Tulsi Gabbard Asks Biden, Sanders to Demand DNC Allow Her on Debate Stage

H/T Breitbart.

The DNC is good at stacking the deck against a candidate they did it in 2016 against Crazy Bernie Sanders and now in 2020, they are stacking the deck against Tulsi Gabbard. 

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) asked fellow presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Friday to help her get on the Arizona debate stage.

Gabbard’s request comes after the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) updated qualifications barred her from participating in the upcoming event in Phoenix, according to the Hill:

Tulsi Gabbard 🌺

@TulsiGabbard

.@JoeBiden @BernieSanders I’m sure you would agree that our Democratic nominee should be a person who will stand up for what is right. So I ask that you have the courage to do that now in the face of the DNC’s effort to keep me from participating in the debates.

35.2K people are talking about this

“To keep me off the stage, the DNC again arbitrarily changed the debate qualifications,” Gabbard wrote in a subsequent tweet.

“Previously they changed the qualifications in the OPPOSITE direction so Bloomberg could debate. I ask that you stand w/ me against the DNC’s transparent effort to exclude me from the debates,” she stated.

To take part in the event scheduled for March 15, candidates must have at least 20 percent of the delegates awarded up to that point, according to Breitbart News.

The report continued:

The previous debate requirement allowed a candidate to participate if he or she had a single pledged delegate. If the DNC stuck to the previous rules, Gabbard, who did not qualify for any of the debates ahead of the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada or the primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina, would have been able to participate.

The Democrat presidential candidate currently has two delegates, both from the U.S. territory of American Samoa, where she was born, according to KYMA.

Friday, the hashtag #LetTulsiDebate trended on Twitter throughout the evening, Fox News reported.

“Gabbard has not appeared on at a Democratic debate since November. She was also snubbed by CNN’s town hall series despite the liberal network inviting former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, whose polling was lower than hers,” the article said.

Following Gabbard’s request, Twitter users voiced their displeasure with the DNC’s decision to update the debate qualifications.

“I don’t particularly like your politics – but I suspect Senile Joe and Comrade Sanders are deathly afraid that you’d be seen as a much more viable candidate than them if you were up there on the stage with them,” one person wrote.

“Tulsi, you qualified, you deserve to be on that stage. I hate that the elite of the Democratic Party keeps doing this to you,” another commented.

Clyburn: ‘Socialist’ Sanders a ‘Burden’ that Could Put Democrat House in Danger

H/T Breitbart.

The thing that put the House majority in danger is not Crazy Bernie Sanders but the sham impeachment.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who he described as a socialist, as the presidential nominee in 2020 could put the Democrats majority in House of Representatives in jeopardy.

Host George Stephanopoulos asked, “As far as Bernie Sanders goes, he built out that coalition in the state of Nevada, brought a coalition that he had in New Hampshire and in Iowa, but you’re already starting to see these attacks for his background as a Democratic Socialist. How deep will that cut in South Carolina, and if he’s the nominee, do you think it could put the House majority in danger?”

Clyburn said, “A lot of people think so. I do believe it will be an extra burden for us to have to carry. This is South Carolina, and South Carolinians are pretty leery about that title socialist.”

He continued, “So I think that that would be a real burden for us in these states or congressional districts that we have to do well in. If you look at how well we did the last time and look at the congressional districts, these were not liberal or what you might call progressive districts. These are basically moderate and conservative districts that we did well in, and in those districts, it’s going to be tough to hold onto these jobs if you have to make the case for accepting a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist.”

You Bernie Suckers Are Going to Get Fooled Again

H/T Town Hall.

Crazy Bernie Sanders proved in 2016 he could be bought off and he will sell out again.

If you are dumb enough to slobber over a socialist then you’re already inclined toward being a hapless mark, so it should be no surprise that you Bernie dorks are about to get screwed over again by the Democratic Party. Here’s how it’s going to go: Because you are stupid – you support a socialist, so you are presumptively stupid – you think that if you work really hard and win the votes the establishment creeps who own the Democratic Party are going to let you have a say. But, like last time, you won’t get a say. You’ll work real hard – maybe if you worked really hard at actual jobs you wouldn’t be half-wit socialists – and you’ll win the votes, and all your dreams will die as you end up with the nomination going to a malignant midget multi-zillionaire.

I don’t know exactly how they are going to do it – more convenient caucus kerfuffles, super-delegates, shenanigans at the convention – but there is no way your masters will ever let you win. Like I said, you’re socialists, and therefore stupid, so you will get cheated and you will end up having to vote for the Verne Troyer of American big-money politics.

And, like the obedient saps you are, you’ll do it.

Now, at this point, you probably have some complaints about this column. By complaining, you can temporarily distract from the indisputable fact that your own foolishness has put you in the position of being crushingly humiliated by the Democratic elite once again. Let me briefly address your whiny protests.

Yes, I say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. This is because it’s a very bad thing. Like, to the tune of 100 million corpses bad thing. I’ve actually lived in the ruins of socialism and you, well, you had a man-bunned sociology TA tell you it was swell. And you believed him because you are a dupe. Be glad that I am assuming that you are stupid instead of the only other reason one would ever cavort with these blood-stained goblins: that you are evil.

But he’s a “democratic socialist,” you interject, because you are stupid. Would you feel fine with a “democratic Nazi?” Actually, you probably would, since Nazis are just a genre of socialist with white and black added to the color palette.

Then you’ll claim that the Box Boy won’t be the nominee, no, one of the other pouty posse will get it. Maybe Biden will. You totally want to vote for a guy who thinks his powder-diving, dancer-diddling loser son should totally be getting $83K a month. Man, if you got money like that you could move out of your parents’ place! Or maybe Audie Buttigieg – he seems plausible. No, I’m not laughing! And then there’s Big Chief Sanders Lite. Maybe she could get elected. Really, I’m not laughing. Okay, then Amy Klobuchar – no, I’m not laughing, I’m just scratching my head wondering why she is even still in. Face it. The only viable option besides Vermont Stalin is Scrooge McSuck.

And your next protest will be that Donald Trump is worse than Mini Mike. In fact, you’ll say, Trump is like Hitler combined with…well, Hitler is the only dictator you don’t like, so we’ll just stick with “He’s literally Hitler for real!” Again, you have been suckered. If you were actually raging against the machine rather than aspiring to be a cog in it, you would back him. Now, you may not like it, and you may be too dumb to see it, but Trump is the only disruptor of the establishment in this race. Short Stuff’s gnome-ination is designed to re-establish the establishment. And mark my words: you’ll help him do it.

Yeah, I bet Wall Street is quivering in its collective Guccis over the muffled pitter-patter of the tiny little footsteps of the approaching Bloomberg administration. Bloomberg is not just an eager supporter of the globalist vision but a leading advocate, the Dwarf King of Davos. Trump, not so much. But you’ve been told to hate Trump, and like obedient little ants, you hate him.

In fact, you hate Trump so much that you will vote for the polar opposite of your crusty commie hero even after your preference has been torn from your soft little hands yet again. If you wanted to burn down the system, Trump would be your man. But you don’t…not really. You just want some scraps, like getting out of your loans or making other people pay for your doctor and you’ll be happy. That’s why you’ll give your general election vote to the Stop ‘N Frisk Doughboy even as you assure yourself that the guy who got minority unemployment to record lows is the big, bad racist in this race

You’ve been had. You’ll cry, but you’ll still go along with the scam as this all plays out.

Suddenly, the media will turn on the Bern in a coordinated attack. Oh wait, that’s happening. Then Frodo Moneybags will start buying off individuals and liberal groups. Oh wait, that’s happening too. Crusty has-been Sam Donaldson decided to show off his new blonde rug during his endorsement; so many more are coming. And I bet it’s not his cash but the power of Mikey’s ideas…okay, now I am laughing.

There will be more primary and caucus “surprises,” except the only people who will be surprised are you suckers. If it gets as far as the convention, your masters will adjourn to the un-smoke-filled rooms and decide for you who you will vote for. And you’ll whine and winge and ultimately obey like the good little suckers you are.

See, you bought into the idea that another four years of prosperity and peace under Donald Trump is much, much worse than reinstalling the party apparatus that has screwed you over in the last two cycles. You’ll ignore the economy, the lack of new wars, the trade rebalancing, and all the other stuff and instead focus on what your masters have commanded you to focus on: that Trump tweeted something mean. Oh, and Russians.

And here’s why you will let the Democrat puppetmasters succeed. It’s because you are stupid. Now, you could stop being stupid. You could refuse to play along. You could even insist Bernie run as a third-party candidate. I like that because it guarantees Trump II: Fossil-Fuel Generated Electric Boogaloo. But it would serve your interests too by forcing the party to recognize and respect you instead of assuming you’ll fall into line once again. But you won’t. You’re all talk and no revolution. Take off that Che t-shirt and put on one with Mini Mayor’s pouty little mug on it. He’s your man. You’re all Bloomberg Bros. Just give it time.

You’re saps, and you’ll take whatever you’re given and tell yourself you like it.

Speaking of what might happen if America’s urban dummies were foolish enough to elect an out socialist, check out my latest conservative thriller, Collapse, along with the other entries in the best-selling series, People’s RepublicIndian Country, and Wildfire.  America breaks in two as leftist foolishness, and evil, becomes unbearable. Action and liberal bashing ensue. Get them all, and also check out my Townhall VIP podcast, “Unredacted” every Monday as well as my new Hugh Hewitt-affiliated Salem podcast, “Fighting Words”!

Questions about Sanders’ health linger after heart attack

H/T APNews.com.

What is Crazy Bernie Sanders hiding about his health?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t plan to divulge additional information about his health, months after suffering a heart attack on the campaign trail and subsequently pledging to release “comprehensive” medical records.

“I think we have released a detailed medical report, and I’m comfortable on what we have done,” the 78-year-old Vermont senator said during a CNN town hall on Tuesday.

Questions about Sanders’ health have lingered ever since he checked into a Las Vegas hospital with chest discomfort on Oct. 1 and had two stents inserted.

His campaign didn’t acknowledge that he had suffered a heart attack until his release several days later. And after pledging to divulgea detailedaccounting of his well-being, the campaign waited until New Year’s Eve to put out letters from three doctors attesting to his health — a move traditionally deployed to avoid scrutiny.

Now, as Sanders heads into the Nevada caucuses on Saturday with growing momentum following strong performances in earlier contests, he’s facing additional pressure to reveal more.

That was brought into sharp focus Wednesday when campaign spokeswoman Briahna Joy Gray sought to deflecthealth-related inquiriesduring an appearance on CNN.

First, she suggested that the line of questioning was akin to a “smear campaign.” Then, she inaccurately stated that Sanders’ rival, 78-year-old Mike Bloomberg, also suffered a heart attack — a claim she walked back amid a swift response from the billionaire former New York mayor’s presidential campaign.

“Here’s what we know about Sen. Sanders: In October 2019, he had a medical incident in Las Vegas. He didn’t tell the public for days and the full details have never been released,” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said. “Now his campaign staff is spreading lies about Mike Bloomberg.”

Bloomberg had two stents inserted after his doctors performed a heart stress test in 2000, but he did not have a heart attack.

After returning to the campaign trail in late October, Sanders pledged to release detailed information before the year’s end.

“I want to make it comprehensive,” Sanders said in an interview with The Associated Press at the time.

Whether he’s lived up to that is open to interpretation. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Unlike rules governing personal finances, there is no law obligating presidential candidates to release medical information. And how much past contenders have revealed varies widely.

In 2008, Republican Sen. John McCain, then 71, released more than 1,000 pages of medical records to show he was cancer-free and fit to serve as president. Yet in 2016, President Donald Trump was dismissive of the practice, releasing a doctor’s letter that proclaimed the then-70-year-old to be “in excellent physical health” despite taking cholesterol-lowering medication and being overweight.

Since then, other candidates have relied mostly on letters from their doctors. Among the Democrats, Bloomberg and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 70, have released one-page letters summarizing past and present health. Warren also included four pages of key lab test results. Biden’s doctor’s letter covered three pages giving the 77-year-old’s history and most recent checkups.

Sanders, the oldest candidate in the race, released a two-page review from his primary care doctor, and two cardiologist notes, each essentially a long paragraph.

Sanders’ health is arguably of most concern because of his heart attack, and together those doctors’ notes did reveal some important information: He’d undergone an exercise stress test after recovering, and it showed that his heart, which had sustained “modest heart muscle damage,” was functioning well when challenged.

None of that information sheds light on one concern in particular for older candidates: the chances of their memory and cognitive ability declining during their time in office.

The youngest candidate in the race, Pete Buttigieg, has yet to divulge medical information. But that didn’t stop the 38-year-old from urging others to offer up far more details than they have and follow the practice of former President Barack Obama.

“I think we should be transparent, especially living in the Trump era. We’ve got to do better,” he said Wednesday on MSNBC. “I would look to the Obama standard of releasing not just a letter from a doctor, but actual results from a physical. That’s what we’re planning to do, and I think every candidate should hold themselves to that same standard.”

Bernie Vows to Raise Taxes On Everybody Making Over $29,000 to Fund Gov’t-Run Health Care

H/T Flag And Cross.

Crazy Bernie Sanders will never be President thank God.

This would hurt all Americans.

During a speech in New Hampshire, 2020 Democrat Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (VT) told his fans how he plans to not only ruin their lives but the lives of every single person in America – legal or illegal.

Bernie noted, “What we will do is have a 4% tax on income exempting the first $29,000.” He then added, “You’re better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means we’re gonna tax you on $31,000 at 4%.

The more Bernie talks, the more likely voters are to flock to President Trump next November.

WATCH:

 

At the end of the day, is a man who recently suffered a heart attack physically fit to deal with the rigors of being president of the United States on a day-to-day basis? The answer should be obvious.

Nope.

Bernie’s heart failing him is a lot like Hillary Clinton’s fainting spells back in 2016. Both instances showed the nation that neither far-left radical was prepared to handle the duties of office.

During a recent interview with a left-wing outlet, the embattled Democrat Socialist made it clear to those who weren’t yet aware: he is not a capitalist. Funny enough, though, Bernie says equally far-left radical 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist.

Hmm.

From Free Beacon:

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sanders said that Warren considers herself a “capitalist through her bones,” while he does not.

[…]

Warren has become the 2020 Democratic frontrunner while largely allying herself with Sanders on issues of health care and tax policy. Sanders, who has struggled to differentiate himself from Warren, said he is the only candidate who will take on systemic corruption.

Sanders opined, “I am, I believe, the only candidate who’s going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite, ‘enough, enough with your greed and with your corruption.’” We need real change in this country.

Watch:

During a speech in New Hampshire, 2020 Democrat Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (VT) told his fans how he plans to not only ruin their lives but the lives of every single person in America – legal or illegal.

Bernie noted, “What we will do is have a 4% tax on income exempting the first $29,000.” He then added, “You’re better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means we’re gonna tax you on $31,000 at 4%.

The more Bernie talks, the more likely voters are to flock to President Trump next November.

Latest: House Dem Says They See No ‘Value’ In Impeachment After Polls Show Support For It Falling Among Independents

WATCH:

take our poll – story continues below
  • Will Democrats win the house and senate in 2020?

At the end of the day, is a man who recently suffered a heart attack physically fit to deal with the rigors of being president of the United States on a day-to-day basis? The answer should be obvious.

Nope.

Bernie’s heart failing him is a lot like Hillary Clinton’s fainting spells back in 2016. Both instances showed the nation that neither far-left radical was prepared to handle the duties of office.

During a recent interview with a left-wing outlet, the embattled Democrat Socialist made it clear to those who weren’t yet aware: he is not a capitalist. Funny enough, though, Bernie says equally far-left radical 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist.

Hmm.

From Free Beacon:

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sanders said that Warren considers herself a “capitalist through her bones,” while he does not.

[…]

Warren has become the 2020 Democratic frontrunner while largely allying herself with Sanders on issues of health care and tax policy. Sanders, who has struggled to differentiate himself from Warren, said he is the only candidate who will take on systemic corruption.

Sanders opined, “I am, I believe, the only candidate who’s going to say to the ruling class of this country, the corporate elite, ‘enough, enough with your greed and with your corruption.’” We need real change in this country.

WATCH:

It physically hurts to read this tweet from Bernie Sanders.

But you have to see it.

LOOK:

Maybe I’m old fashioned. But I believe we should have a president who believes in the United States Constitution.

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

Maybe I’m old fashioned. But I believe we should have a president who believes in the United States Constitution.

44.2K people are talking about this

That’s rich coming from a man who literally wants to tear America apart.

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders: ‘Mandatory Buybacks’ of AR-15s and AK-47s Is Unconstitutional

H/T Town Hall.

This is the smartest thing Crazy Bernie Sanders has said in his life.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained he does not support a mandatory buyback of firearms because he believes such a law would be unconstitutional.

“Gun violence is an incredibly complex [and] large epidemic in our country…and I wanted to ask what your plan is to combat this epidemic, but also, specifically, wanted to see if mandatory buybacks for AR-15 and AK-47s is something you would consider,” Grace asked.

Sanders acknowledged a mandatory buyback is actually confiscation and that would be unconstitutional.

“Let me tell you what my plan is — and I don’t support it. A mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is unconstitutional. It means I am going to walk in your house and take something whether you like it or not. I don’t think that stands up to constitutional scrutiny,” he replied.

Sanders does support banning AR-15s and other types of rifles.

“Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians,” his campaign website states, adding he also supports a ban on “high-capacity ammunition magazines” and  universal background checks.

Of the many Democratic presidential candidates who started so far, those who supported very strict gun control measures have not made it very far. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) started his whole campaign around the issue of gun control in April of this year and dropped out in July after never gaining any traction.

While former Rep. Beto O’Rourke had a stronger start to his campaign, when he started to slide towards the bottom in the polls, his stance to have a compensated confiscation of AR-15s and AK-47s did not help. He dropped out of the race in November.

 

Sanders has heart procedure, cancels campaign events for now

H/T The Associated Press.

Why didn’t Crazy Bernie Sanders go to Havana Cuba to get his stents? 

After all, he says Cuba’s healthcare is superior to American healthcare.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders’ campaign said Wednesday that the Democratic presidential candidate had a heart procedure for a blocked artery and was canceling events and appearances “until further notice.”

The 78-year-old Vermont senator experienced chest discomfort during a campaign event Tuesday and sought medical evaluation. Two stents were “successfully inserted,” and Sanders “is conversing and in good spirits,” according to the campaign. He’s recovering at a Las Vegas hospital.

Sanders tweeted on Wednesday afternoon that he was “feeling good. I’m fortunate to have good health care and great doctors and nurses helping me to recover.”

Then, sounding one of his favorite themes from the campaign trail, he added: “None of us know when a medical emergency might affect us. And no one should fear going bankrupt if it occurs. Medicare for All!”

The Democratic field’s oldest candidate, Sanders sometimes jokingly refers to his age at town halls and other events, especially when interacting with younger participants. He is one of three candidates over age 70 in the Democratic primary, which has spurred debate over whether the party should rally behind a new generation of political leaders. Sanders’ health issue is certain to revive that discussion in the weeks before the next presidential debate this month.

President Donald Trump is 73.

Sanders’ campaign wouldn’t say whether the candidate had suffered a heart attack before the blockage was opened. But a doctor not involved in the care said, if not, Sanders could expect to be back to a normal busy schedule in about a week.

“This will give him more energy,” said Dr. Ron Waksman, an interventional cardiologist at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington.

Sanders’ hospitalization came on a day of celebration for his campaign, which had earlier announced the Democratic field’s strongest quarterly fundraising numbers so far. On a telephone call with supporters, campaign manager Faiz Shakir said, “The state of our campaign, we feel, is strong and getting stronger. We’ve got work to do because our path is the most ambitious path of any candidate out there.” He also touted the first television ad, which the campaign was scheduled to launch in Iowa.

But those spots were suspended on Wednesday.

The health issue comes as Sanders has been trying to turn a corner after a summer that saw him eclipsed as the premier liberal in the field by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Sanders has dropped well behind Warren, 70, and former Vice President Joe Biden, 76, in most polls and recently reshuffled his staffing in early states to become more competitive.

“Given his recent stalls in the polls, the timing is pretty bad here,” Democratic strategist Jim Manley said of Sanders’ heart procedure.

Sanders’ 2020 rivals were quick to wish him well. Warren told liberal activists in Las Vegas that she called and texted Sanders and that she “wants to see him strong and back on the trail as soon as possible.”

“We want to send our best wishes for a quick recovery to @BernieSanders today,” tweeted Julián Castro, an Obama administration housing chief. Added Sen. Kamala Harris of California: “If there’s one thing I know about him, he’s a fighter, and I look forward to seeing him on the campaign trail soon.”

Sanders mounted an insurgent campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2016. He is a top contender in the 2020 primary and announced Tuesday that he raised more than $25 million over the past three months. But he is facing stiff competition from Biden and Warren, who have overtaken him in many polls.

This is the second time during the 2020 campaign that health problems have forced Sanders to ease up on what has otherwise been a robust campaign schedule. Just last month, he canceled some appearances in South Carolina because he lost his voice. The campaign said at the time he felt fine.

Sanders is not the first candidate to face health issues in recent years while seeking the presidency. Clinton had to take time off from campaigning in 2016 after being treated for pneumonia.

In 2000, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, the leading Democratic challenger to then-Vice President Al Gore, had to cut short a campaign swing for treatment of an atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat that is treatable but potentially serious. Bradley later resumed his campaign.

In Sanders’ case, when doctors insert a stent, they first thread a tiny balloon inside a blocked artery to widen it. The stent is a small wire mesh tube that then is propped inside to keep the artery open. The number of stents needed depends on the size of the clog.

The treatment can immediately improve symptoms such as chest pain or shortness of breath. The stents are threaded into place through blood vessels in the groin or wrist, requiring only a tiny incision. Most are coated with medication to prevent the targeted artery from reclosing. That is still a risk, requiring monitoring, and patients also often are prescribed blood thinners to prevent clots from forming in the stents.

A letter released by Sanders’ physician in 2016 cited a history of mildly elevated cholesterol but no heart disease.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Will Weissert in Washington, Michelle L. Price in Las Vegas and Wilson Ring in Burlington, Vt., contributed to this report.

Liberal presidential hopefuls Sanders, Warren face 2020 showdown in New Hampshire

H/T Yahoo News.

It is a race to the bottom with Crazy Bernie Sanders and Princess Fauxcahontas.

HAMPTON FALLS, N.H. (Reuters) – The simmering rivalry between progressives Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, presidential contenders with similar policies but sharply different styles, is headed for a showdown in New Hampshire.

The state’s Feb. 11 Democratic primary election is likely to decide which of the two neighboring U.S. senators, Sanders from Vermont or Warren from Massachusetts, emerges as the top liberal challenger to establishment front-runner Joe Biden in the 2020 race to pick a nominee to take on Republican President Donald Trump.

The two progressives, who campaigned in New Hampshire over the Labor Day holiday weekend and will return again later this week, are increasing their staffing and visits in the New England state that holds the second nominating contest in the Democratic race.

Recent opinion polls show Sanders running second and the steadily rising Warren third behind Biden in New Hampshire, where they are known quantities to the state’s big bloc of liberal voters. Exit polls in 2016 found 68% of those who cast a ballot in the Democratic primary considered themselves very or somewhat liberal.

That makes New Hampshire, a traditional proving ground that can make or break presidential contenders, ground zero for the inevitable Sanders vs. Warren conflict.

“It will be a real challenge moving forward for the one who doesn’t win, or finishes behind the other. It will have a damaging effect,” said Jim Demers, co-chairman of Barack Obama’s 2008 New Hampshire campaign, who has endorsed U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey in the race.

In 2016, Sanders won 60% of the primary vote in beating Hillary Clinton in the state during an unsuccessful run for the White House.

Given his strong performance, Sanders faces more pressure and bigger expectations than Warren this time around, said Kathy Sullivan, a former chairwoman of the state party who has not backed a candidate.

“Bernie needs to win here,” she said. “It doesn’t mean it’s over if he doesn’t, but it’s going to be much harder for him.”

The two candidates share similarities in ideology and have promised not to criticize each other, but they showed plenty of stylistic differences during their weekend visits to New Hampshire.

At a town hall meeting and a rally on Sunday, Sanders soberly reminded crowds he was attacked during the 2016 campaign for his “radical” ideas such as Medicare for All, free public college tuition and a higher federal minimum wage, all issues that have now moved into the Democratic mainstream.

“These are no longer radical ideas,” said Sanders, whose speeches were almost devoid of personal references.

At an outdoor house party in Hampton Falls on Monday, Warren laced her talk with personal details and jokes, drawing a link between the financial uncertainty of her childhood in Oklahoma and the impact it had on her populist economic policies.

“That’s why I’m in this fight,” she said, before taking selfies with members of the crowd in a driving rain.

‘BERNIE BEATS TRUMP’

Both Sanders, 77, and Warren, 70, addressed one of the biggest voter concerns about their candidacies: their ability to win over enough moderate and independent voters to beat Trump in November 2020 and recapture the White House.

Sanders repeatedly touted polls showing him beating Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Ben Cohen, a Sanders supporter and co-founder of the Vermont ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s, led the crowd in a chant of “Bernie Beats Trump!”

Warren was asked in Hampton Falls about concerns over her electability.

“I think what is going to carry us as Democrats is not playing it safe,” she said. “You have got to give people a reason to show up and vote, and that’s what I’m doing.”

There are differences in the two senators’ appeal. Some polls show Sanders doing better among young people, lower-income earners and people without a college degree. Those without a degree were 40% of the Democratic electorate in the state in 2016.

Dean Merchant, a writer from Stratham, said he backed Sanders in 2016 but thought it was time for a woman in the White House. He is considering Warren, as well as U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California.

“I like Bernie, but he’s like Biden – he’s older now,” Merchant said. “At this stage I would like to see someone more vibrant, strong and forceful.”

Kevin Daley, an acupuncturist in Raymond, said he was backing Sanders but would be happy with Warren.

“She’s a brilliant person and she has been a good progressive. I just hope they don’t end up splitting the vote and we end up with Biden – that’s the danger,” said Daley.

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, said the campaign has about 50 paid staff in the state and will hire more. New Hampshire is an important step toward the nomination, he said, “but I don’t think there is any one state that will make or break this campaign.”

The Warren campaign has five field offices in New Hampshire, with a sixth opening this week. It did not provide a number of paid staff in the state. Biden has 45 paid staff here, said Terry Shumaker, a Biden supporter who co-chaired Bill Clinton’s state campaigns.

Sanders and Warren will both be back this weekend at the state Democratic convention. Warren has been in the state on 17 days since January, and Sanders on 12, according to a candidate tracker at the NBC10 television station in Boston.

New Hampshire has a history of being kind to its neighbors, particularly those from Massachusetts, with past winners from the state including Republican Mitt Romney and Democrats John Kerry, Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis.

Arnie Arnesen, a liberal radio host and former New Hampshire state legislator, said she was like many voters in the state who have not chosen a candidate yet.

“I’m not feeling pressured to make a choice,” she said. “It is going to be very close with Elizabeth and Bernie coming out of here. Why choose now?”

Sanders’ Campaign Demands Retraction of WaPo Fact Check on ‘Flawed’ Medical Bankruptcy Claim

H/T Western Journal.

It is funny to see Crazy Bernie Sanders and the Washington Post at war.

It’s not profoundly uncommon to hear someone challenge one of The Washington Post’s fact checks. It’s somewhat less common, given the newspaper’s leanings, to hear that challenge coming from the direction of Bernie Sanders — one of the top-tiered contenders in the crowded Democratic presidential field.

That should be a telling thing in and of itself. The fact check had to do with a critical claim in the Vermont socialist’s latest entry in the free stuff sweepstakes, a Saturday proposal to eliminate $81 billion in medical debt for Americans.

Reuters noted that Sanders “offered no details on how it would be financed,” which might have been a good thing to work out before this rolled out, but whatever. The plan would wipe out past-due medical debt that had been reported to credit agencies by having the government negotiate with the debt holder and pay the debt off.

The plan would also allow the discharge of current and future medical debt and change elements of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, according to Reuters.

The fact-check controversy, however, comes from this part of Sanders’ rhetoric:

“In the United States of America, your financial life and future should not be destroyed because you or a member of your family gets sick,” Sanders said, according to Reuters.

“That is unacceptable. I am sick and tired of seeing over 500,000 Americans declare bankruptcy each year because they cannot pay off the outrageous cost of a medical emergency or a hospital stay.”

According to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, that oft-repeated 500,000 number is misleading because it assumes a direct causality between medical debt and and the bankruptcies in question, however.

The Post examined the claim in a Wednesday article after Sanders made a similar statement on CNN. A Sanders aide told The Post the number came from an American Journal of Public Health editorial from March.

“That study, led by David U. Himmelstein, took a sample of bankruptcy court filings from 2013 to 2016, identified 3,200 bankrupt debtors and mailed them a survey. The response rate was 29.4 percent, with 910 responses and 108 surveys returned as undeliverable,” the fact check read.

“Debtors were asked whether medical expenses, or loss of work related to illness, contributed to their bankruptcies. Of those who responded, 66.5 percent said at least one of those factors contributed ‘somewhat’ or ‘very much.’”

The ambiguity of the study is what drew the attention of the fact-checkers.

“This study includes a range of people for whom medical expenses or illness contributed ‘somewhat’ to bankruptcy. What does ‘somewhat’ mean?” the fact-check reads.

“It’s broad enough to mean ‘slightly,’ ‘fairly’ or ‘moderately.’ Sanders’s claim works only by erasing this ambiguity and taking ‘somewhat’ to mean ‘mostly.’”

The Post awarded the claim “Three Pinocchios” (out of a possible four sentient, prevaricating wooden puppets) because it was “classic case of cherry-picking a number from a scientific study and twisting it to make a political point” and noted the critics of the figure have argued “the study he’s citing casts too wide a net because it counts anyone who mentioned medical bills or illness among their reasons for declaring bankruptcy, not just those who said it was the main reason or a big piece.”

The Sanders campaign wasn’t happy about this one.

“I am writing in regards to the Washington Post Fact Checker’s Aug. 28 analysis, headlined: ‘Sanders’s flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year,’” a senior adviser to the Sanders campaign wrote in response, according to the Washington Examiner. “We demand that the Post immediately issue a retraction and inform its readers of this decision.”

“The Post’s Fact Checker issued Senator Sanders ‘three pinocchios’ for accurately citing a peer-reviewed editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health,” the complaint continued. “The Post even notes that the author of the editorial confirmed that Senator Sanders had accurately cited his work.”

Mind you, this wasn’t actually what was in question. It’s also worth noting, as The Post did, that the study “did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.” However, the campaign said that the paper’s Fact Checker had a “much broader pattern of bias” against the Vermont socialist.

“We hope that you will address the Fact Checker’s inappropriate coverage of Senator Sanders — first by immediately retracting this most recent piece, and then by committing the newspaper to covering Senator Sanders in a fair, professional and ethical manner that finally starts honoring the most basic standards of accuracy,” the campaign stated.

It may not surprise you that the article hasn’t been retracted. What may surprise you, instead, is that there are a smattering of outlets who are willing to go along with Sanders in this.

At Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson essentially recapitulates the study’s findings and the fact that the author of the study backed Sanders up on his use of the 500,000 number for bankruptcies due to medical debt. At no point in the piece does Dickinson note that the “Three Pinocchios” didn’t really have to do with any of that but instead with the study itself being flawed.

Instead, Dickinson complains about the use of the Pinocchio as a benchmark (“What is it with the multiple Pinocchios? The Pinocchio didn’t self propagate when he lied — his nose grew”) and a claim that The Post was “splitting hairs.”

“To review: the Post fact checker, going straight to the source, a Harvard lecturer, found that Sanders’ was sticking to close to the facts, and if anything understating the problem,” Dickinson wrote. “So why didn’t the Post give Bernie a coveted ‘Geppetto Checkmark’ for truthfulness. (Yes, it’s really called this — you can’t make this s— up.) Who knows?!?

“The author spends the rest of the 1,600 word piece splitting hairs and then tying them into knots. He takes it upon himself to not simply fact check Sanders, but the medical journal that Sanders relied on. And it turns out that, if you dig down far enough, you can uncover a minor-league academic beef about bankruptcy statistics, with professors arguing about the extent to which one can say the contributing factor of medical debt is actually what ’caused’ the bankruptcy.”

I’ll say this much: I agree with Dickinson on the whole Pinocchio thing. The whole mechanic of why Pinocchio has become known as a symbol of mendacity is totally misrepresented in how the ratings system is devised, and Geppetto doesn’t really have anything to do with the absence of lying or Pinocchios. (In fact, as the creator of Pinocchio, he could be seen as the creator of lying in this metaphor, and — well, I really shouldn’t think too hard about this, since The Post clearly didn’t.)

As for the rest of Dickinson’s diatribe, the answer to his question would probably have presented itself if he, like, actually read those 1,600 words instead of just skimming them and reducing the heart of the argument into “a minor-league academic beef about bankruptcy statistics.”

At least Dickinson isn’t a campaign representative or anything, merely a member of the media acting as a surrogate. As for the Bernie campaign, I’m sure they’re perfectly fine with fact-checking most of the time, since (of course) neither they nor their ilk will usually experience it. Most of the articles will still be “We found 82,063,187 lies Mitch McConnell has told since the new Congress convened” variety.

But when they come under the microscope, they demand the paper in question start “covering Senator Sanders in a fair, professional and ethical manner that finally starts honoring the most basic standards of accuracy.”

They almost sound like conservatives.

Sanders: I Will ‘Rotate Judges’ Off Supreme Court To Combat ‘Terrible’ Conservative Majority

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Now you see why I call him Crazy Bernie Sanders.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can rotate Supreme Court Justices.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) promised to rotate judges off of the Supreme Court to combat a “terrible 5-4 conservative majority” during  the Democratic presidential debate on Thursday night.

“My plan is somebody who believes for a start that a woman’s right to control her own body is a constitutional right that government and politicians should not infringe on that right, we will everything we can to defend Roe v. Wade,” Sanders said when asked about his approach to the Supreme Court. “Second of all, let me make a promise here. You ask about litmus tests. My litmus test is I will never nominate any justice to the Supreme Court unless that justice is 100% clear he or she will defend Roe v. Wade.”

Sanders continued to reject the idea of court-packing, but proposed an alternative procedure for undermining the court’s authority and bringing “new blood” onto the court.

“Third of all, I do not believe in ‘packing the court,'” Sanders said. “We got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now But I do believe that constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts. And that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority, I hope, that will understand that a woman has the right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America.”