Election 2020

Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus. He's on Track To Win the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

Are Democrats about to nominate a socialist for president?


Multiple news outlets are projecting that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has won today's Nevada caucus, making him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. 

Sanders hasn't locked up the race yet, but he's now in a position to do so. Democrats look very much like they're about to nominate a self-described democratic socialist for president. 

There are some hurdles Sanders will have to overcome first—namely the way the large primary field interacts with the complexities of the party's nominating rules. A total of 3,979 "pledged" delegates are up for grabs in state primaries and caucuses; to win the nomination outright, a candidate must win a majority, or 1,991, of those delegates. But the unusually large field has made it difficult for any candidate to win an outright majority. 

Currently, election odds site FiveThirtyEight projects that Sanders will win 1,676 of those delegates, with the projected second-place finisher, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, winning 922 of those delegates. If that happens, Sanders will have the most votes—but not a majority. And then the party's superdelegates will suddenly be a factor. 

Superdelegates are part of state delegations to the Democratic nominating convention. But they're unpledged, meaning they aren't won by voting. Instead, they get included in the vote if no candidate wins a clear majority of pledged delegates, which the election model at FiveThirtyEight currently says is (just barely) the most likely outcome. 

Currently, most superdelegates remain uncommitted. And as party insiders, it's at least possible that they will not support an independent who failed to win a majority in the primary and caucus votes. An organized movement by the superdelegates to nominate a lower-placed finisher, combined with a consolidation of votes for other non-Sanders candidates, could keep Sanders from the top of the ticket. 

Still, it's hard to imagine that if Sanders won the most votes and the most pledged delegates in the primary/caucus process, the party's superdelegates would vote to give the nomination to another candidate. After the 2016 election, the Democratic party changed the rules surrounding superdelegate votes in order to weaken their power, partly in response to frustrations and concerns from Sanders supporters, who viewed superdelegates as a mechanism used by the party establishment to thwart outsider candidates. For the superdelegates to step in and give someone else the nomination would be controversial at minimum, and could well spark something resembling a party-breaking revolt. (In addition, it would raise some eyebrows for the party that has spent the last several years complaining about subversions of democracy to give the nomination to a candidate who did not win the most primary/caucus votes.) 

So even if Sanders isn't on track to win a majority of pledged delegates, he is nevertheless on track to win the Democratic Party's nomination. At a minimum, he has a clearer shot than any other candidate right now, since no rival appears poised to consolidate non-Sanders voters. 

Which means that as it faces off against Donald Trump in the 2020 election, the Democratic Party is probably going to be led by a cantankerous 78-year-old democratic socialist—not only someone who supports foolish and domestically unprecedented government programs such as single-payer health care and free tuition at public universities, but someone who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, proudly supported the brutal Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and who once spoke admiringly of the Cuban government. If they nominated Sanders, Democrats would own his entire radical agenda and history. 

Should this happen, it would represent a tremendous gamble for the Democratic Party, which would be betting its future on a deeply polarizing figure who is disliked by many in his own party. And in a matchup against Donald Trump, it would represent a no-win scenario for anyone who values individual liberty, free markets, or even just basic executive competence. 

Some Democrats appear to realize the predicament their party is in. But as former Jeb Bush adviser Tim Miller wrote for The Bulwark, with Super Tuesday, and its giant delegate haul, just days away, it may already be too late. Unless Democratic voters can consolidate around a non-Sanders candidate in a very short period of time, Sanders is set to win. 

It's possible, of course, that nominating Sanders could backfire on both the candidate and the party, and that Sanders could end up losing by a large margin in November. Some Republicans appear to believe that Sanders would be the easiest candidate to beat, and that he would have down-ticket effects on the rest of the party. 

That scenario does not strike me as out of the range of possibility. Yet I wouldn't be too sure. Because in many ways, the Democratic Party would be following in the footsteps of Republicans, who in 2016 similarly nominated a polarizing, populist, authoritarian-curious outsider who won just enough votes in an unusually crowded and competitive primary field despite broad opposition from the party establishment. Most knowledgable observers thought that nominee had little to no shot at winning the election. But Donald Trump is now our president.

It is still early, but Sanders is following in Trump's footsteps. With Sanders' win in Nevada, he's one step closer to the presidential nomination. And America is one step closer to a socialist in the White House. 

NEXT: Wisconsin May Allow Bars To Stay Open Late for the Democratic National Convention—Why Not Always?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump is gonna roll right through this election.

    1. Once Sander’s has the nomination the DNC/Establishment Media Complex will fall into place behind him.
      Expect breathy articles here at Reason about how Sander’s brand socialism is far more libertarian than anything Trump has ever done.

      Thanks to a scare campaign against Trump 100 times bigger than anything we’ve seen over the last five years, the final tally will end up being close to 2018.

      Anyway, who’ll be the first Reasonista to endorse Bernie?
      The top candidates are:
      De Rugy

      Long shot: Robby

      1. Binion, no question about it.

        1. Not if Shikha trips him to the keyboard.

          1. Don’t count out Welch. Like other Bernie Bros he’s been hot for actually killing conservatives for being conservative.
            See: https://twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12

            In his excitement he might prematurely an endorsement before Bernie even secures a nomination.

            1. “Arch-segregationist Matt Welch”

            2. Prog are always such weak little faggots. Don’t know how they think they’re going to kill any conservatives. It would be fun to have the legal basis to kick the living shit out of the lefties though.

              1. I know. Is there anything funnier than the thought of Welchie Boy trying to kill someone with a crossbow?

      2. “Expect breathy articles here at Reason about how Sander’s brand socialism is far more libertarian than anything Trump has ever done.”

        Well it’s not so silly when you realize Koch / Reason libertarianism prioritizes #ImmigrationAboveAll, and Sanders is clearly better than Drumpf on that issue.


        1. Care to comment. Trump gets US out of the Paris climate agreement. Sanders outlaw by government force and guns all fossil fuels. Are not telling us per NAP (defining principle of libertarianism) that sander’s is more libertarian them trump?

        2. DRINK! It’s the OpenBordersLiberal-tarian drinking game! Take a shot every time OpenBordersLiberal-tarian exposes his Koch fetish.

          1. Go home Charles, you’re drunk.

      3. They’re gonna do the same bullshit they always do every single election: mostly lie and claim that they’re really supporting the libertarian candidate (whoever the hell that is this year), while occasionally sprinkling in an article like “The Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders”. Then they will all go out and vote for Sanders without ever admitting it to anyone except their closest leftie friends.

        A few of them will vote for the libertarian candidate in Washington D.C. while simultaneously illegally voting for Sanders in whatever state they’re originally from that they’re falsely claiming they’re still living in.

      4. Anyway, who’ll be the first Reasonista to endorse Bernie? Long shot: Robby

        Long shot? He already did it.

        1. Twice, actually.

          1. Oh Robby… poor, poor silly Robby.

      5. Nick already declared for Open Borders Socialists over anyone not Open Borders:
        In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

        Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.


        But the *most* fun will be watching the #NeoClowns bend the knee to Bernie:

        The history of the Trump family business is bringing out my inner socialist. Some defenses of Kavanaugh are bringing out my inner feminist. The Trump-era degradation of American conservatism is bringing out my inner liberal.
        Quote Tweet
        · Nov 21, 2017
        The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist. The sex scandals are bringing out my inner feminist. Donald Trump and Roy Moore are bringing out my inner liberal.

    2. I’m not so sure of a Trump win. In 2016, per exit polls, he won the white vote by about 20 points, but he lost the non-white vote by a staggering 53 points.
      Furthermore, he won the over 45 years old vote by only 8 points, and lost the youth vote (under 45) by 14 points.
      The demographic changes aren’t favoring whites or old people, and Trump has to fight harder this time around. And Bernie is not seen as a swamp creature, in the same way Hilary was seen – he actually has some charisma and a real following.
      I don’t think Trump can be as complacent with this election, as everyone else thinks he should be.

      1. No one should be complacent. But the difference is that while Hillary was yhe status quo candidate, its hard to say Trump was offering radical change, more like just reset everything back to they way it was before Obama.

        That’s not Bernies message, Bernie is basically saying lets bern it all down and start over. I think thats a hard sell, for one thing, i think most Americans like their Billionaires, with a few notable exceptions like Bloomberg. Gates, Buffet, Elon Musk, the late Steve Jobs are not divisive figures, even if they aren’t universally popular. Most Americans don’t want to go to a world without billionaires, because for the most part they understand they are billionaires because they built things people like.

        1. My comment has been flagged by some busybodies but I will post it again:
          I’m not so sure of a Trump win. In 2016, per exit polls, he won the white vote by about 20 points, but he lost the non-white vote by a staggering 53 points.
          Furthermore, he won the over 45 years old vote by only 8 points, and lost the youth vote (under 45) by 14 points.
          The demographic changes aren’t favoring whites or old people, and Trump has to fight harder this time around. And Bernie is not seen as a swamp creature, in the same way Hilary was seen – he actually has some charisma and a real following.
          I don’t think Trump can be as complacent with this election, as everyone else thinks he should be.

          1. We heard you the first time.

    3. Looks like Crazy Bernie is doing well in the Great State of Nevada,” tweeted the craziest president in recorded history. 

      No campaign has a grassroots movement like we do,” Sanders said on Saturday.

      No campaign except the Trump campaign, that is. It won’t be long before Bernie’s grassroots go toe-to-toe with Donald’s.


      1. Yes, surely the campus radicals who can afford to take a month off campaigning in a poorly attended primary election in one of the least populous states in the union represent a groundswell of national support.

        1. I hope you’re right, they had a lot more votes Saturday then in the last few primaries. Maybe it was just because this was on a weekend instead of mid-week.

    4. Trump was gonna beat everyone regardless. We are not a generation that does one-term Presidents. Or for that matter, mere two-termers if we weren’t explicitly constrained.

      The good thing is that at least a Sanders candidacy will raise issues that expand the political discussion a wee bit beyond what the Davos/media crowd wants everyone to talk about. It was the same value that Trump brought.

      1. Yes, the country needs to have the conversation that will result from a Sanders-Trump race.

        1. You think Buttigieg/Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar have anything to say that’s not the same-old useless shit that’s been advocated pretty much continuously for the last couple decades? By the same-old clowns who would prefer to have seen one of them against the Rubio/Bush/Kasich/Santorum/Graham/Walker types?

          I’d much rather see an actual election based on ideas than a completely scripted ‘event’ put on by our betters.

        2. “the country needs to have the conversation that will result from a Sanders-Trump race.”

          No it doesn’t. Populist idiots on the right and left will just drag this country further into the idiocracy. Unfortunately that seems to be the direction we’re heading.

      2. Hopefully the conclusion will be:

        (1) Trump and Sanders actually agree largely that the middle class is being screwed over by the existing government power structure.

        (2) Sanders is recognized for the totalitarian prick that he is, the guy who wants to cement the existing government power structure in perpetuity.

  2. Sanders vs. Trump is a “no win” scenario for anyone that values freedom? Absurd. The choice is not even debatable. For all of the inane hyperbole and incessant “orange man bad” doomsdayer prophecies, Trump is clearly the choice for anyone that even remotely considers themselves a libertarian, or otherwise not completely fucking retarded.

    1. The LP candidate is the clear choice if you’re going to vote.

      1. Have fun throwing your vote away.

        1. Have fun throwing your principles away.

          1. Not a libertarian. Never voted libertarian. Never will. Republicans are libertarians … but without the rose tinted glasses and high minded “principles” that can never, and will never, be satisfied.

            1. Ok so you are are republican. I do not agree that republicans are anything like libertarian. The Buckley /Reagan conservatives were sort of libertarianish but they are long gone. Anything republicans do that fits with libertarian goals is purely coincidental.

              There are a few pseudo libertarian types in the R party but that doesn’t count for much.

              1. No true Scotsman.


                1. That has nothing to do with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. It’s a simple disagreement about matters of fact.

                  1. He is setting himself up as the judge of who is a libertarian, hence no true scotsman fits.

                    1. Republicans are admittedly not libertarians.

                      Everyone overlaps with libertarians to a certain degree, when it comes to the freedoms and lifestyles they want for themselves. Only when you truly want the government to have no power over non-rights violators that you don’t approve of, or even despise, should you consider yourself a libertarian.

                      I’m glad Republicans have recently become more “libertarian” on things like free speech when they see the things that they want to say being threatened.

                      But look at someone like Trump when he feels threatened by what the press says. He suddenly wants to contstrain free speech.

                      He’s not libertarian. He’s just probably less of a threat to liberty than democrats are because he can’t constrain liberty as much as he’d like to.

                    2. But look at someone like Trump when he feels threatened by what the press says. He suddenly wants to contstrain free speech.

                      You need to judge politicians by what they actually do, not what they say. That’s true for Trump as much as it was for Hillary and Obama.

                      Hillary and Obama strongly acted against free speech and constitutional protections of American citizens.

                      Trump so far has not done anything comparable.

              2. I’m still here – Regan Democrat

              3. And how many of Rand Paul’s policies contradict the Libertarian base???

                1. If he calls himself a libertarian then he is one. I don’t really know if he does or not. I was referring to the Republican Party as a whole.

                  So far as I am concerned the identity is self defining. You are what you say you are. Specific positions or policies are always debatable.

            2. And without much aversion to interfere in foreigners’ affairs or real aversion to subsidies and other forms of unconstitutional deficit federal spending – so long as they are the ones doing it.

            3. You can’t not initiate force against other people?

              1. That wasn’t even discussed. Is this a fetish for you?

            4. I suppose a better way for me to say it is that IceTrey is not throwing his vote away. He is voting his conscience and don’t see how anyone can be critical of that.

              1. I know that Reason writers like to pretend Game Theory doesn’t apply to voting, but I tend to disagree with this. If you live in a state that is either safely red or blue, a vote for the LP is perfectly sensible (if the LP candidate is better, that is). Now in a more contestable state, it becomes much harder to make the argument that a 3rd party vote doesn’t impact the outcome.
                This is where I can see the benefit of the ranked choice system.
                Additionally, I prefer the Nebraska system for awarding electoral votes.

                1. Actually I would prefer a multiparty parliamentary system. Israel has that. People just don’t have binary political opinions.

                  It is in many ways better. The president or PM has a cabinet composed of different parties. Ours just picks people who agree with him. Also smaller parties have more clout.

                  It is more chaotic. They are having yet another election this year but seems to function just fine.

                  1. Parliamentary systems are by far the worse way to go for people who are opposed to centralized powers. Additionally, the cabinet members are picked by the president but the senate has to approve them. No, I will take three separate but equal branches any day over a parliament.

                    1. They are coalitions. Nobody gets a majority. So it gets messy and interesting. The cabinet members are not really picked by the president. To get a majority you need to negotiate with say parties 3, 5 and 7. They will not join until they get to pick cabinets A, C and D. It actually gets more interesting.

                      The president gets less power because the president always faces party 5 or 3 pulling out of any decision and calling for new elections which often happens. The judicial system in Israel is actually highly independent and far less political than here. They are not political stacks that we see here.

                      There are trade offs to the two party system we have. What I see is increasing power to the executive and a drive to one party rule. That is concerning to me.

                      It is all theory since it is not going to change. Thanks for the discussion.

                  2. Parliamentary systems are just legislative superiority systems. You can look at most parliamentary systems and see wide abuses. The whole entire coalition building requires pid pro quos between groups.

                    1. It does but isn’t that what happens in all governments. I’ll vote for your bill if you support me on mine. That is how representative governments work.

                      The downside is a small group with narrow interests needed for the coalition can have too much power. I am mostly thinking of Israel since I follow goings on there and that seems to happen there over some issues.

                      Of course what works in one place may not in another so who knows.

                2. I’ll admit to having been a game-theory L voter in the past. I lived in Georgia, which was generally a) convincingly red enough that it was highly unlikely that my district would be run by a Democrat or have a Democrat governor or Democrat Senators or cast EC votes for a Democrat and b) actually had a small but steady Libertarian presence, such that many offices had L candidates.

                  Last election, though, with Gary “I agree with Bernie 73% of the time” Johnson and Bill “Gun-Grabber” Weld running on the main L ticket, and with Hillary looming in the state polls, I decided that more than anything I needed to do what small part I could to keep Hillary from winning. With the clowns the L party put up, the decision was a lot easier, and I strayed from the L ticket and voted for the Republican presidential candidate for the first time since I voted for Reagan’s second term.

                  Mind, I still voted L pretty much across the board for down-ticket races.

                  However, in recent years the Libertarian Party of Georgia has tended to look a lot like Reason, all “orange man bad”, open-borders uber alle, and lauding intersectional politics. During that time, Democrats from all over poured millions of dollars into expensive failed campaigns for Jon Ossof and Stacey Abrams in concerted efforts to tip the state. Indeed, my own metro-Atlanta district, which was once represented by Tom Price, elected a Democrat, again funded by huge outlays by Democrats from elsewhere.

                  I ave since moved out of Georgia, and so am less saddened by all of the above. But I can say that the Libertarian Party of Georgia seemed like they were TRYING to lose voters–anecdotally, my libertarian friends there agree.

                  1. It seems the National libertarian party is trying to drive away voters as well.

                    The Kaitlin Bennett tweet really reinforced that, and I’m not really a fan of hers.

            5. And yet you’re gonna whine your little neoCon ass off telling us what is and isn’t “Libertarian”. Fuck you and your orange-tinted glasses.

          2. The LP candidate doesnt have principles. He has absurd idealism. He would rather have the status quo than slowly work towards liberty.

            You’ll keep losing until you accept that first step is better than waiting for your entire wish list all at once.

            1. That strategy a libertarian infiltration of the Republican Party has failed miserably.

              All libertarians have to offer is principle. Abandon those and you might as well just forget about it.

              Conservatives who want to smoke pot. That will be all that is left.

              1. You know what has failed miserably? 2% of the national vote on a good election. Then you have asshats like Amash who spend a decade in congress and only name 2 post offices for the effort.

                Sometimes small victories are more than large failed victories.

                The libertarianism you imagine is as absurd facially as idealist communism. It requires an unrealistic version of humanity. Everyone has to act in the same manner with the same goals.

                Saying all you have is principles is no more than saying your way or the highway. You’re basically an authoritarian who only accepts people who agree with you in total. That is the irony.

                1. Amash did exactly what you are promoting. Join the republicans and try to change things. It failed and you still want to do the same thing. You criticize him for doing exactly what you want libertarians to do. Go ahead. Your choice not mine.

                  1. Show me one bill Amash compromised on. I’ll wait.

                    1. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2013/03/amash_spokesman_explains_gay_m.html

                      He was against gay marriage while running and then suddenly discovered “libertarian principles” once elected. Basically he pulled an Obama.

                    2. I suppose that’s more Amash being a shitlord than making comprises though.

                2. Nope I am the last person to tell people what to do. I am simply advocating for where I stand. Those are my choices.

                  1. The naivete your philosophy requires is absurd. Because not everyone joins with a NAP. Therefore you will have actors that violate it. Of you are against violations then a government will be formed. The trick is to err on the side of liberty without being a purist whose ideals cant happen in real life unless 100% of the people agree with them. That is the same flaw as idealistic communism.

                3. All actions being legal except initiating force, threats of force and fraud? Who doesn’t want that? People who hate liberty?

                  1. Sometimes you and to kick some ass to keep that liberty.

                4. And sometimes small victories are used as a way to trick people into thinking they are winning when they are really losing the long game. I fear that is the case for most libertarian and conservative victories.

                  1. This is an absurd analysis. You’ll give up small victories because you feel you’ve already lost the war. Good luck with that war.

                    1. Okay, I’ll take the smaller victories.

                      I’ll take the lesser of evils rather than the greater of evils.

                      But when accepting those victories and the lesser of evils, shouldn’t we still criticize everything non-libertarian about the lesser evil rather than just praise him for not being as much of a statist as his opponent?

                      Shouldn’t we criticize everything Trump does that isn’t libertarian while still preferring him over Sanders?

                      Isn’t that the practical way to keep getting closer to liberty?

            2. Look I don’t mind being an outsider and losing every game. There is something to be said for getting out on that field anyway.

              Some people would rather just join the bigger opposing team. Not my idea of winning but not my choice to make.

              1. You enjoy being an outsider so you dont have to actually do any of the hard work to try and win victories towards liberty.

                You see to have given up. Fine. Give up.

                1. It is probably just my inner nerd tendencies coming through.

                  It could be a new party. The nerditarians. Could you imagine the convention? Maybe Bill Gates will donate some money.

        2. It’s not. We need votes to gain ballot access. Honestly I’ve never voted in my life. 😉

          1. I do. If nothing else local ballot issues are a good reason to vote.

            For years I did what others here do for presidential and congress. I just voted for the least bad R or D, mostly for R.

            Eventually just did not feel right about it. I thought why am I doing this? I can vote for a libertarian if there is one. I can not vote at all. Why should I give legitimacy to someone or something I don’t believe in?

            Maybe as I am getting older I am getting crankier.

            Always considered myself libertarian. Only recently actually joined the party. Figured one more name on the list is something anyway.

            1. The stuff you say on here is not Libertarian at all.

              You know that and we know it.

              1. I don’t understand. How is he not libertarian?

                And aren’t you an admitted conservative rather than a libertarian?

                Don’t you admittedly want laws that promote your Christian valus rather than allow people to interact with total liberty so long as they don’t violate that rights of others?

                1. Don’t you admittedly want laws that promote your Christian valus rather than allow people to interact with total liberty so long as they don’t violate that rights of others?

                  We currently don’t live in a libertarian society, so when debating actual laws, those are not going to be libertarian laws.

                  Of course, many self-proclaimed “libertarians” behave as if any reductino in the total number of laws brings us closer to libertarianism; they consider tax breaks for special interests or dropping border controls to be “libertarian” for that reason. Of course, they are fools.

                  We’re not going to become a more libertarian society by electing politicians who promise to eliminate whatever laws voters find inconvenient at the time.

                  1. What is a libertarian society?

                    Libertarians isn’t about how people live their lives, it’s nothing more than a government philosophy.

                    Libertarianism is only about laws. And yes, I want less laws that restrict liberty. That is my goal. How is that not libertarian?

        3. The only wasted vote is one that’s not principled.

          1. The only wasted vote is the one that’s not cast.

            1. In some places where elections are rigged often people don’t vote out of protest. If you cast a vote it implies legitimacy. I could see where someone who has that opinion about our system would do that.

        4. Voting for the lesser of two evils and then wondering why we only get evil-is throwing your vote away.

          Voting for the same two parties over and over again, expecting different results- is insanely throwing your vote away.

          Joining the 2000 people in my county that vote for “other”, establishes a baseline of people that though we might not “win” an election, could fill a auditorium of people that could actually have a decent debate and talk to one another like human beings. That in and of itself is better for my community than any “win” this day and age could produce.

      2. Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololo10l0110110110l111l1l1l1l1l1l1l1l1l1lll111111!!!!

        “The Libertarian Party Candidate”

      3. Weld? Or the guy with the boot on his head?

      4. Gary Johnson is to the left of Sanders economically (national VAT; federal carbon tax) and to the right of Trump on military intervention (“If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?”), so no, not really. Definitely just mindlessly support the party without comprehending anything about the issues or its candidate though. You’re a real rebel sticking it to the man like that.

    2. On the one hand, socialism. On the other hand, OMG UGH I CAN’T EVEN

    3. Stop paying attention to trumps actions. We only care about his words here.

      1. We only care about the fact that he’s team red.

        1. Maybe you do.

        2. Are you the new Jeff sock or the. We Code Blue intern?

          1. I’ve been posting here since you were in diapers.

        3. It’s the hair really. I can’t stand the hair.

    4. What is “libertarian” about Trump’s agenda and “governance” style, exactly?

      He’s picking winners and losers in our economy through his trade and tariff policy. He favors government intervention in the market favoring monopolies, and using the government to punish perceived critics. He’s shoveling billions upon billions of dollars into the agricultural industry to sustain them, while he’s desperately seeking “promises” from other countries to buy agricultural products they don’t need. Across the board, his policies and judges have been rolling back reproductive freedom and LGBT rights, in service of a “religious freedom” that looks a lot more like religious supremacy. Meanwhile his DOJ and judicial appointments all are laying out a roadmap for empowering the executive with a breathtakingly broad set of unchecked powers. And then, of course, there’s the budget deficits, soaring in a time of economic growth.

      Clumsy regulatory reform and gun rights. That’s about all I can think of, in terms of a truly “libertarian” plan from Trump. Good if you’re a gun manufacturer, I guess. The rest of us can fend for ourselves, I guess. Hope we don’t get cancer when his air and water pollution “reforms” have their full impact.

      Bernie by no means favors a small state, and I’ve seen no indication that he’d wield executive power in a less top-down way than Trump has done. But to treat the choice as clear is a bit silly. Neither of them are particularly libertarian. The choice ends up being whether you want to live in a kleptocracy or something resembling the mid-century “socialism” the boomers enjoyed.

      1. I don’t disagree with you about either candidate.

        But the question isn’t necessarily so much what they say or even personally believe, it’s the results.

        Thankfully neither one of them would get to inact his top down preferred policies. So which one will be less of a threat to liberty?

        I think perhaps Bernie’s potential influence on the Supreme Court is the greater risk. Do you disagree?

  3. Wow. Just, wow. Democrats: way to go.

    1. It’s his turn. They really have no choice.

      1. This just shows how unelectable hillary actually is

        1. Might be the first thing you’ve said that I agree with :-O

          1. Great. Now I know I’m wrong. Trump must have cheated.

        2. The Superdelegates will have to draft her when Bernie does not win the first ballot. In the name of party unity.

      2. DNC: “We tried running a racist crony capitalist (that worked), then a war mongering psychopath (that failed)–what’s left? Right! Let’s put up a senile millionaire running as a communist! America’s youth will love him!”

  4. “There are some hurdles Sanders will have to overcome first—namely the way the large primary field interacts with the complexities of the party’s nominating rules. A total of 3,979 “pledged” delegates are up for grabs in state primaries and caucuses; to win the nomination outright, a candidate must win a majority, or 1,991, of those delegates.”

    In the last presidential election, Hillary (and her supporters) appeared to believe that getting the most votes was enough to win, even though that amount was less than 50% of the votes cast. But this is different?

  5. Now that Warren is fading, Bernie is Trump’s best chance for re-election. I wonder what Trump’s nickname for him is going to be?


    1. Communist Mr. Burns

    2. Groucho Marxist

    3. Crazy Uncle Bernie.

      1. If God forbid, he gets elected, it will inevitably be ‘dear leader’.

      2. That was good.

      3. “Bernardovich Sandersofsky”

    4. Who coined the nickname “Grandpa Gulag”?

      I thought it was an exaggeration before they caught his campaign operatives on tape…fantasizing about gulags.

        1. Yeah, I gotta go with ‘bread lines Bernie’

          1. Finally I can make my low carb diet work!

    5. Sernie Banders

    6. Bernie “The Heart Attack” Sanders?

      1. Bucking Fernie?

    7. He’s already got one: Crazy Bernie.

      1. Trump should trade that one in for “Comrade Bernie” – just as catchy, and it really drives home the major point. Someone above suggested “Breadline Bernie”, which Trump could trot out from time to time, just to mix it up a little, plus it has the advantage of alliteration.

        The anti-Sanders zingers almost write themselves, and I can already hear them in Trump’s speaking tempo and voice: “Anybody remember the Atkins diet? That’s the one where you don’t eat any bread, so I guess you wouldn’t mind Comrade Bernie so much – you wouldn’t need to wait in the breadlines! Breadline Bernie, I sometimes call him. He really said that breadlines were a good thing. No, he really said that…Breadline Bernie…Comrade Bernie. He really said that breadlines show that there’s enough bread to go around because the rich aren’t getting all the bread. That’s what he thinks…Breadline Bernie. Can you believe that folks? I can’t make this stuff up…he literally thinks people are going hungry because Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are eating a hundred loaves a day just because they can. That’s Breadline Bernie for you, folks…Comrade Bernie…Crazy Bernie, I sometimes call him…”

        It won’t really matter during the general campaign how much of that kind of riff is accurate or true – it will stick.

        Moreover, the broader Democratic Party is far more moderate than the activist wing we’re seeing so much of now. Plenty of them will ignore their apprehensions and vote for Bernie, even if only due to TDS. However, it’s also likely that many of them will just stay home, and the inevitable Trumpian screeds like my example may be just as effective at demotivating the weaker Democrat moderates as they will be at super-charging Trump’s base.

  6. “It’s possible, of course, that nominating Sanders could backfire on both the candidate and the party, and that Sanders could end up losing by a large margin in November.”

    Sanders isn’t my first choice as long as Warren is still there, but I disagree.

    Consider Orange Hitler’s atrocious record:
    Completely destroyed the economy.
    Built concentration camps.
    Put kids in cages.
    Called neo-Nazis “very fine people.”
    Killed that ISIS guy without informing Pelosi beforehand.
    Killed that Iranian guy and literally started World War 3.
    Got impeached over #TrumpUkraine, the biggest scandal in world history.

    No way Drumpf gets reelected with that record.


    1. This made me laugh.

    2. Killed that ISIS guy without informing Pelosi beforehand.
      Killed that Iranian guy and literally started World War 3…

      Ok, now that was pretty funny. 🙂

    3. Actually the killing of the Iranian dude was WWIV, WWIII was with North Korea.

    4. Do you ever get tired of performing this character? You’ve been doing it for literally years now.

      1. Occasionally he hits a grand slam, as this post demonstrates.

        The purpose of the Koch fortune rant I don’t understand.

        1. The Koch fortune subsidizes Reason. It’s what keeps Gillespie in leather, and what paid for the Porsche Suderman’s coke dealer drives.

          1. Lol at Suderman’s coke dealer.

    5. My leftist aunt completely agrees with that parody post.

      1. Forget Blacks and Latinos, wine moms and vodka aunts are the DNC’s true core constituency.

    6. We need open borders more than ever in the age of COVID-19, so that everyone can be exposed, like a nationwide “immunity party”.
      SARS-CoV-2: The People’s Virus

  7. It’s like a remake of Frankenstein.

    1. With Trump as Dr. Frankenstein and Bernie as the Monster? Or is it the other way around?

  8. Sanders hasn’t locked up the race yet, but he’s now in a position to do so.

    Are you fucking kidding me, Mr. Suderman? Less than 5% of the delegates have been allocated. Talk to me after Super Tuesday. You work for a publication called Reason, could you please exercise some?

    1. Bernie has been the unstoppable frontrunner for the 2018 Dem nomination ever since the 2016 Democrat Convention.

      1. My objection to Suderman’s article is the ‘scare mongering’. You need ~2K delegates to win the nomination. Less than 100 have been awarded. There are two dates I am watching: 3/3, 3/17. After these two Tuesdays, we will have a much better picture.

    2. If you want to be a part of the communist regime you have to suck up early to prove your loyalty to save your ass from the gulags

      1. That never works. The early suck-ups get the firing squad first.

        1. Can’t happen soon enough. I really hope I live long enough to watch the Reason crew get fucked up the ass with a broomstick and dragged into the street and shot like Gaddafi

    3. People like a winner. The first few contests are absolutely overloaded in significance, and people have a tendency to just go with the flow.

      1. That’s true. If it weren’t, then the later primaries would be the more influential. At one time they were so, when many more of the delegates selected in early states were uncommitted. Now at least one, maybe both, parties have rules against uncommitted delegates even running in primaries. Used to be the smart party insiders in the early states would vote for uncommitted delegates whose judgment they trusted or agreed with.

        However, if it ever does happen that we get to the late state primaries with the nomination still up for grabs, then the voters in the late states are in better position than those in the early primaries, where many delegates will have been selected committed to candidates who by then will have dropped out or fallen out of contention.

    4. They wont even address the de regulations trump is actually implementing here.

  9. You can tell the other candidates want to attack him so bad, except he’s such a better socialist than they are.

    1. Yeah I’ve been saying for months that this is just a race to see who can be the biggest Santa, and Bernie has been prepping for that his entire life!

      1. OMG the Free-Shit show at his Nevada victory speech in TX …

    2. He is an open socialist which is to his credit I think. At least he is not pretending to be something else.

      He is officially not even a member of the Democratic Party.

      One thing about him is that even as his views seem less radical than when he started he has been successful in government throughout his career which tells you he can work within the system. That may be the scary part actually but he won’t win anyway.

      The one thing I don’t get is people who criticize him because he has some money. His net worth is 3 mil a lot from his book. First of all that is not all that much for someone his age and his wife was a university professor or something which is a good gig. A lot of financial advisors say you need that much to retire comfortably these days.

      He has three houses. So what? He has his primary house in Vermont which is no doubt paid off long ago. He needed another in DC where he works. And eventually he and his wife were able to buy a vacation home. Hardly anything unusual about that. If you really wanted to acquire wealth putting your money into houses is not the way to go anyway.

      Second in his brand of socialism you are allowed to make as much money as you want. You will just get taxed more. It is not a vow of poverty.

      That said I disagree with him on everything. He still might be the best thing the dems have going for them in an election they are certain to lose.

      1. Don’t forget he is for food lines too. Food for everyone lines keep the rich people vfrom getting all the food, and making poor people starve to death, so that’s important.

        And deodorant too, you know how much money is wasted having a hundred kinds of deodorant at Target, 2 or 3 kinds will be enough. Bernie will fix that too.

        1. As Venezuela shows, socialist countries are good at not letting money go to waste. Even if it’s worthless, you can still use it as toilet paper!

        2. Whoever invented that Axe brand should be imprisoned though. Perfume for men.

      2. So you’re okay with his wife diverting 500k to their daughters wood working school while Burlington was collapsing? Since he isn’t that rich?

      3. How much of his book revenue is from genuine interest, and how much as a way of laundering influence money? Is his book self published, or is it royalty income?

        1. He got a $700,000 ADVANCE for his book. What do you think?

        2. I checked on that. It is published by one of the big companies. His return alone has been over a million. I don’t know how much the publisher gets but looks like they made a good bet with the advance. With him running again even if he doesn’t get the nomination there should be plenty of profits all around.

      4. He is an open socialist…At least he is not pretending to be something else.

        I don’t think his supporters have gotten the memo on that. They’re all over social media splitting hairs about the difference between “socialist” and “democratic socialist”.

        1. His campaign staff seems pretty clear on the distinction. They literally called for gulags.

      5. He is an open socialist which is to his credit I think

        WTF? His CREDIT?


  10. We’ll be out of bread by the time he delivers the State of Union.

    1. Worse, once Bernie wins the nomination, I’m going have to hear the dribble from his proxy comrade AOC every other day. God help us.

      1. You won’t have to hear anything after his election.
        Without electricity, you will not have internet access, or TV, or radio, or old school newspapers.
        You will be too busy working at your assigned job of turning windmills by hand when the wind slows to do anything but eat the 700 calories allocated to you.

        1. That’s true for city dwellers.

          In the country and red states, people have generators, shotguns, plenty of food, and shortwave radio/packet radio.

    2. The DOW will drop at least 5,000 points within a week,

      1. Right. And what policies will he put in place to rectify that? It’s scary to think about.

      2. DOW? What DOW?
        When the state own all industry and services, who needs a DOW?
        (sorry about your 401k)

    3. Let us eat cake!

  11. I don’t know how Republicans top this.

    First, the Democrats nominate Hillary: the biggest bitch around.

    And then Republicans day, “Oh, yeah, well suck on this crony capitalist: Trump!”

    And now Democrats respond with “I’ll see you one Trump, and raise you a COMMUNIST PSYCHO!”

    I’m not really sure what the logical conclusion of this is, but I’m scared.

    1. They’ll have Michael Buffer do his ring call at debate one: “Socialism v. Capitalism…let’s get ready to rummmmble.”

      1. Good, I do favor disposing of our marxists.

        1. Good start.

    2. I originally thought Trump would be a “crony capitalist”. I was wrong and am man enough to admit it. Its impossible to associate “Regulation/Tax cuts” with “crony” (def. awarding favors) unless of course your like LTT and thinks “Not Stealing” = “Giving”.

    3. “I’m not really sure what the logical conclusion of this is, but I’m scared.”
      Seek treatment for your TDS. And fuck off.

    4. Republicans didn’t nominate Trump, primary voters did.

      The Republican party merely had the good sense not to interfere.

      1. For all their numerous faults, I agree. They let the candidates rise or fall all on their own, and wisely let it just play out.

  12. Buy popcorn stocks!

  13. What is the procedure if a candidate wins the electoral college vote in December but dies before being sworn in?

    1. According to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment:

      “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

      1. Thanks, I am making dinner and didn’t have time to look it up. I thought that was the case but wasn’t 100% sure.

  14. I know the Reason Foundation can’t endorse candidates, but are there any staff willing to acknowledge that there are Democratic candidates objectively worse than Trump?

    1. Nope.
      They’ll never get that sweet gig at WaPo if they wander off the reservation.

    2. I don’t think they are in the habit of declaring one candidate objectively better or worse than another. Which I think is good. Give us some analysis of candidates and let people make up their own minds. There is certainly nothing I read here that gives any reason to think that Bernie is not a worse choice than Trump.

      1. There is certainly nothing I read here that gives any reason to think that Bernie is not a worse choice than Trump.

        You see what you want to see because you’re a line toeing cunt. I linked to 2 articles from 2016 and 2019 above endorsing Bernie Sanders as a libertarian.

      2. My impressionistic impression is that Reason writers go out of their way to make clear that Trump sets the standards for badness. When they *really* want to criticize someone they say that so-and-so is like Trump.

      3. Zeb
        February.23.2020 at 11:04 am
        “…There is certainly nothing I read here that gives any reason to think that Bernie is not a worse choice than Trump.”

        That’s because you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.

  15. Might be good for the dems in the long run.

    Look they are going to lose this election anyway. What matters is congress and the next one.

    They don’t need a sensible candidate. They need someone who can start some fires and begin to build a base especially with younger voters. He seems to be the only one who can do that.

    1. I’m confused. You want socialism to gain a stronger foothold among the younger portion of the electorate?

      1. Echospinner sure as shit doesnt want libertarians to gain any political power.

      2. No I am just thinking objectively about what I would want if I were a democrat.

        Has nothing to do with what I want to see happen.

        1. Obviously you want them to lose so bad up and down the ballot, that mothers will be scaring their children with stories of the 2020 election generations from now, or at least there will be something in Netflix about it, because mothers don’t take the time to personally scare their children anymore.

        2. What do you want to see happen, Echo?

          1. A libertarian government. Which will not happen.

            1. I would like to see the same thing happen. I agree, it won’t. Still though, we can make our voices heard in the public square, and we can argue passionately and persuasively for our political beliefs.

        3. People have a really hard time with the “is/ought” thing.

      3. Younger voters today have no idea what socialism is. So from the point of view for a democrat you want someone who will attract that base. Has nothing to do with my views which are the polar opposite of socialism.

        If you see the democrats and socialists as the opponents you still need to do dispassionate analysis of their playbook. People get way too emotional around here.

        1. So … you’ll vote for a candidate from a party that has no objective chance of winning (LP) and readily sit around “objectively” calculating that a socialist takeover would be great for Democrats.

          I hate to call people out for gaslighting, but it seems like you’re really just a leftist/Democrat pretending to be a libertarian.

          1. I do really know why I post or bother here. One thing I do know is that it is only for my own reasons not for anyone else. I do not need approval nor affirmation.

            Never let anyone else label you. That is a basic principle in life. Each and every one of us is an autonomous individual.

            1. Okay. Still seems like you’re lying through your teeth. I don’t carr about your motivations.

            2. You’ve ready labeled yourself is an idealist who solely believes on your own principles and not open to actual objective discussion unless it is talking about helping Democrats.

              1. “…and not open to actual objective discussion …”

                THIS from the LIAR who says “words can’t be crimes” and “The USA Constitution is out-ranked and out-flanked by Trump!” And will NOT take back bullshit like this, when called on it!

                Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
                “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                I say again, this is important…
                “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                1. You have shit in your teeth Hihn.

                2. Crazy as ever.

                  1. Narcissistic and empty-headed as usual. Can your vacuous and un-original insults be ANY more infantile? WHEN are going to graduate to the level of the kindergarten playground?

                    Goo-goo, gah-gah? R Mac need warm bah-bah now?

                    1. Just a simple observation.

                    2. Just a simple observation… From a narcissistic simpleton!

                    3. “Narcissistic and empty-headed as usual”

                      Yes you are.
                      Your every post and insistence on shitting up threads is plenty of proof

              2. What do you mean Jessie. I will talk with you or anyone here as long as it is civil.

              3. I am an idealist who believes in my own principles. Don’t you believe in yours?

            3. “Echospinner
              February.23.2020 at 2:40 am
              I do really know why I post or bother here”

              You can always stop. I don’t see a lot of resistance to that.

              1. Nor do I expect any.

              2. I for one am 1,873,498 times happier to see and read Echospinner posts tham I am to see (and barf at) narcissistic-troll posts by thread-shitter in chief, Tulpoopy-Mary-Mary’s-Period-“.”-Satan!

                1. Nobody cares.

                  1. Obvious YOUR baby feelings are hurt enough for YOU to post about it! And WHAT do you post, about it? The “fact” that you can read the minds of ALL of the other readers, and decide for ALL of them!

                    Go out on the street and scream to all passers-by about it, if you think it will help!

                    R Mac, I am REALLY sorry of my present here offends you, and even hurts your Baby Feelings! I am TRYING to help!

                    Here, see below…

                    I really, REALLY feel for ya, bro or bro-ess!

                    To make up for my CLEARLY egregious offenses against you, I am willing to sing you a long-dong-song; a sing-along song:

                    Cootchy-cootchy-cooo, Buckaroo!
                    Don’t be sad and blue, Buckaroo!
                    Sweet Little Thang, say “Goo-goo-gah-hah”;
                    CAN ye, PLEASE, for Mama-Dadda-Ba-Ba?
                    Put on a Happy-Baby smile, for a LITTLE while!
                    Fend OFF my tears-of-the-Great-Crocodile!

                    (If’n it ain’t enough, if ye will give me yer address… Did yer Mamma teach you that item yet? … Then I will PERSONALLY drive over to Your Happy House, and deliver a consolation warmed-up ba-ba to ya!)

                    Now, I have NO “deep pockets” and I hate to bring this up, for fear of too-deeply “tapping” the pockets of Reason.com…

                    But… IF by any chance, my generous offer is NOT enough to assuage your DEEPLY offended feelings… And maybe you are seriously contemplating some SERIOUSLY destructive vengeance, such as Holding Your Breath till such time as the Very World Itself implodes… Then I Truly Beseech Ye, don’t DO that! Not quite yet! First, send an email to Reasdon.com… I have written a draft for YE:

                    To: SQRLSY_One_Has_Hurt_My_Deepest_Feelings@Reason.com

                    Reason! SQRLSY One has HURT MEEE, Deeply! SQRLSY One has offered to sing ME some stupid, hurtful sing-along, ding-a-dong song, and to bring ME a warmed-up ba-ba, but it is NOT enough to make even the TINIEST dent in MY DEEPLY Hurt Feelings!

                    Accordingly (with the writing-assistance of MY attorney), please be advised that the hurtful statements of SQRLSY One has caused ME to require, for MY “medically required” recovery:

                    ’20 hours of self-esteem therapy

                    ’32 hours of crystal-healing therapy

                    ’34 hours of aromatherapy

                    ’15 hours of therapy-therapy

                    ’17 hours of Government-Almighty-Loves-MEEE-therapy

                    ‘As-yet-to-be-determined XYZ hours of Repairing MY Hurt Baby Feelings Therapy!

                    That comes up to around-about $137,538.27! So PAY UP, or else!

                    Yours Truly,
                    A Truly and Deeply Hurt, Long-Suffering VICTIM!!!

                    1. My feelings aren’t hurt. I’m enjoying a good beer, having a wonderful day.

                    2. “My feelings aren’t hurt.”

                      Damned glad to hear it, for once! And for once, you were able to make a post WITHOUT attempting to self-elevate yourself, above others, by insulting them! I had already suspected that you were in the lead, taking the race away from Tulpa, and now you are confirming my POSITIVE suspicions!!! Way to go, Weed-Hopper! Keep up the good work! Really!

                      (I suspect that Tulpa is a hopeless case, but we can always hold a good thought).

                    3. It’s creepy how obsessed you are with Tulpa.

                    4. Is it also creepy about how I am obsessed about the idea that Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Che, Chavez, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and-or Saddam, etc., should NOT take over the world? Or should we all just roll over and play dead? Play dead, like a good little R Mac? Woof-woof? Doogie need a bone? GOOD Doggie!!! OBEY the self-styled Masters!

                    5. This is more nonsensical than usual.

                    6. ALL of us readers were awaiting YOUR Royal Highness’s Elevated and Educated Opinion on These Weighty Matters, as usual!!! With baited breath, to be sure!

                      THANK YOU, EVER so deeply, for relieving our stressful suspense, Your Highness!

              3. I actually meant to say I do not really know but not a big point in any case.

                1. I think it was pretty clear what you meant, and also that it was no more than an aside.

                  I appreciate your posts. I will take you at your word about what you believe, and I do think it’s interesting to talk about the political strategy of those you oppose.

                  I’m also a libertarian.

                  Do I prefer Trump to Bernie for practical reasons? Sure, but I don’t see why anyone who leans libertarian is worried about criticizing him. I’d probably criticize any politician for some things.

        2. “dispassionate analysis of their playbook” — Power = Wealth. The same playbook Hitler used who’s party was nicknamed “Nazism” which is a synonym for “National Socialism”.

          1. The so called Chicago school of political realism described all politics both domestic and international as the pursuit of power. Power is the currency of politics. It is the only theory of political science that ever made any sense to me.

            It is one reason why a libertarian philosophy which seeks to limit the power given to government in order to maximize individual liberty appeals to me. Most of what politicians have us focus on is a distraction. What they all really want is control.

            1. But… But… But Echospinner, do ye NOT know that Government Almighty LOVES us all?!? More Deeply Than We Can Ever Know?!?

              Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

              Government loves me, This I know,
              For the Government tells me so,
              Little ones to GAWD belong,
              We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
              Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
              Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
              And gives me all that I might need!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              DEA, CIA, KGB,
              Our protectors, they will be,
              FBI, TSA, and FDA,
              With us, astride us, in every way!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
              My Nannies tell me so!

              1. You’ve posted this drivel a bunch of times already.

                1. Do you need advanced lessons on how to skip over, and ignore, that which you have already seen? Do you have any old, already-read books in your house? Or do you need to stop and cuss and swear at them for a few moments, every time you pass them by? If you DO cuss and swear at them every time, does it make you feel any better, and for HOW LONG does it make you feel better? These are IMPORTANT QUESTIONS HERE, for YOU, not for ME!

            2. If this definition of politics is indeed true, then is libertarianism as a political entity doomed to fail, as it seeks the abolition of concentrated power?

              1. I’m a bit shaky on the libertarianism platform – but I don’t believe it’s platform is just a blatant abolition of concentrated power (Gov Gone).

                HOW that power is used if of the most concern to me.
                Power = Wealth
                — The left wants to FORCE the distribution of peoples labor ( i.e. Slavery)
                Power = Justice
                — The right wants to FORCE basic “FAIRNESS” of peoples dealings

  16. 40% of Americans are registered Democrat. Bernie supporters are around 30% of them, or about 13% of all voters. Some voters will support anyone with ‘Democrat’ next to their name, so maybe he gets 30% of all the votes cast.
    What looks like great fun is trying to pin down Democrats running for office as to whether they support their party’s candidate for President. If not, then why not? Some serious tap dancing going to be going on.

    1. There’s only one answer for those Democrats: Leave or don’t support him.

      He’s a fricken SOCIALIST.

      1. There have been several claims here over the last few days that he’s not really a socialist, and besides, socialism has never really been explained to the American public. M4e tried with that pile of shit, as did trueman; the wording was close enough to suggest a copy/paste from some lefty site.
        And then we got a Canuk in the ‘Bernie’s an Idiot’ thread telling us it ain’t “socialism” and the US is behind the times since we don’t offer “free shit” paid for with money collected at the point of a gun.
        This should have been obvious for a long time, and I never saw it, but SDS is every bit as prevalent as TDS, and more dangerous.
        Stamp it out wherever you find it.

        1. “There have been several claims here over the last few days that he’s not really a socialist, and besides, socialism has never really been explained to the American public.”

          Whoever making those claims is an idiot.

          1) The 50s were a public seminar on leftist ideology, epitomized by a magnetism of intellectuals to Stalin(Ian) and by the McCarthy(ism) dynamics;
          2) the 60s gave us hard-core to fellow-traveler socialism with Harrington, Chomsky, the Black Panthers and PLP/SDS;
          3) virtually the whole of academia since then has been a rat’s nest of socialism, reaching a crescendo as we speak.

    2. Nope. From various sources, registered Democrats make 27-30%, about the same as Republicans and less than Independents

      35-40% was back in 2018.

      30% of all registered voters will be plenty if half of them don’t show up.

  17. For the superdelegates to step in and give someone else the nomination would be controversial at minimum, and could well spark something resembling a party-breaking revolt

    , especially given that the bars will be open until 4am. Of course, with the rioting one supposes they’ll be “open” after that.

    1. Invest in plate glass repair companies serving the Milwaukee area.

      1. And short all insurance companies that service the Milwaukee area.

  18. “Still, it’s hard to imagine that if Sanders won the most votes and the most pledged delegates in the primary/caucus process, the party’s superdelegates would vote to give the nomination to another candidate.”

    Eh, rather easy I think.

  19. The DNC isn’t going to allow the Russians to hand the nomination to Bernie. They’re going to give it to Bloomberg instead.

    1. Good. Then they can tear themselves apart. Hopefully this destroys them. now and for all time.

    2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51582025
      US election 2020: Sanders ‘told of Russian effort to aid his campaign’

      Russia wants Comrade Bernie to run on the left, because Russia knows that middle America will NOT vote (in large enough numbers) for a Commie-Socialist… Russia LOVES Trump, and wants to see another 4 years of Trump! Russia wants a weak USA, and Trump will help give them that! (For just ONE instance, Trump will weaken America some more to divert military funds to walls, and wall don’t help against ships, submarines, missiles, and bombs). Also, they know that Trump adores autocrats like Putin!

      1. You still have shit in your teeth Hihn.

        1. https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychology-self/2020/02/narcissist-inferior/
          7 Ways Narcissists Make You Feel Inferior

          You’re trying VERY hard (for a 7-neuron “brainiac”, at least) at these games, I see… But it’s not working! Not on me, it ain’t! Here’s how to “up your game”!

      2. Why is it so hard to accept that Russia and Bernie love each other? Trump didn’t deliver (didn’t remove the sanctions against Russia) and isn’t going to. Bernie voted against the sanctions, he deserves a try. Trump is still a good second choice, Biden would be too hawkish. Putin does what’s good for Putin and it’s all about the sanctions, the wall, socialism and narcissism are irrelevant.

  20. It’s bananas a socialist can come this far in a major party.

    1. TDS is some serious shit.

      1. “TDS is some serious shit.”

        See above. It has just become apparent to me that Socialist Derangement Syndrome is every bit as prevalent and far more dangerous.
        There are those who truly believe that someone can head out to the Jackson orchard on the back 40 and return with free money.
        If that isn’t deranged, I don’t know what could be.

        1. TDS certainly plays a role, but I think you are right. People convincing themselves that socialism is an OK idea is much worse and more dangerous.

        2. “There are those who truly believe that someone can head out to the Jackson orchard on the back 40 and return with free money.”

          There are some youtube videos of right-wing journalists interviewing college students about how the various Sanders/Warren promises should be paid for. Most of the students didn’t meaningful have answers at all, which is bad enough, and of course there were a few of the expected “tax the 1%” responses. The most gob-smackingly ignorant response I recall was something along the lines of “We should pay for some of it with taxes but most of it should be paid for with government money.” *facepalm*

          1. Hey, you’re lucky you didn’t get: “Cut the defense budget; that’ll cover all of his stuff!”

        3. It has just become apparent to me that Socialist Derangement Syndrome is every bit as prevalent and far more dangerous.

          Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Che, Chavez, Lenin, and Hitler salute you!!

          Their hundreds of millions of victims, not so much.

          1. “Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, Che, Chavez, Lenin, and Hitler salute you!!”

            You forgot Stalin; a major omission. But yes, agreed! And Idi Amin and ancient bastards like Caligula etc. They had “diverse” beliefs, but one thing they had in common, was the fire down below… (Bob Seger, but I digress). What OTHER THING that they had in common, was the belief that they were (or should be) entitled to who should live, and who should die, just for disagreeing with them!

            This is something that they, in turn, have in common with ultra-right, ultra-crazy people on THIS COMMENT BOARD who call for others to commit suicide! We will see if the “reborn” Shitsy Shitler is any better than the old one, for this, but I, for one, am not holding my breath…

  21. The delegates have to be having talks behind closed doors. If Warren is offered veep by Sanders, it’s over and the Democrats will have the worst night since McGovern.
    If, oth, Bloomberg offers Klobuchar veep, I think he wins the nomination- and gets completely destroyed in the first debate w/ Trump (“can I get you a phonebook to stand on?”)
    Biden and Klubachar? Biden and Buttigieg? (Lots of old wypipo, except the guy who managed a small city and has no CV to suggest he is qualified for president)
    Any of these combinations would win the nomination on the first vote, and will still lose the general.
    IMHO, the best thing for the Democrat Party is a hard left Sanders or Warren nominee, and getting their asses kicked so hard that they reevaluate their hard swing left.

    1. Candidates are talking behind closed doors

    2. The Democrat Party is finito.

      It will be the Party of slavery and socialist slavery. All moderates still in thatParty will flee. More and more Black Americans will just start voting Republican.

      1. I’ve heard that before about Republicans and Democrats. Of course that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. And if it is finito, it will be replaced by another left-of-center party.

        1. A Lefty party will less people than the Democrat Party pre-2016.

          The socialists will break off.
          The commies will break off.
          The anarchists will break off.
          The union people will break.

          Unions only exist under capitalist countries. The commies ban all but the single authorized union.

    3. “can I get you a phonebook to stand on?”

      Yup, Trump’s almost seven inches taller. Bloomberg looks like the union chief of the Lollipop Guild.

      1. Bloomberg looks like the union chief of the Lollipop Guild.

        I’m stealin’ that!

      1. Lol

        No literally that’s the answer.

  22. Aw, gee, kids. Don’t get your panties in a twists.

    Bernie Sanders (soon to be President Sanders) is a Moderate New Deal Democrat — just like FDR.

  23. 1919-2019 Democrat: “We are NOT socialists!” 2020: Well yeah, I guess we are.” Body count to follow …

    1. 2020: “Haha!! We fooled you! But now that most of those who fled socialist and communist countries in the 50’s 60’s 70’s 80’s and 90’s are old, and the vicious plague that is collectivism is mostly forgotten, we can come out from our Klan garb….oh, wait, our Grey suits.”

  24. Characterizing coming in first place in a state contest as a “win” is pretty dumb. The Journolist came up with the characterization in 2008 when they successfully conspired to steal the nomination from Hillary.

    1. How so? Contests have winners by their nature. I’m pretty sure people referred to coming first in state party elections and caucuses “wins” before 2008.

  25. I’m not too worried about a Bernie presidency IF that happens-and I think it could, for the same reasons Trump won in 2016. I don’t think he would focus on petty nannyism the way Bloomberg, or even Biden would, and most of his big socialist schemes will likely be struck down by the courts, leaving us with a rather ineffective president, which is not a bad thing for libertarians. In the worst case scenario, if the dems win back the senate too and give him even some of what he wants, their assess will get handed to them in the midterms. Its better to have a buffoon like Bernie (or Trump), than a cold, calculating, cobra in the grass with lots of “executive competency”.

    1. Really? Look at the way Obama weaponized the federal government against his political enemies and any industry he didn’t like. With Bernie it will be far worse. And his supporters are violent kooks.

  26. Liz Warren’s accusation against Sanders in New Hampshire was so obnoxious, I suspect plenty of Democrats voted for Sanders just to spite her for it. Watching her accuse Bloomberg of similar crimes against social justice warrior sensibilities didn’t do her any better in Nevada either.

    The press may continue to give social justice grievances an airing, but if average Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada aren’t paying attention to that shit anymore, the shelf life of those social warrior tactics may be close to expiring.

    Accusing Sanders of saying that women can’t be president didn’t work.

    Accusing Bloomberg of calling women “horse-faced lesbians” didn’t work.

    It’s worse than boring. If you can’t win more than 10% of the Democratic vote in the Midwest, the Northeast, or the West with those kinds of tactics, then why bother with the tactics?

    If Bloomberg can get Warren to accuse him of being a homophobe in the next debate, maybe Bloomberg will win California or Texas.

    1. No idea what Bloomie is spending other than CA, but I wish the agency I once (profited from) had his account.
      Lots of media buys; lame content; ‘I’m going to save America!’.
      From raging prosperity, I guess. Like all political advertising. get the money up front.

      1. Yeah, I don’t think there’s enough advertising in the world to save him. If the economy slips towards a recession, all bets are off, but even then, whatever Trump has done that might tip us into a recession can only be things that Bernie Sanders would have done, too, only more so.

        What, is the self-described socialist about to go pro-trade with China?! I don’t think Sanders is any more pro-trade with China than President Trump. In fact, for anyone who wants to get rid of the tariffs President implemented, we’re more likely to get rid of them with Trump as president rather than Sanders. Sanders isn’t about to criticize him over that.

        Yeah, there isn’t a campaign strategy good enough to put Sanders over the top. And there isn’t enough money in the world to buy enough advertising to make Sanders appealing to a majority of average Americans in swing states.

        The 45% of the vote he won in Nevada represents 21,869 votes, mostly by people in the Culinary Workers Union. Over a million Nevadans voted in the presidential election. He’ll need more than 20 times that number to beat Trump in Nevada this time. I doubt his support runs that deep.

        1. Right but you’re an idiot and a liar.

          1. You’re making more comment about yourself than Ken. And it ain’t complimentary.

    2. SJW grievances will continue to be pandered to. Warren is just not the right horse faced lesbian to exploit it successfully.

      1. There are still people out there who listen to the local classic rock station specifically because they’re hoping to hear “Stairway to Heaven” or “Free Bird” one. more. time. Those are great songs. Nothing wrong with them, but at some point . . .

        I don’t know exactly where the law of declining returns kicks in. Maybe it’s the 500th time people hear “Stairway to Heaven”. Maybe it’s the 10,054th time they hear it. At some point, however, people will stop listening to your radio station because they just can’t stand that song anymore.

        That’s where we’re getting with the social justice warrior routine. Yeah, there will always be some classic rock station playing it somewhere, but the rest of the world has already heard it a hundred thousand times too many already. They’re running it into the ground.

        1. Right but you’re a liar and an idiot.

        2. You reminded me of that scene from Wayne’s World in the music store where he is checking out his dream guitar and there is this big sign on the wall NO STAIRWAY.

  27. AIR, before Barack Obama became president, there wasn’t a Democrat who won the White House without a southerner on the ticket–going back to the Great Depression and FDR–and being the first African-American nominee for president probably helped Obama in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. It was like being an honorary southerner.

    If Sanders wins the nomination, who can he put on the ticket to help him win votes in the South? The governors of Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia are all Democrats, but I have a hard time imagining any of those three being a strong enough draw to bring southern states to Bernie Sanders. Some of them would probably hurt him in states outside the South, too.

    I’m trying to imagine who among the current crop of candidates is likely to be appealing in the South, too. Liz Warren can’t deliver anybody that isn’t already voting for Sanders, and if she’s a turn off to Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, why would she make Sanders more popular in the South?

    My understanding is that Buttigieg is openly gay? I’d love to think people of all races in the South are so enlightened now that this wouldn’t negatively impact Sanders in the South, but I’m not sure people in the South, of all races, are as enlightened as I’d like them to be. Does anybody think Biden makes Sanders more appealing in the South? I don’t see Bloomberg or Hillary choosing to be Sanders’ Vice President.

    Are we back to the future with Beto O’Rourke at this point? Whatever else he is, he also drew a lot of votes for a Democrat in Texas.

    Maybe the point is that the Democrats are doomed. We used to talk about how shallow the Democrats’ bench was in 2016, and that’s becoming painfully clear now.

    1. Doesn’t matter we elect presidents for two terms now. Trump has a base support like an Abrams tank.

      But it is interesting to speculate and we should have a good election with two good opponents. I mean what is boxing if it is one guy in the ring flexing his muscles right?

      I don’t want to see one party rule here although I am neither. Actually I want 5-6 but that is another thing.

      It shouldn’t be an issue with Buttigieg yet it is. Gay married guy. He is interesting in other ways. He is highly educated, speaks 7 languages or something, served in the military and deployed to Afghanistan, religious church member, musician. The dude has some creds right?

      I don’t know much about his positions on the issues but sounds typical democrat to me.

      Sanders we been talking about. He is another interesting one. He has that crazed aging hippie vibe. He has a career as a politician that is almost unheard of in the US. An independent Socialist. What!
      Yet he has worked his way up from mayor to senator and has been very successful. He obviously has some game.

      Bloomberg everyone is talking about. He is the worst of the lot to me. I don’t even want to talk about about him.

      The rest of them left I have pretty much lost interest in. Well ever since Tulsi left.

      For me it is just observation.

      My personal scorecard for the dem team. Not at all going to support or vote for them nor Donald Trump.


      1. If Sanders wins the nomination, Trump may win in a landslide, something like Reagan did in 1984.

        My concern is that his emergence presages a larger shift in the electorate below him–like Goldwater presaged the Reagan revolution, Sanders may normalize socialism and make it acceptable. I think it’s still outside the edges of the Overton window, but Sanders is likely to make it closer to the edge than it was before.

        1. All these fucking 30 year olds who think they want socialism are about to start buying houses and having kids…. so there’s that.

          1. Boomer kids were all into peace and long hair, and that may have had something to do with their parents sporting crew cuts and being all about fighting World War II. Every generation wants to tweak the noses of their parents.

            When the kids of hippies in Southern California came of age, they shaved their heads or went real clean cut, because it was the rebellious thing to do–whether they were skinheads or punks, no one wanted to be a “long-hair”. Some of them would go around scribbling anarchy signs like they were the opposite of peace symbols.

            The biggest fans of black metal, the ones who would go around scribbling pentagrams everywhere, when I was a kid, were the kids of fundamentalist Christians. The rebellion behind Venom’s “Welcome to Hell”, Slayer’s “Raining Blood”, and Grim Reaper’s “See You in Hell” just doesn’t mean as much as it does to the kids of fundamentalist Christians.

            I think the Millennial+ penchant for socialism is like that for a bunch of them. They had a prolonged adolescence, and for a lot of them, I suspect their support for “socialism” is another way of saying, “Okay Boomer”. Meanwhile, they move to the lily white suburbs when they get married and have kids so their kids won’t go to school with the “wrong sort” or people–just like their white flight parents and grandparents did. I don’t expect their support for socialism to survive in practice anymore than their support for diversity. Unfortunately, if they managed to elect someone like Bernie, by the time they realize what it’s like in practice, it might already be too late.

            1. Right but you’re a lying idiot.

              1. I don’t understand your hard-on for Ken. He brings thoughtful reflections, often right, but occasionally off base. What do you do except bitch? Why are you here? Moreover, why are you anywhere?

        2. I think what it means is that socialists will assume a greater share of a dwindling “market”, i.e. Democrats. The lunch bucket Democrats have been dwindling for some time, replaced by log rolling (“intersectional”) minority interests and culture warriors. Now here comes someone to completely replace the lunch bucket faction: someone who says they had the right interest but were too timid, and should simply kick the bosses out and seize what they have.

          1. Bloomberg represents, “Help the bosses and they’ll help you.” But he’s some years too late for that.

            I think the Democrats are stuck in a self-accelerating spiral. The party is a beast that feeds mostly on itself, turning its rank and file into food. It manages to get some food from outside as well, for now, but it’s starving in the long run. It’s pulling away from the general body politic, but is geographically so concentrated as to give an impression of strength.

            1. Their problem is that anybody who wants to help pull them out of that spiral doesn’t have enough leverage to do so, and find themselves better off and more influential as an independent or Republican.

    2. Well, Delaware is mostly south of the Mason-Dixon line. Just sayin’ you could count Biden as the Southerner on the ticket.

      1. As a kid in Maryland, when rebel flags were as common as shotguns racks in the back windows of people’s trucks and “Free Bird” always beat out “Stairway to Heaven” on the local album rock station as the most requested song, there was still some controversy, especially among people who moved to work for the federal government in DC, as to whether Maryland was really a Southern state. When I was a kid, the chorus to the Redskins fight song ended:

        Hail the the Redskins
        Hail victory
        Braves on the warpath
        Fight for Old Dixie!

        The Redskins were the team of the South going as far south as the Carolinas.

        I don’t know anybody in Delaware who thought of Delaware as a southern state. Even back then, the people of Delaware saw themselves as a cultural suburb of Philadelphia. I don’t know that they’ve thought of themselves as southerners in my lifetime, and I’m sure people elsewhere in the South don’t think of them that way.

        1. Right except you’re an idiot and a liar.

        2. I haven’t spent a lot of time in Delaware, but drove through it once to take the ferry from Lewes to Cape May. That part seemed very rural/southern. Of course, the Philly suburbs are not, and the beaches are mostly retirees from DC and NY/NJ.

    3. The governors of Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia are all Democrats, but I have a hard time imagining any of those three being a strong enough draw to bring southern states to Bernie Sanders.

      Northam could campaign in blackface and probably fool lots of Dems into voting for a minority.

      1. These are the most appealing candidates the Democrats have to offer?!

        Too bad for the Democrats that Harris didn’t have the funds to continue. She might be a standout right about now.

        1. Fun fact: Northam was a Republican who voted for GW Bush twice until 2007 when the dems got him to run for a state senate seat. There were rumors that he considered switching back to the GOP a few years later. Should definitely make him a shoe-in for Bernie’s veep.

          1. Err-I meant Bloomberg’s veep. Ralphy could do blackface while Mike insults women.

    4. Stacey Abrams. Black. Female. Georgia. Ticks your boxes.

      Doubt the party wants her, as Bernie’s veep is likely the nation’s president, a year or two after the election. They can probably live with Sanders/Warren. Of the return of Kamala Harris. How funny would that be?

  28. OK, not a single D outside of a Bernie Bro assumes he can in any way shape or form win the POTUS contest.
    Bloomie is an asshole authoritarian who offers nothing which is preferable to Trump (outside of a really healthy ad campaign; wish I still got the percentage!)
    Steyer seems stuck at single digits in spite of (wish I…)
    I’m guessing that Bloomie stands a chance if his Russki gifs work, but other than that?
    No way around it; the D’s stuff the Bernie Bros up Bloomie’s ass, and that’s what the Ds get.

  29. I am looking for an application to be able to raise the website with visitors from Indonesia, please help .. Govo88

  30. I expect the DNC will force an establishment candidate as Comrade Sanders’ VP with the hope he will not live out his term. If it’s Hillary he will not survive his president elect term.

    1. If it’s Hillary he will not survive his president elect term first week.

  31. Berita Indonesia ill be checking back soon to find out what additional posts you include

  32. If quantitative easing 6 (or whichever QE we’re on now) and super low interest rates from the fed don’t keep the economy churning for the whole of 2020, god help us. If the country goes into a long overdue recession this year there is a very serious threat that the next US president will be a no holds barred, not remotely in the closet, no compromises outright communist. The kind that has idolized the USSR, Cuba and Venezuela, has cheered expropriation of private property, would like to nationalize most of the economy and make government spending well over half of the national GDP. Obama, FDR, Woodrow Wilson and the like definitely did major damage and have communist tendencies but they aren’t even in the same league as this guy.
    Trump may be an arrogant loudmouthed jackass, unprincipled, volatile and hardly free market, but with the threat of an actual full on commie in the white house, I don’t think I’m even going to consider voting for anyone but Trump. May god have mercy on my soul, but at this point I’m actually cheering for QE, stimulus and practically negative interest rates just to keep the party going until the election and I’ll almost certainly vote for a major party candidate for the first time in my life just as an anti-Bernie vote.

    1. If a recession is technically two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, then we’re running out of time for a recession to emerge–the election is seven months away.

      No doubt, people who are hurting economically don’t need two quarters of official statistics to vote against an incumbent, but if the swing states in question are Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, things are going pretty good for that bunch right now–especially for unskilled workers.


      If a recession is about to save Sanders, it better come PDQ.

      1. Ken, quit nitpicking about the definition of a recession. If the economy goes south this year in the form of major job losses, foreclosures and/or a major pullback of market indices that would greatly hurt Trump’s reelection chances. The state of the economy can change dramatically for the worse over the next 8 months and it is a near certainty that it will at some point in the next few years. You understand my point. The electorate is willing to try all kinds of awful counterproductive things in a bad economic downturn as electing Obama, massive bailouts and massive stimulus have proven, not to mention the reaction to the great depression back in the 30s. Now that the country is 12 years deeper into progressive indoctrination of the youth, don’t put it past them to elect an outright communist if things don’t stay rosy. And if that happens, especially if Democrats control more of congress and don’t obstruct Bernie’s agenda we are in for an unprecedented world of hurt.

        1. “No doubt, people who are hurting economically don’t need two quarters of official statistics to vote against an incumbent, but . . .

          —-Ken Shultz

          That isn’t nitpicking about the definition of a recession, quite the opposite.

          “The state of the economy can change dramatically for the worse over the next 8 months and it is a near certainty that it will at some point in the next few years.”

          Probably need more storm clouds than what we see now.

          The subprime crisis happened almost an entire year before Lehman and Bear Stearns cratered. In fact, the reason Lehman and Bear Stearns cratered was because they bought the loan portfolios of New Century out of bankruptcy court in the Spring of 2007 for pennies on the dollar (with serious leverage). They didn’t crater for it for almost a whole year.

          “As investor losses mounted in those markets in 2006 and 2007, the company actually increased its exposure, especially to the mortgage-backed assets that were central to the subprime mortgage crisis. In March 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York provided an emergency loan to try to avert a sudden collapse of the company.”


          The financial crisis didn’t start hitting the broader economy until September of 2008.

          If that happened on the same timeline today, New Century could crater today, and the recession still wouldn’t come in time to save Bernie Sanders.

          I’m looking for symptoms of a pending recession now. Apple reporting that their earnings will be down because of shutdowns of their production capacity due to the coronavirus–and that appears to have prompted a temporary inversion of the yield curve. How long that lasts, we don’t know. For all I know, the coronavirus will actually make things even better for unskilled manufacturing workers in rust belt swing states–over the next eight months.

          I don’t see anything else that would suggest a sudden downturn in the economy between now and eight months from now, but something could happen. The Democrats are running out of time for that, though. Even if something awful happens and suddenly, it may take six months or more for the negative impact to filter through the economy–just like it did with the subprime crisis. Time is not on the Democrats’ side, and the clock is ticking.

          tick tock . . .

          No, I can’t prove there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster of a recession in the cards apart from the coronavirus, but if that’s all you’re worried about, President Trump’s reelection chances look pretty solid given what we know today.

          1. I agree that if the economy stays strong Sanders will get his ass handed to him in an embarrassing way. Probably to the tune of only winning the super hard left states of California, New York and maybe 1 or 2 others while 45+ states go for Trump. I don’t see anything awful right now in terms of precursors for a downturn either. Housing has seemed to stop going up and in the most overpriced areas is starting to slightly decline, that’s about the worst indicator. I’m not saying it’s likely the economy goes to crap fast and Bernie wins. I’m just saying the economy is to a large extent built on a house of cards of super low interest rates which is pretty uncharted waters. If the economy does implode quickly this year and Bernie wins it will be a disaster of a scale that hasn’t been seen since the great depression. However unlikely, the consequences are so grim it is something to worry about.

  33. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link….Read MoRe

  34. Google pay 99 dollars consistently my last pay check was 9200 dollars working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 19k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern………… Read More

  35. I’ve been assured repeatedly that it is the GOP that is tacking to the extremes, not the Dems. So this must be a hallucination.

    1. If you’re a pro-Sanders Democrat who seriously wants to eliminate all fossil fuels from economy in ten years at a cost of $16 trillion, . . .
      If you’re a pro-Sanders Democrat who wants to eliminate private insurance completely, . . .

      if you’re a pro-Sanders Democrat who wants to forgive $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, . . .

      Then the people who don’t want those things probably do seem radical to you. You want to let the planet burn, refuse healthcare to the poor, and you want kids to suffer under crushing student debt–all because you’re quibbling about the impact on your standard of living and who will be footing the bill?

      You radical bastard!

      1. Right but you’re a lying imbecile.

        1. Get out from in front of that mirror!

  36. Bernie isn’t polarizing for normal people. He’s actually refreshing and straightforward.

    1. Unlike Bernie and the adult toddlers who are his fans,”normal” people have worked a real job and seen how much the government currently takes from their checks. And they are smart enough to know that is nothing compared to the tax level Bernie would prefer. Nice try, though.

    2. Lol ^^^ this guy is funnier than OBL. Love it.

    3. A leftist
      February.23.2020 at 7:46 am
      “Bernie isn’t polarizing for normal people….”

      You misspelled “idiotic”.

    4. Sanders is a mirage and a fraud. He’s decades of sucking off the public tit, doing zero except enriching himself.

      He’s repackaged his little species of socialism and dumbed it down to give it superficial appeal. Free this, free that. For dupes like you, he’s Santa Claus as statist coming to the rescue.

      So, of course, you miss or ignore socialism’s core ugly. Raw theft from those who build stuff, redistribute and condemn accomplishments of others, excoriate the primacy of the individual.

      Bernie and his apparatchik can kiss my ass.

    5. “Bernie isn’t polarizing for normal people. He’s actually refreshing and straightforward.”

      I’m not sure that’s borne out by the stats.

      In Iowa and New Hampshire, 70% of mostly registered Democrats voted against Bernie Sanders.

      In Nevada, it was a closed caucus–so only registered Democrats could vote–and while Sanders won 33% of the first round of voting, there were only 84,000 votes cast in the whole caucus. I don’t know how representative that is of average Nevadans, but Sanders will need more than 28,000 registered Democrats to win Nevada in the general election.

      There were a million voters who participated in the Nevada general election in 2016. Hillary beat Trump by about 25,000 votes, but she was more popular then than Bernie Sanders is now, and Trump was more unpopular then than he is now.

      1. Right but you’re an idiot and a liar.

        1. That’s your opinion, but Ken’s also correct.

    6. Sanders is no more straightforward than the other demagogues, he has just been lucky enough that his missives haven’t been tested as much. Go back and review his talking points from the 2016 primary. He frequently referred to the “millionaire class and billionaire class” at the time. Once it became common knowledge that he had become a millionaire as a result of revenue from his book, suddenly the term “millionaire class” got a hasty divorce from his vocabulary, and now it’s just about the “billionaire class”.

      He’s selling Marxist snake oil, and rubes ignorant of 20th century history are guzzling it by the gallon.

  37. Comrade Sanders;
    1. The workers job assignment committee has determined to change your current work assignment from “socialist pretending to be independent running as a democrat for the presidential nomination” to coal miner.
    2. In line with the work reassignment, all funds in your election accounts are hereby reclaimed by the party.
    3. The workers housing committee has determined to re-allocate your DC house to a records storage facility, to re-allocate your ‘cabin’ to a party leader’s use, and to add 500 worker’s currently between assignments to your remaining home.
    4. These changes are to take immediate effect.
    Best wishes in your new assignment.

  38. Could Sanders be the Trotzky who unlocks the door for Lenin and Stalin?

  39. Love the ignorant commentariat. Are you still living in the 80s? I’m glad you accept simple talking points as you advocate to kill people. Mr Suderman wants more blood on his hands to continue his talking points.

    1. ohlookMarketthugs
      February.23.2020 at 8:15 am
      “Love the ignorant commentariat…”

      Yep, you and the leftist are right there with your room-temp IQs; happy to showed up for our amusement.

  40. Man do I hope this scenario plays out and the party boys try to fuck over Sanders again. Milwaukee will make Chicago in 1968 look like a picnic.

    1. Yeah, Bloomberg would be a giant middle finger to the left base.

      1. The economy aside, I don’t think Bernie would be as bad as Bloomberg for civil liberties, at least not right away.

  41. Nevada Caucuses — Live Analysis

    Bernie Sanders won with 1,266 of 2,097 precincts reporting (60.4%) as of February 23, 2020 at 0900.

  42. gah, looks like another voting day where I will have to pick the lesser of two evils

    1. That’s how it works with only two effective parties.
      You carefully review the party platforms and vote for the one which infringes the least on your personal freedoms.

      1. Hahaha! Party platforms!! When was the last time a party platform had an impact on how the Prez governed? Lincoln?

        Rather look at which person would deconstruct the deep state more, and vote for that person.

    2. How does the Nevada result change that?
      It seems you think another D candidate would be acceptable…

  43. Mobs will be mobs.

  44. Are we supposed to pretend that Democrats haven’t been about slowly and progressively implementing socialism for the last 100 years or so? The only shock with Bernie is that he’s honest about their aims. Anyone who missed the open socialist desires of democrat voters since the 2008 primaries hasn’t been paying attention. For all of Trump’s many faults, the comparison between him and any of his likely opponents does not justify a “pox on both houses mentality.”

    1. As someone else said it — Lefties have a gift for projecting…..

    2. First rule of implementing socialism. Don’t talk about implementing socialism.

  45. “Italy has introduced “extraordinary measures” to tackle the spread of the biggest outbreak of the new coronavirus in Europe.

    . . .

    A dozen towns in the northern regions of Lombardy and Veneto have been effectively quarantined under the plan.

    Around 50,000 people from towns in two northern regions have been asked to stay at home by authorities.

    Mr Conte said it would now be forbidden to enter or leave the outbreak areas, unless special permission was granted.

    All school and sports activities have been suspended in those areas, including several Serie A football matches due to take place on Sunday.

    Police, and if necessary the armed forces, will have the authority to ensure the regulations are enforced.



    The coronavirus may present more of a threat to Trump’s reelection than Bernie Sanders–even though Bernie Sanders’ policy proposals are far more damaging to the economy than the coronavirus will be.

    Still, I could see the timing on this being bad for Trump if he’s forced to make some tough decisions. Bush’s and Obama’s popularity both suffered in the face of unpredictable tragedies. With Bush, it was Katrina. And it wasn’t just that the levee system was as screwy as the Army Corp and FEMA. It was all the people stranded at the Superdome, “President Bush doesn’t care about black people”, “I didn’t send help because no one asked for it”. etc. They even went after him for looking tired in emergency meetings.

    With Obama, it was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He ordered all drilling in the Gulf shut down, which angered a lot of people, but he’d have angered the same people and plenty of others if he hadn’t shut drilling down. Then there was the spill itself. They can put a man on the moon but they can’t close an oil well? What are you going to do, Mr. President? We’re waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting . . .

    IF IF IF the coronavirus comes to the U.S. in a big way, that will be polarizing. They’ll call Trump a racist for quarantining some areas but not others. If he quarantines a black area but not a white area, they’ll call him a racist for that. Why should black people have to suffer under a quarantine? If he quarantines a white area but not a black area, they’ll call him a racist for that, too. Why should white areas get the benefit of a quarantine–is he trying to kill black people?

    I suspect President Trump is already clear about what he should do in the event of a serious outbreak in the U.S. and why, but keeping it offshore is probably the best way to make sure he’s reelected. Even if a vaccine materializes, the question of whether to force that on various constituencies–either way that goes–isn’t about to help his reelection chances any.

    1. “The coronavirus may present more of a threat to Trump’s reelection than Bernie Sanders”

      And now, on top of being a known liar, you have decided to go full retard.

      1. Ken’s point, I believe, is that Bernie is very unlikely to make a dent in Trump’s support. But the coronavirus could provoke a response that would alienate many who are on the fence. Maybe a bit speculative, but definitely not tin-foil-hat material.

    2. If the Coronavirus affected the US in the way it has Wuhan it would be a global pandemic on the order of the Spanish flu.

      Quarantines would not be possible or useful at all. As it is we may be looking at something like influenza that we just have to deal with.

      1. The question is the impact on the politics.

        I linked to a story about a quarantine area in Italy. They’re quarantining areas in South Korea now, too.

        “Daegu, South Korea’s fourth-largest city and an epicenter for a coronavirus outbreak that skyrocketed to 602 cases on Sunday—a roughly 20-fold rise in just four days. In response, President Moon Jae-in raised the country’s virus-alert system to the highest of four levels, calling it a severe situation that requires “unprecedented, powerful” measures.

        South Korea, confronted with the highest coronavirus count outside China, is granted broader authority by going to the maximum red level. The government can implement containment policies that restrict domestic travel and block public activities. It also pushed back the start of the school year by a week, to March 9.

        The mobilization comes as South Korea reported its sixth death linked to the virus.

        . . . .

        Since the start of the local outbreak traced back to the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Daegu, this southeastern city of 2.4 million people has ground to a halt. The mayor has told people to stay indoors and avoid large gatherings. U.S. soldiers stationed in Daegu aren’t allowed to visit off-base establishments. South Korea’s military base is on a virtual lockdown.


        It looks like the same thing everywhere.

        I ordered a laptop from Lenovo, recently, and got a great deal on it if I ordered it before it was built. They just moved the shipping date back by 30 days–presumably because their factories are shut down due to the coronavirus.

        Iran reported that only 43 people have tested positive for the virus, but eight people have died–suggesting that there are probably 800 or so infected in Iran. Turkey and Pakistan have now closed their borders with Iran.

        “Quarantines would not be possible or useful at all.”

        Quarantines are possible. I saw the National Guard come in and shut down Los Angeles during the riots. Whether they’re useful is another question–the government does all kinds of things that aren’t useful, especially when the American people want the government to “do something”. If it dies out like other viruses have in the recent past, that’ll be great. I’m rooting against the coronavirus for sure.

        If it sweeps through the U.S. in an election year, both the decision to quarantine and the decision not to quarantine will be unpopular with large groups of people, and that will impact the election. The special status and funding HIV/AIDS patients receive today is still largely an artifact of President Reagan supposedly doing twiddling his thumbs while gay men died. If the corona virus runs through the U.S. like the Spanish Flu and kills 1% of the population, 3.3 million Americans will die–and the Democrats will blame it on President Trump in an election year as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

        1. I don’t get the panic.
          It’s a flu.
          Mortality rate is like 2%.
          Doesn’t seem like such a big deal

          1. Stated mortality rate is around 2, 2.5%. (Leaving aside that the PRC numbers are probably garbage. At least lately, they haven’t been so blatant with the curve-fitting in reporting their case numbers.)

            That’s with full hospital support available for the pool of victims. Unfortunately, full support may involve respiratory support, and there simply aren’t enough ventilators or ICU/CCU beds to accommodate a surge of patients.

            The Italian cases are troubling in that, while AIUI, the fatalities were of East Asian ancestry, a lot of the serious cases are Europeans. (Per a doctor I know, who practices in the heart of the quarantine area. Talk about a small world.) Which means it’s not going to only seriously affect East Asian men with already compromised pulmonary capacity. Further, some of these Euro patients are healthy. As in, 35 year old, otherwise healthy guy one day, admitted with viral pneumonia the next, on a vent the day after that.

            Re, the US, the effects of this bug may not be fully known now for two reasons: One, the CDC is playing fast and loose with the known number of cases. There’s an unintentionally hilarious injunction motion by Costa Mesa, CA, seeking to enjoin the movement of “35-50” Covid-19 patients from Travis AFB to a vacant building in their city for quarantine and treatment. Neat trick, as there weren’t 35 cases officially in the entire country when the motion was filed.

            Two, anecdotally, I am hearing of people getting treatment for pneumonia, getting x-rayed, getting told to go home, but not getting tested for Covid-19, or otherwise placed in the suspected category. Cue ‘knowing black guy meme’, ‘You can’t have a rising number of cases, if you don’t bother looking.’

            Finally, if this was a mere, slightly more lethal strain of the flu, explain the insane public health measures and restrictions the PRC has been doing for the last two months. OTOH, Singapore has been very open about their cases and treatment of same, and it looks like they’ve a handle on things. Shrug.

            1. It’s also important to note that just because a reaction to something is irrational doesn’t mean the American people won’t react that way.

              Everywhere the virus has spread, we’ve seen major cities turn into virtual ghost towns overnight. It’s happened in China and South Korea, but it’s happened in Italy, too. I don’t see why it wouldn’t happen in the U.S.

              To some extent, that’s because of government imposed quarantines. However, a lot of that quarantine is on top of people being scared to leave their homes.

              Anyway, we shouldn’t assume that just because doing something is irrational, people won’t behave that way. Fear is the mind-killer, and if Americans shut themselves away amidst an epidemic, that’s what they’ll do.

              We should also note that if 1% of the American people were to die because of a virus, it would kill 3.3 million Americans–mostly the elderly and infants. Who would say that 9/11 wouldn’t have a big impact on American politics since only 3,000 people were killed? The emotional impact of things makes them have an impact–even if the numbers aren’t that great.

              Meanwhile, 3.3 million would be a big number, and if the Democrats can exploit the emotional impact of infants dying in an election year like they do the victims of a mass shooting, they will–as sure as the temperature will warm up over the course of the summer.

              1. To give 3.3 million some context, it would be roughly 125 percent of the prior year’s entire death toll. From steam-powered rocket accidents, to car crashes, heart attacks, and drive-bys: all deaths totalled about 2.6 million last year, around 8 per 1000. Doubling and then some the death rate is going to cause some changes.

                Aside, if 2.5 percent is the death rate with full supportive care, the virus likely has no reservoir in the US besides human hosts, a vaccine does not exist, and the incubation period is around two weeks or less, why would being a hermit for two weeks be an irrational response?

  46. authoritarian-curious outsider

    It’s funny how Trump can be simultaneously a reckless de-regulator gutting the authority and scope of the Federal govt over education, environmental regulation, and international agreements with Nato, foreign wars, and environmental treaties… dangerously upending decades of executive implementation of laws and powers…

    but he’s also very authoritarian apparently.

    1. +1000000000000000000

    2. He’s both ‘Literally Hitler’ or a ‘Nazi and a fascist. There only thing that’s missing is to introduce Mussolini into the calculus.

      Illiterate, illiberal dumbasses. One and all in the progressive ranks.

      1. Just for the record;
        Mussolini was the one with black clad terrorists out in the streets beating up the ‘uninformed’.
        Mussolini was the one who favored corporations, but only if they did as he said, produced what he said, and sold what and where he said.
        Mussolini was the one who actually was a fascist.

        1. That’s what I was referring to when I mentioned all that was missing was Musso. Hitler = Hitler. Mussolini = Fascist.

          According the ignoramuses on the left Trump is both.

          Mussolini was a fascist. He invented it. But people shouldn’t forget he was a SOCIALIST – like his father before him.

          1. Ugh. Hitler = Nazi.

            1. Right. The Nazis cannot be defined by any single term that fits with modern definitions.

              1. Nazism was the purest example of progressivism yet put into practice.

            2. But “Hitler = Hitler” makes sense too. We don’t have enough observation to reliably tell what Nazism would’ve been like without him, but they did have an -ism of some sort that he put such a deep stamp on that it may be considered sui generis.

        2. Sorry, Long, but Hitler was definitely a fascist, which is government direction of industry without outright ownership. Even Wikipedia gets this one right:

          The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.[11]

          Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labour, composed of prisoners and concentration camp inmates, which was greatly expanded after the beginning of World War II. In Poland alone, some 5 million citizens (including Polish Jews) were used as slave labour throughout the war.[12] Among the slave labourers in the occupied territories, hundreds of thousands were used by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, as well as Dutch corporation Philips.[13] By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany’s entire work force, and the majority of German factories had a contingent of prisoners.[14]

          1. They did that, but I don’t think it was part of an ideology. Fascism was an ideology. The Nazis just made things up as they went along, doing things because they could that seemed profitable at the moment.

          2. Nazism is not communism. As a socialist ideology, some companies worked hard to make money for the war effort. While not every company was owned by the German government, the state controlled the means of production.

    3. I’m looking forward to seeing Reason staff explain why we should vote against Trump because of his stance on trade with China–after Bernie Sanders wins the nomination.

      If and when that happens, Trump really will be the pro-international trade alternative, whether we like it or not.

      1. “I’m looking forward”

        No one cares liar.

        1. Bernie is far more protectionist that Trump. For Bernie it is a permanent policy position, for Trump it is a tactic that is open to modification, as we have seen numerous times.

          1. Yup socialists have always been protectionists. Trump I think is to a lesser extent. If you look at his trade deals they still have a lot of protectionist elements. He is convinced about reducing trade deficits and protecting industry. Tariffs he is willing to negotiate. He is no free trade guy that is for sure. Neither are Democrats and never have been.

  47. What’s amazing as it is surreal is watching Sanders back in the 80s on Vermont public television I used to think nothing of this guy as even back then as a teenager he was a socialist degenerate.

    Yet here we are.

    I can but summon my inner Red Foreman to describe Grandpa Gulag; Breadline Bernie and people who vote for him: Dumbasses.

  48. Reason endorsement of Bernie coming within 36 hours now……followed by an article entitled, Bernie’s Stance on Immigration Shows His Libertarian Side”

    1. OBL will have an orgasm on these pages. Look out!!

  49. Anybody else think this bickering is pointless until Breadline Bernie is on a ballot that actually includes Nanny Bloomberg?

    1. They have their choice of authoritarians.

  50. Bernie Sanders’ Seattle campaign headquarters vandalized

    First some Bloomberg’s vandalized and not Bernie’s vandalized?

    Whoever called massive Lefty violence once Bernie gets shafted by the DNC or any Democrat loses against Trump was right on the money.

  51. James Carville Says People Who Think Bernie Will Beat Trump Are as ‘Stupid’ as Climate Deniers

    HAHA. Bye bye Democrat Party. I called that the Democrat Party is about done in national politics. Only took 192 years.

    1. Except climate ‘deniers’ are correct. The AGW hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven, again and again. Only the misrepresentation and ‘correction’ of historical data give the warmists the courage to make any claims at all. Hysteria rules the AGW crowd – note that they have been saying we are near a tipping point for 30 years, and it’s always just a few years in the future. Prince Charles himself has predicted more than 4 different tipping points.

    2. Its not over till its over. Another democrat whistle blower dead body found last night (critical of immigration policies within the Obama administration). Sotomayer is verbally coming out on republican picked SCOTUS’s. Something like Trump operatives on (temporary) public charge immigration stay vote.

  52. Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left

    My segment: What Lefties think.

    Though socialists are likely to be met with capitalist resistance that at times will turn violent, “revolution” doesn’t necessitate mass bloodshed — and though we believe in self-defense, we certainly do not advocate violent means.

    Jacobin Magazine writers. Haha. unreason should have some major boners right now.

    Lefties dont even see what’s coming. The Democrat Party will splinter into Commies, Socialists, and not so Socialists.

    1. Do you think that the use of non-standard English (Democrat Party) is persuasive, or is the impulse to channel Joe McCarthy irresistible?

  53. Gee, it almost seems like 25-30 years of ‘Public Charge’ immigration has created a voting bloc for never ending expansion of public charge this, public charge that or socialism (NPR polling puts the Latino vote overwhelmingly, 95-98% to Sanders).

    Thanks welfare state open borders libertarians. President Sanders is on you, enjoy!

    1. Naw. Welfare immigration was nipped in the bud just in time.

      Lefties will get as violent as they can after Trump win reelection. They dont have the majority in guns though, so it wont end well for them.

  54. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/23/bernie-sanders-is-the-front-runner-because-of-how-we-raised-our-kids.html

    Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders is the front-runner because of how we raised our kids


    “We convinced everyone college was 100% necessary, and then we made college unaffordable.”

    Libertarians and conservatives want to fight back? WHERE is the needed HEAVY COUNTER-ATTACK on all this crap about needing degrees, credentials, and licenses, just to scratch our own asses?!?! We who have sucked at the teats of Government Almighty, to protect our means of making a living, are now reaping what we sowed! Next on the hit parade: Writing licenses, before we can make posts like this one!

    1. More free stuff!

      What gets lost is that degrees are just pieces of paper. The purpose of college and higher education is education. So the kiddos just show up and hardly learn anything.

      1. No, the purpose of higher education is to make money. It’s far from the only thing that people, via fashion, have been convinced is necessary. The same may be said of many articles of clothing, deodorant, armpit shaving, and circumcision. And I’m sure you can think of others. It’s just that schooling’s the most expensive.

        The funny thing is that Sanders (Bernie, not the Colonel) had it almost right. It’s not the number of choices of deodorant and sneakers that’s excessive, it’s deodorant per se and fancy, high priced sneakers. Being a commie, he focused on the choice aspect, rather than the amount spent on them. And of course he ignored the item that’s biggest by far, compared to which clothing and toiletry items are peanuts.

        1. “The funny thing is that Sanders (Bernie, not the Colonel) had it almost right. It’s not the number of choices of deodorant and sneakers that’s excessive, it’s deodorant per se and fancy, high priced sneakers.”

          Neither the choices or anything else you mention are “excessive”, except to you.
          And I no more care about the things you label as “excessive” than I do about what that raging idiot claims is such.
          Those products are traded by a willing seller and a willing buyer; none of your business.

      2. What gets lost is that degrees are just pieces of paper.

        Degrees are not just pieces of paper because many employers won’t even interview a prospective employee who doesn’t have one. It is fucking ludicrous to blame this shit on kids. They’re not the ones who’ve been driving employers to require degrees for the crappiest entry-level jobs they’ve got for the last 3+ decades. They’re not the ones who’ve been eliminating work/study/OJT/apprenticeship stuff for the 18-22 crowd.

        Any pol who’s yapping about ‘free college’ is getting a response from that age-group because those kids know the alternative is McDonalds-for-life. Getting a HS diploma opens up near-zero employers nowadays. It is ENTIRELY the fault of employers – and the age group that is making those decisions – here.

        1. The minnows got to learn to swim. The universities and colleges. The piece of paper opens doors. Give everyone a free one says Bernie.

          Education succeeds when you can swim on your own. When the apprentice eventually becomes the master.

          Giving free college degrees is not going to help anyone. It is a false promise if the student does not learn how to learn on their own.

          Great post. You point out how it is today for young people. I think they will find a way. Glad I am not one of them.

        2. Not entirely the fault of employers, though I agree with a lot of your post. A degree is a sorting mechanism that has attained undue influence, because civil rights laws de facto prohibit the use of more relevant sorters. Back when HR was known as ‘personnel’, employers were allowed to use things like aptitude tests, IQ tests, criminal history records, and other ways to sort through the applicant pool. The problem with many of those sporting mechanisms is they have a disparate negative impact on minorities, and that just won’t stand in today’s America.

          Whereas a college degree proves the applicant was able to show up to class at least once in a while for four or more years, complete assigned work, and may even have learned something. An employer can probably teach this applicant how to do their job, and maybe trust they’ll do it, versus a non-college graduate. (Aside, prior military service sounds like it would show the same thing) And while fewer minorities get degrees than not, it’s not yet a boo-boo to discriminate on the basis of a college degree.

          So, I don’t blame the kids for following the incentives they’ve been given. The solution is to make the educational debt dischargable in bankruptcy, end federal student aid, and go after the colleges for satisfaction of the debt as well. That this will kick the Leftist haven that is Academia right in the nuts, is a pleasant bonus.

  55. while this side of the Left in the US has been slowly growing for like 25 years, thank god on our side we have had Reason obsessed with every pop culture issue it could find

  56. Walter Mondale, call on line 1….

  57. Can someone please stop the world? I would like to get off.

  58. ★Makes $140 to $180 consistently online work and I got $16894 in one month electronic acting from home.I am a step by step understudy and work essentially one to two or three hours in my additional time.Everybody will complete that obligation and monline akes extra cash by simply open this link……Read MoRe

  59. Only a handful of states will decide the election. In doesn’t matter how much Latinos and socialists go gaga for Bernie in the big blue states.

    As John Stossel pointed out in his recent video, Bernie didn’t merely sing praises of socialist dictators or expressed flattery because they toasted him (that’s what Trump does). He actually honeymooned in the Soviet Union. He accepted personal invitations of dictators.

    The guy could be the left’s Trump. Or he could be a huge liability in states like FL. If he does beat Trump, the GOP probably takes back the house within two years. We’ll see what happens. I think the guy has skeleton, and he probably said and did a ton of things in Russia that might resurface.

    1. The dude literally honeymooned in the USSR.

      The Democrats cannot throw anymore Russia bullshit at Trump because of this.

      Bernie literally had a heart attack on his early campaign trail in 2019. Anyone voting for him in 2020 is literally picking the Democrat VP for President.

  60. Google pay 120$ consistently my last pay check was $9200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 23 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern………… Read More

  61. New Hampshire and the … Track the number of delegates each candidate has won so far. home electricity audits

  62. If Bernie becomes president, I wonder how the media will treat him compared to how they treat trump.

  63. here you will get top 50 attitude quotes which you can use it for WhatsApp status –

  64. Sanders likely to go to democrat convention with the most delegates. Democrats likely to try and find a way to nominate someone else. Let the fireworks begin. With Sanders the swing voters that decide elections are gone. Without Sanders he supporters will be bitter and many will be gone.
    As a Libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson, Trump, certainly no libertarian, is advancing the Libertarian agenda better than the purist whining on this site with his judicial nominees, lower taxes and less regulation.

    1. Agreed. The author states that President Trump is authoritarian, I don’t get it other than the left always pin the fascist authoritarian label on GOPers.

      Sander’s is a socialist, he may be pushing for social democratic policies W. European style buy his ideology seems to be far left.

      1. “He may be” means “he doesn’t”. His socialism is in his divorce from the reality, his methods and his mindset, classical Soviet style.

  65. Stay At Home Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job .
    Find out how >>>> https://bit.ly/2vZce5F

  66. When did Reason leave the libertarian principles? All those saying if Bernie gets the nomination that Reason will support him, are freaking me out frankly. When did libertarian policies equal in any part, communist agendas? This is insane. #CapitalismvsCommunism2020

    1. although there’s a worry that the voters that lost Bernie last time voted for Trump, so there may be a closer race than 2016 if Bernie gets the Dem nomination.

  67. “If they nominated Sanders, Democrats would own his entire radical agenda and history”

    No, they ALREADY own it by sponsoring his campaign.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.