It's an assessment secretly shared by the liberal establishment media, and Democratic Party mucks who loathe Bernie, such as CNN. Bernie is setting the agenda and politcal message in 2020.
"Nothing will change unless we have the guts to take on Wall Street, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the military-industrial complex, and the fossil fuel industry," said Bernie Sanders at the debate.
The nerve.
Of course that a few huge interests control Congress and are looking out for themselves has been the overwhelming sentiment of the American people for a long time.
Even the lunatic in the White House knew how to tap into this sentiment, a capacity that eluded Hillary Clinton and her party that can't shoot straight.
No matter that Hillary Clinton screwed up the slam dunk known as the 2016 presidential election that installed Republican Party acolytes for years to come on the Supreme Court, no matter how many times Rachel Maddow whores herself out to the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.
Polls still show Bernie would crush Trump in an general election match-up, a fact that must be erased from the political culture, (RealClear Politics).
Don't look for MSNBC to report this fact in the coming months, even when Bernie overtakes Biden in general election match-ups.
The liberal media knows all about Bernie's ascendancy, indicated at RealClear Politics.
To the extent, the Democratic Party continues to feed at the trough of the insurance, pharmaceutical, fossil-fuel, and the military industries' money, expect the stop-Bernie movement to become more hysterical, defamatory and desperate.
And Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd and Sean Hannity can be counted on to do their worst.
Madison, Wisconsin — The Wisconsin people voted in record numbers to oust Gov Scot Walker (R) and his corrupt, deceitful brand of Wisconsin destruction from which it will take years to recover.
Unfortunately for Wisconsin, Gov-elect Tony Evers (D) is the wrong man for the wrong State at the wrong time.
Softball after softball, predictable Republican talking point after talking point were floated to Tony Evers, appearing from Madison, Wisconsin.
Evers—wooden and anemic—responded by adopting Republican premises (lies), while failing to defend Wisconsin voters derided by Republicans for not voting Republican.
Evers was meandering, halting, passive-voiced and clunky—offering mostly consultant-crafted blather.
Here's Evers' response to the opening question from host, Chuck Todd, asking about Evers lobbying Scott Walker after the lame duck, extraordinary session of the gerrymandered legislature:
I communicated with Governor Walker over the telephone a few days ago and laid out my position that vetoing the legislation was going to be an important thing not only for, you know, to make sure that are—what happened last November, the vote of the people of Wisconsin, is actually upheld and we're putting people in front of politics. But also, it's just bad legislation. And I made that, made that pitch, and he was noncommittal. I know publicly he's said in other arenas that he plans to sign most or all of it. So I'm not particularly encouraged at this point in time. But it's around Scott Walker's legacy. He has the opportunity to change this and actually validate the will of the people that, that voted on November 6th.
Chuck Todd next presses Evers, asking for specifics. Todd's question reads in full:
Did you negotiate with him? Did you say, 'You know what? Look, I know X is really important to you. I get that. But what's with Y and Z here?' Was there a Y and Z? Did you go to him and say, 'Look, I really think this part is just crazy. Please veto that. If you want to keep this, I get it'?
Replies Evers:
No, I talked about a few areas that are really important that actually Republican business leaders have talked about that, that would take away power and implicate and make, make economic development much more difficult in the state of Wisconsin. But the entire thing is a mess. It's a hot mess. And I believe that he should veto the entire package. In fact, at least three or four of the pieces that are in there now, he has vetoed previously. And so it makes no sense to me. And, you know, he's been a longtime public servant. And, and he, he, he has a legacy here. So we're hopeful that he will veto the whole thing.
Jesus Christ.
Todd's fifth question offers an angry denunciation of Republican Party sleaze and self-entitled Republicans-must-have-power-no-matter-what—that Evers had better hit out of the ballpark.
Says Todd:
Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) said the following: 'The legislators who engineered this coup, their actions amount to a smash-and-grab hijacking of the voters' will.' Do you 'coup’s' the right word here?
Replies Evers:
Well that’s always—is seems, it seems strong, but the fact of the matter is, as I just said, if Scott Walker had won this election, and he did not, I did, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this today. We, we wouldn’t, we wouldn’t be talking—Scott Walker wouldn't be sitting here talking about, 'Jeez, they're trying, they’re trying to balance the power here.' So, no, I think, as, you know, it's directly related to, to a win by a Democrat. And that'd be me. And we—we need, we need to have this, we need to have this vetoed.
Are you kidding me?
No lame duck Wisconsin legislature has ever attempted this power-grab and Evers says 'coup' is too strong of a characterization?
Where has this guy been for the last seven years as Republicans have infiltrated every corner of government and rigged every public hearing, proceeding, election and deliberation to the fullest extent possible?
One of their [Republican] rationales has been, 'Well, Governor-elect Evers' margins all came from two cities: Madison and Milwaukee. We have to represent the rest of the state.' What do you say to that charge? And, more importantly, you won a very narrow election. How do you reach—[cross-talk] How do you reach across this divided state at this point?
Republicans don't believe voters casting non-Republican votes count. This is an anti-democratic commitment that corrodes the foundation of representative government.
Republicans over the last seven years vilify any aspect of government, any region, institution and municipality that produce non-Republican political activity or outcomes.
Nearing the end of Meet the Press, will Tony Evers redeem his performance and stand up for all voters, acclaim all voters count and hail individual liberties as Republicans demonize Madison and Milwaukee voters in its project to divide and conquer Wisconsin? No.
Here's what Evers emitted:
Well I can—it would have been a lot easier without this legislation. I'll tell you that. I have reached, in my present job as state superintendent, that's a statewide elected position, and I've reached across the aisle on all, all number of issues. So that's part of my DNA. I'm an educator. So I, I always try to find common ground. And I'll continue to do that going forward.
This just makes it more difficult. But I won the election. Any way you slice it, I won the election. And actually I narrowed some of the, the votes outstate. And I've won lots of those counties outstate in the past. So I am the governor, I will be the governor of the state of Wisconsin—, ...
Enough out of you, Evers.
Since when does a newly elected governor refer to the northern two-thirds of the state as "outstate" to a general audience on national TV?
Checked around with Wisconsin pols and most say the term "outstate" is not necessarily pejorative in usage.
Outstate is certainly idiosyncratic and perverse in responding to Republican talking points hitting Milwaukee and Madison. Something about Milwaukee just doesn't sit well with Republicans, wonder what.
Look, outstate is a political term used by pols among pols.
Never would a statewide elected official use "outstate" to refer to people whom he proposes to represent against a threat to democracy unprecedented in state history.
In any event, attacking voters because they live in Madison and Milwaukee is an outrage.
Virginia: This state and the Republican Party are just not in sync. I'm convinced if the state GOP were in better shape, McCain would be in better shape. But because the state party is such a mess, McCain's in trouble. Mark Warner is coasting to an easy senate victory and the GOP could lose one to three House seats. Just a devastating time to be a Republican in Virginia.
North Carolina: Is there a more relevant battleground state than the Tarheel state? Not only is the presidential close, but the senate and governor's races are also nailbiters. The Dem ballot is really fascinating as none of the top three slots are being filled by white males. And, believe it or not, the Republicans feel best about their chances in the governor's race (a campaign they usually lose) than the senate or presidential. A Democratic victory in the senate race would really be historic as it would be the first time since the days of Sam Ervin that the party will have won a senate seat in a presidential year. Democrats also have a shot at a House pickup in the 8th District. But keep an eye on Republican Pat McCrory. If the Charlotte mayor wins in this environment, he'll instantly become a player in national Republican politics.
Chuck Todd, top media politico, just said on MSNBC's Hardballthat Wisconsin was the turning point in the 2008 Democratic primary.
Todd said that after Obama clobbered Hillary in Wisconsin on February 19, Hillary had only a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination, and not the 50 percent chance that Hillary's people and the media proclaimed.
Obama's Wisconsin victory, gained on the heels of his sweep in Virginia, Maryland and D.C. the week before, left many objective observers looking to Ohio and Pennsylvania (where Hillary won solid victories) as merely prolonging the inevitable Obama nomination.
Salon had a piece by Mike Madden in early May explaining the importance of Wisconsin's primary and probing why this perfectly composed demographic state for Hillary handed her a 17-point thrashing.
Pennsylvania is a quasi-Democratic machine state. Thus one expected the machine-backed candidate, Hillary Clinton, to do well with the most established demographics there: Whites and older citizens.
No doubt then that Hillary's expected win on Tuesday (nine points) and her turning-the-tide spin generated a round of media ridicule and explicit reference to the Pennsylvania machine-state status, minimizing the significance of the Clinton victory. Not what happened.
As Chuck Todd: (Hardball, April 7) had put it, "...Pennsylvania is a machine state. You know it‘s a machine democratic state. It is an old school machine state and she has the entire machine behind her, other than the Casey family. She‘s got the state party officially behind her."
The media's reaction, including Chris Matthews and Norah O‘Donnell, who know better, is to exclaim that Hillary did well with whites and older citizens, from which is extrapolated "huge" significance and alarm about how well Obama can perform with whites in a general election.
So why is Pennsylvania, which votes reliably Democratic in general elections in part owing to the effectiveness of the Democratic machine, more significant than Wisconsin (Feb. 19), which votes narrowly Democratic in general elections? It's not.
Like Obama did in Wisconsin and the other 29 states in which he won, Nagourney could have added, though that would have had the effect of killing his story.
Hillary is desperate to pretend the race is still on; and the corporate talking heads and political media are desperate to engage Hillary's pretension.
One last note on the exit polling from Pennsylvania, pertaining to Hillary and blacks. Blacks: 92-Obama - 8-Hillary.
Questions worth pursuing: Why is Hillary doing so horribly among blacks? And using the same primary-general election demographic logic applied to Obama, what does this mean for a prospective Hillary nomination and her performance in the general election? Can Hillary win without black support?
