without losing everything, if he’d consider the VP slot. Let’s assume that this is under discussion.

          • Octavio

            That’s a reassuring idea. He and Hillary could play good cop/bad cop similar to Biden and Obama. I’ll concentrate on that dream for a while. thanks 🙂

    • ColdDesert

      I know right? What that Bernie Sanders says is just so scary, what with his wanting to look out for the welfare of all Americans. What’s a wealthy individual who’s focused on greed and power supposed to do?

  • Berkshire_Boy

    Yeah, I’m “stunned” too. But when you consider the amount of time and effort the NYT and the rest of the MSM have spent bashing Hillary Clinton over BS like emails, when the entire Republican field is full of lunatics and pretty much gets a free pass, none of this is very surprising. I like Bernie but he will be POTUS when pigs fly over Broadway, so we had all better get a grip.

    • noni

      I could give Hillary a break if I felt her hedging on some issues were indeed hedging. I think she actually believes implementing a Republican Agenda is a good thing.

    • Bruno

      I have to agree with you there. The media has so far not been throwing around the term “socialist” much at all, but that is always going to be the albatross around his neck in a general election. Would I be thrilled if he were elected? Absolutely. Will he be elected? Absolutely not.

      • downtownla

        You say you’d like it if Bernie were President. So instead of posting an unsubstantiated claim, why don’t you go out and make it happen? Go talk to your friends and neighbors and tell them why you think Bernie should win. Set a goal. Convert two people per week. If we all did that, in a few months, he will be leading nationally as well.

        • Bruno

          I said I’d like it, I didn’t say it was worth my time and effort. Especially when no matter how much any of us talk to our friends and neighbors, I believe he STILL won’t get elected. Your claim that he’ll be leading nationally is just as “unsubstantiated” as mine.

          • downtownla

            I’m basing my projection on the recent polls, not just in NH and IA, but also the national poll from CNN yesterday that showed Bernie within 10 points of Hillary. If you go to a Bernie rally, and I’ve been to two, the people there are exactly the kind that the Democrats need to win elections – they are young, working class and not strongly identified as Democrats… these are the 60% of Americans who are not usually voting and they are coming out to a Bernie Sanders rally!

          • Bruno

            He can win the primary, NOT the general. No matter what the polls say now, which, by the way, they show Trump beating both of them.

          • downtownla

            agreed. Trump can win the Republican nomination with 30/35% in a crowded field. He can’t win the general. So if you are a progressive, why not go for the progressive candidate?

      • RobinP

        What makes you absolutely certain he won’t be elected?

        As for the primary, he’s climbing in the polls, especially in Iowa and NH. It remains to be seen if the surge will stop or continue. The debates will of course be decisive.

        If he were to get the nomination, he has an equal, if not better, chance at winning against the Republican candidate. He will attract less moderates, but there will be a lot of first-time and young voters, and quite a few Republicans as well.

        It will be difficult, but there’s a chance.

        • Bruno

          I won’t say 100%, but I’m substantially more certain than not he can’t get elected. In this country, the term “socialist” is like a ball and chain. Unless something has substantially changed in the past couple years, that will most likely remain the case. Hey, if I’m wrong, I’ll be happy. But I’m just not going to delude myself into thinking otherwise for the time being.

    • Cuberly

      …the media obsession with milking Hillz for an apology had me screaming at the “news”. Even on NPR they bought the Fox talking-point, “Will she ever apologize?”

      And here Trump can…..ok…gonna stop now…ARGH!

      • Octavio

        Cálmate, amigo. Siento tu dolor.

    • Harlan92

      I’m not American and haven’t followed the issue closely, but I can’t say I’d be happy if an official in my country used a private email server. That sounds really iffy to me – I don’t know why someone would do that if they weren’t trying to hide something.

    • another_steve

      I pretty much share your sentiments, BB. Hillary bashing seems to be the latest marketing strategy to get people watching through the next Cialis commercial on TV.

      Her recent unequivocal apology over the email thing was a good thing. The Republicans see the issue as the new Benghazi, but I’m not sure the email thing has sticking power. The media may very well lose interest in it, and as an issue it’ll go away.

  • noni

    Having Wolf Blitzer ask Bernie to be honest is rich.

    Wolf is an expert in not being honest.

    • Cuberly

      I still think that when they remodeled the The American Presidents attraction in Disneyland, they handed over the Lincoln robot to CNN. Different clothing, some padding, new soundtrack, voila’!

      • Steverino

        I’m surprised the Ronald Reagan Library didn’t contract with Disney to do that with Ronnie’s embalmed corpse.

        • Cuberly

          Skull and Bones has the tip of Reagan’s pee pee in a reliquary somewhere. Seriously how can it not be.

  • Happy Dance

    I think it is kind of early, but I am going to send in a donation to Sanders. I think he has the stuff our country needs. He is not in it to get rich, since he is already rich. He is in it to win it and fix it!!

    • gypsy78

      His net worth is in the $750K range. He’s actually one of the least rich Senators. And he has no desire to be rich. The guy is flying across the country on Southwest to save his campaign money. He’s doing no polling, his paid staff for his whole campaign is less than Hillary’s staff in Iowa alone…

      • Happy Dance

        750k is nothing to sneeze at.

        • Sam

          That’s nothing. Everyone’s favorite middle-class champion Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a net worth of over $8 million.

        • Toasterlad

          Maybe not for you and me, but it’s chump change for a member of Congress, who make a minimum of $175,000 a year, and he’s been in Congress for 25 years.

          • Happy Dance

            I think that is how they should be living. Pay their bills and live like normal everyday citizens. That makes him even better in my book.

          • Toasterlad

            Agreed.

      • Happy Dance

        I just saw this about him…I like him even more because he is not shady! Sanders is one of a small number of senators who voluntarily e-file their campaign finance reports, making the reports easier to access.

      • GreatLakeSailor

        Actually his net worth is reported at greater than $128k and less than $750k in official filings for FEC.
        Ballot pedia has it at $460.5k.
        http://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders
        Other sources are around $330k-$450k
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bernie+sanders+net+worth+2015

    • Cody

      I made the first political donation of my life to this dear man.

      • My third. (Alan Grayson in Florida and the President before he was.)

  • LovesIrony

    I lived in Burlington when he was mayor. He was loved loved loved by Vermonters

    • AtticusP

      So what’s not to love? 🙂

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    JEB !

    Just
    Elect
    Bernie

    • AtticusP

      THIS!!!

  • Robert

    And I’m stunned that Biden is already ahead of Sanders. And he’s not even officially in yet. What this tells me is that Democrats are not happy with Hillary Clinton.

    She isn’t going to be the nominee, I can sense it.

    So it will likely be a race primarily between Biden and Sanders, and the establishment will fall behind Biden, unfortunately. And that is nothing against Biden, just that I like Bernie, and especially appreciate that he is an independent.

    • HoneyBoySmith

      I kind of feel sorry for Hillary Clinton.

      She so desperately wanted to be president in 2008. She assumed no one could stop her — until Barack Obama emerged as the Democratic favorite

      She so desperately wants to win in 2016. She assumed no one could stop her — until Bernie Sanders (and, maybe, Joe Biden) emerged as competitive contenders.

      It’s gotta be hard realizing that the people responsible for deciding whether you’ll ever have your dream job are just not that into you.

      Personally, I think she’s a bad candidate. She’s run two campaigns for president and, in both, her main argument has been “inevitability.” She’s not offering anything that makes me want to vote for her. She’s not a compelling speaker. She has no personal charisma…at least none that comes across on television. I don’t see her as more competent or a better leader than the other candidates.

      I’d like to see someone else win the Democratic nomination.

      • I go back a long way with the Clintons. All the way back to Arkansas where I met both of them several times and some of my family members actually worked on project with one or the other of them. I like them for the most part, but find them infuriatingly frustrating as well. They don’t seem to be able to anticipate that the things they do will blow up in their faces like they always do. It’s happened over and over going back to the late 70s. Why can’t they learn? Are they so insulated that they can’t anticipate how certain things will play out. I don’t think she did anything so horrible wrong with the emails but it’s just so fucking stupid. Why? Another Clinton WH would just be 4 or 8 years of non-stop bullshit like the last one. I’m just not up for it. I’ve had enough.

        She’s also just wrong on so many things. She was wrong on Iraq. She has too many ties to Wall St and big business (going back to the 80s when she was on the board at union-busting giant WalMart). And finally her coziness to that C Street dominionist crowd. I’m looking for other options in 2016 just like I did in 2008.

        • Six Pins Delores

          “Are they so insulated that they can’t anticipate how certain things will play out.”
          It seems so yes.

      • BlueberriesForMe

        As has been said elsewheres, I think it’s also Clinton (and Bush) “fatigue”. We’ve already had 8 yrs of the Clintons, plus the 2008 campaign. There was mention made today of Kerry or Gore running again. No, thanks.

      • Toasterlad

        I like Bernie Sanders a lot more than I dislike Hillary Clinton. But I’d vote for Biden, if it comes to that, before I’d vote for Clinton. And probably for Chafee or O’Malley, too, even though I know virtually nothing about them. I just don’t trust her. I believe all this email business and Benghazi nonsense are bullshit, but I don’t like how cozy she is with Wall Street, and I think she never met a war she didn’t like.

  • You’re stunned? Imagine how the rest of us feel? We keep asking ourselves how many idiots are in the Democratic party that they would be so willing to divide it up and purposely lose to the Republicans? Bernie, whether you accept it or not, is a Socialist tried and true. Other Socialists include such “fine” people as Karl Marx, Frederich Engles, Lenin, Stalin Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and Leon Trotsky. So go ahead and dump all that we’ve earned under Obama. See same-sex marriage stopped in its tracks, equality be damned, the rise of Religious Freedom simply because you don’t want a woman to be President.

    • Robert

      Horse Hooey..

    • AtticusP

      I would love to see a woman elected POTUS!

      Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is NOT that woman.

    • Jonathan

      The top ten countries for standard of living are all democratic socialist. He’s not Lenin, for chrissakes.

    • GarySFBCN

      Socialism isn’t communism. And saying that Bernie is running because he doesn’t “want a woman to be President” tells us that you are an ignorant piece of shit.

      Why do you hate democracy?

      • Octavio

        Probably for the same reasons he hates puppies and kittens.

    • Prion

      If Elizabeth Warren were running, she’d probably be ahead of Hillary, too.

      • GarySFBCN

        Yeah, but according to Cary, she’d only be running because she doesn’t want a woman to be president.

      • If Warren were running I wouldn’t still be uncommitted.

      • ultragreen

        If Mr. Ed the Talking Horse was running from Prez, he would probably be ahead of Hillary too.

    • Jean-Marc in Canada

      Oh sweety, where to begin with you?

      First off, don’t conflate socialism with communism or totalitarianism, that’s puerile and intellectual sophistry and it won’t fly here.

      Secondly, how would having a socialist in the White House result in the stopping of Marriage Equality? It’s already the law of the land, the highest court said so.

      Third, accusing anyone in the Democratic Party of not wanting a woman as President is beyond the pale.

      Do yourself a favour, crack open some books that have more than 20 pages and no pictures, then come back and maybe we can have a serious conversation.

      Get a grip sugar tits…..seriously.

      • Bill_Perdue

        BS is a social democrat, not a socialist. Like you, he supports US wars of aggression and the murder of GIs and civilians from Libya to Pakistan by voting for war budgets.

        https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/47/military-personnel#.Vbz8dvlViko

        • Jean-Marc in Canada

          Sigh…..it’s back. Oh well, time to ignore it again.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Thanks for confirming that you’re an unapologetic supporter of US, Canadian and NATO wars of aggression.

          • Jean-Marc in Canada

            You’re welcome

    • noni

      Tea Party Alert.

    • Bill_Perdue

      BS is a social democrat, not a socialist, and he prefers to operate in the sewer of two party ‘lesser evil’ politics. He’s a right centrist and doesn’t deserve anyone’s support. He’s Obama redux and all of his promises, given the fact that he’s a Democrat, are just empty lies.

      public option – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk

      union busting – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

      end the war – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g

    • noni

      You do have a nice porn site on your profile.

      I enjoyed the penis flopping enhanced with the waddle of womanly hips all attached on a milky white body on a fun run.

    • That’s your best argument? I’m stuck with Hillary? I get Republican light or Republican hard-core? Fuck that.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      There are many kinds of Socialism, The Cuban one, The Russian one, the nazi one, etc.

      Future president- elect Sanders 🙂 is is a DEMOCRATIC Socialist. Which is similar to Northern Europe’s and it would be a god dammed blessing for this country to RETURN to.

      But if he gets more tread, watch the right wing throw a shit load of misinfo of how he will be marching fetuses into Siberia, or gasoline at $ 88.00 bucks a gallon or or whatever the fuck FEAR they think will stick

    • lynden55

      Utterly wrong. Sanders is a Scandanavian style supporter of social democracy. He is a capitalist (like Jill Stein) who wants to put the worst elements of “free market” capitalism in a cage like they did in Sweden.
      This has nothing to do with “not wanting a woman president”. This has everything to do with being tired of business as usual and refusing to elect another corporatist free trade agreement war mongering president of any gender.

    • ultragreen

      Bernie isn’t anywhere close to Marx, Lenin, Castro, Mao, etc. Capitalism will function just fine under Bernie.

    • skeptical_inquirer

      If she’s so great, why did she lose to Obama in 2008? It was her campaign to lose. If she wants people to vote for her, she has to tell us WHY we should vote for her other than not being as sucktastic as whoever wins the nom for the GOP. Don’t blame us, blame her campaign.

    • Gyeo

      What second wave bull is this? First let’s not pretend that having a woman means progres for women. After all there is a woman running. For the right. Her name is Carly Fiona and she does not believe there is a need protect women choices from the inane assaults levied at them by right wingers. It’s a very outdated model to assume having an affluent women lead will mean progress for all women.
      Secondly latching on the socialism = bad image is exactly what right wingers want. They have used it to justify gutting so many social safety net Americans desperately need by exploiting American’s ignorance about socialism.

  • ErikDC

    A majority of Americans don’t want to pay for their neighbor kid’s college education with fees levied against their own financial transactions.

    It’s incredible some Democrats think that’s a sellable policy position. Some will like it, but not the majority. Sanders is unelectable.

    • noni

      I wonder why they don’t want to have a country of educated people?

      • ErikDC

        Because they want more money in their own bank account.

        • noni

          and I guess that is why America’s bridges, roads, sewer systems, and other infrastructure haven’t been upgraded since the 1940’s. Apparently at that time the selfish American Greed brought by Reaganism hadn’t got a strong hold.

          • ErikDC

            Bridge and road construction are financed by the gas tax, which hasn’t been raised in over 2 decades and has reaped diminishing returns as a result of more fuel efficient vehicles.

          • noni

            So your point is that as long as the tax is a cerntain kind of tax Americans have no problem with paying for someone else’s road or bridge.

          • ErikDC

            No.

            The gas tax is a direct usage tax. The more you drive, the more gas you buy, and the more you finance road construction and repairs. If you’re like my friend Phil, who doesn’t have a drivers license and uses public transportation, you pay nothing at all.

          • SFHarry

            So wouldn’t it then make sense to make an even higher tax on financial transactions to pay for all the bail outs of the banks. Why should your friend Phil, who doesn’t participate in the world have to pay for them. Maybe each financial transaction should have a 50% tax to pay for the evenual bailouts

          • ultragreen

            ErikDC: “If you’re like my friend Phil, who doesn’t have a drivers license and uses public transportation, you pay nothing at all.

            Taxes on gasoline don’t even come close to paying for road construction and repairs. About one-half of the money comes from general revenues. Therefore, your friend Phil is paying through the nose for transportation services that he doesn’t use.

            And then there’s the matter of negative externalities: the valuable real estate that is taken up by this massive transportation system (including parking lots and multi-story parking garages), the obnoxious road noise, the deadly fumes from the consumption of gasoline, the enormous cost of owning and maintaining motor vehicles, the multitude of costly accidents, injuries, and deaths, etc.

        • skeptical_inquirer

          The extra three hundred or so dollars don’t help when the kids are taught that Jesus hunted dinosaurs with a Remington, and end up basically fighting for “would you like fries with that” kind of jobs while the Kochs and the Trumps sneer “losers!”

    • DutvhBoy74

      http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/
      0.5 percent speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and
      other stock trades, as well as a 0.1 percent fee on bonds and a 0.005
      percent fee charged on derivatives.

      Having a hard time understanding how this is harmful.
      I trade stocks. These rates are virtually negligible. My portfolio moves around more than this every day.

      A more educated workforce will see more than a 0.5% boost in their overall income, which would go back into the economy and back into the market.

      • ErikDC

        Under Sanders proposal, 33% of the cost falls to the states. Since states will already be burdened with the cost of Medicaid expansion in a few years when the federal government stops funding 100% of the cost, is it really a smart move to place another unfunded mandate on state budgets? Many states already are running a deficit. No one wants to see their state taxes go up.

        • noni

          “33% of the cost falls to the states”

          What costs are you referring to?

          • ErikDC

            feeltheberg.org links to USA Today’s article on the proposal. Not surprisingly, feeltheberg conveniently leaves out the fact that the cost is NOT fully funded by the federal government, a fact USA Today deems fit to put in the first three paragraphs.

            “Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the “College for All Act,” the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.

            Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% — $47 billion dollars each year — of the costs.

            States would be required to produce the remaining 33% of the costs, or 23 billion dollars.”

            http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/bernie-sanders-issues-bill-to-make-4-year-colleges-tuition-free/

          • noni

            But the commenter was talking primarily about the taxing of investment transactions which you seemed to have ignored. But you don’t seem to have any solutions, just simply reciting “no one likes to pay taxes” mantra. Bernie actually is proposing some solutions. I know you like the mantra of “Repeal and Replace” Obamacare, but have no solutions.

          • ErikDC

            And I was pointing out that the investment tax proposal only covers 67% of the overall cost.

            I’m not sure where you think my state is going to come up with a couple hundred million dollars more per year to fund this, when we already have a 1.2 billion dollar per year deficit.

            Btw, I support Obamacare.

          • noni

            Gosh maybe reducing corporate welfare.

          • ErikDC

            Our state budget doesn’t have “corporate welfare”.

          • noni

            I’d have to see evidence to believe that’s true.

            You haven’t been honest so far so I won’t take your word for it.

          • ErikDC

            What was I dishonest about?

          • noni

            The information found in the article as pointed out by dutchboy.

          • ErikDC

            I wasn’t being dishonest, I simply missed it on the page. It doesn’t change the fact that a large percentage of the cost would be passed off onto the states, necessitating tax increases.

          • ultragreen

            That is very hard to believe, considering all of the bloated government contracts and tax giveaways that they receive, and sometimes outright subsidies. My state was subsidizing the coal industry until it was temporarily suspended because of budget shortfalls, and now the nuclear industry has been lobbying for subsidies.

          • DutchBoy74

            The site quotes exactly what you quoted from the USA article that states would cover 1/3 and the federal government fill in the remaining 2/3. They then post a video again saying exactly that.

            So saying the site “left it out” is being disingenuous.

        • DutchBoy74

          State colleges can help by not having to build extravagant buildings to justify their non profit status as well. There are plenty of things colleges can do to save on costs.

          All those hundreds of millions of dollars they rake in grants and college sports can be useful. Stop spending on excessive grandiose buildings and start subsidizing tuition.
          Stop skyrocketing tuition to pay for overinflated executive salaries. States have a lot of control over this and it’s not outside of reach to capture those costs without shifting the burden to the tax payer.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0

          Another thing is the “accreditation” and textbook racket. Over half the courses I was mandated to take had absolutely nothing to do with the degree or major I was going for. The you must buy the over inflated “new” version of the text book where they change the font type for the course also contributes to over inflated tuition. Forcing people in pay for room and board on campus – another racket.

          The money is already there. It’s just being spent in a wasteful and unproductive manner. You can blame greedy administration, state legislatures, and your fellow voters for that.

    • GreatLakeSailor

      A majority of Americans don’t want to pay for their neighbor kid’s college education with fees levied against their own financial transactions.

      Whew! Good thing they won’t have to. See, when Bernie wins and sweeps in a majority Progressive Congress, it ain’t “a majority of Americans” that will finally be expected to shoulder their share of responsible national stewardship because the vast “majority of Americans” already are – they always have. It is the Oligarchs & MultiNationals that will have their 3+ decade free ride curtailed; they will once again be required to contribute to civil society commensurate to the benefits they derive there from.

      • ErikDC

        That’s just not true.

        Lets use my parents as a for instance. They’re not wealthy, but are comfortably middle class. A retiree, my dad spends a lot of his day doing stock trades. Based on Sanders plan, he estimates he’d see a 2-3 thousand dollar tax increase per year. My parents have said flat out that they will not support Sanders. Mind you, these are people with framed photographs of Barack Obama in their house. They are hardcore Democrats.

        Simply put, if a candidate is too liberal for my parents, who have never voted Republican, it’s NOT happening.

  • Bill_Perdue

    The question of electability is unimportant, given the facts that the US is not a democracy and elections have no impact on policy. “A new scientific study from Princeton researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern researcher Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

    Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often. It’s beyond alarming.

    As Gilens and Page write, ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.’ In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.” http://mic.com/articles/87719/

    What is important are political programs. In that context the Democrats are a right wing party controlled by the rich, just like the Republicans.

    As for BS, his politics consist of empty promises that the Democrats will not honor, support for the wars of aggression by the rich and support for the racist zionist colony in Palestine. Like Obama in 2008 BS is a stalking horse to fool people into voting Democrat, just as Trumps violence inciting racism and misogyny are tools to drawing people back into the Republican party.

    • DutchBoy74

      Where’s what Bernie has to say about what happened with Obama.

      He can’t do it alone. No matter how good of a president you have, they can’t not individually change everything. You need a like minded congress to work with the president or you will never get the votes past something like the Republican blockade.

      Beyond the office of the President, what are some candidates that represent your views that need exposure?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMchxVF8w8

      • Bill_Perdue

        Elections are unimportant. They don’t change things. BS is a stalking horse for the Democrat party.

        Most of the socialist groups have yet to nominate anyone. It’s a bit early given our view that the only reason to engage in electoral politics is to organize unions and the struggles of working people.

        http://labornotes.org/2013/12/2013-review-aiming-higher-labor-tries-new-angles-and-alliances

      • Perdue is a Republican defeatist, probably not going to get a sane answer from him.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Melisssia is a Dixiecrat and an Obot, an enabler of zionist racism.

    • Six Pins Delores

      “And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.”
      Basically!?

  • A note to all candidates. If you were offering practical solutions to the problems of 99% of the country, you might be drawing crowds that big too.

  • Cuberly

    Sorta OT but, I admire how Bernie is on the campaign trail. A LOT. And I think it says a lot about how both He and Hillz have been treating each other. I think it’s called being civil.

    • ultragreen

      Well, so far Hillary has been civil. We’ll see how long that lasts should Bernie remain in the lead. Hillary supporters and the so-called moderate realists, of course, are already spitting wasps from their mouths.

      • GreatLakeSailor

        She uses proxies – McCaskill red baiting, Castro spinning out lies about Bernie not going to Texas and ignoring Latinos.

  • J Ascher

    I think the American people are tired of bureaucratic politicians who don’t listen to the vast majority of us.

  • Clungeflaps

    I’m enjoying watching all of the Hillary supporters on here spit their binkies out.

    Sorry, but I’ll never vote for Lucille Bluth de Kirchner. Biden or Bernie, I’m totally cool with.

  • TexPlant

    This points to the reason places like Iowa and NH should not first in the primaries. WTF

  • LAguy323

    #FeelTheBern