Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance. — NOS4A2

Your views on government are laughable.

Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. — NOS4A2

The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?

There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.

Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.

You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference. — Relativist

I have debates with friends of mine about exactly this. I certainly feel this way a lot, but the more rational part of me knows damn well that it's not just the people's fault. Many people can't locate the US on a world map or know that the Earth orbits the sun, etc. Terminology effects peoples opinions, too. In one poll, "Universal health coverage" and "medicare for all" had 63% "positive" reaction, while "single-payer health insurance" and "socialized medicine" had 49% and 46%, respectively.

The ignorance of our citizens is indeed astounding. But when millions are working multiple jobs with low wages, have families to take care of, feel completely (and justifiably) disenfranchised with the political process, with social supports weakening and the country becoming more afraid of one another and more polarized...how can you really blame them? Now add to this a very important piece: where they get their information. I don't expect Joe Sixpack to come home and read up on the latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or start a research project on income inequality. If he bothers with the news at all, it's probably local news (which is 95% garbage and 5% weather), or else one of the major information bubbles (like Fox News or Huffington Post, etc) or, unfortunately, social media and various Internet sites/blogs, etc. -- which is becoming more and more popular, as we all know. What do you expect to come out of all of this? An accurate and informed picture of the world?

In the introduction to "Manufacturing Consent," there's a quote from John Milton:

"Those who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."

I think that's absolutely true.

I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years. — NOS4A2

Like Bernie?

So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?

The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.

Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. — NOS4A2

They most certainly do. It's the reason you're even making the argument you're making.

This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team. — NOS4A2

Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.

Yes, it's called anti-politic. Anything wrong, blame the government. That's fine for the people to believe, as the corporate sector amasses more and more wealth and lobby for (and get) whatever they want. It distracts the public's attention and anger to the "Big Government."

Deregulation, privatization, cutting corporate taxes, etc., -- yeah, all fine for big business. To say this serves the peoples' interests is a complete joke, with zero evidence.

You look at states, for example, that went overwhelmingly for Trump. You look at the demographics and the problems they face. Then you look at Trump's policies and how they impact those states. The answer becomes clear.

Trump has screwed the working class in every way possible. It's a joke.

There's good research on this general phenomenon as well. Hochschild published an entire book in '16 about this phenomenon, actually. I'll link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937

Excellent point. And let's not even start on Eisenhower.

Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.

Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.

Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.

So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 people voted for Trump.

(Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity). — Pfhorrest

This is very often forgotten, but shouldn't be.

Polling DOES suggest, though, that the country is fairly split on Trump. His approval rating has been around 42%, recently up to 49%. A lot of key swing states are still basically 50/50 on the next election. It boggles my mind, but that's what the numbers show.

I'm of the opinion that the truly dyed-in-the-wool Trump people are certainly in a minority, maybe 30-35% or so. But they're extremely vocal. They're the ones with the bumper stickers and Trump flags and MAGA hats.

Driving in Manchester NH this past Monday, outside the Trump rally, I got a decent look at the (large) crowd waiting in line outside. A lot of grey goatees, a lot of white hair, and almost all white folks. Now, we have a lot of hicks in NH, so I'm familiar with them -- and it looked very similar to a Loudon (Nascar) or Deerfield Fair crowd. Obviously this is stereotyping, but it's more true than not.

My point being this: these are the people who make their presence known -- they vote, they pick fights on the internet, they try to win by being the loudest and the most intimidating, etc. But they're still the minority, and becoming more so as demographics change. This is partly what energizes them. But they're the minority notwithstanding. I think we're seeing the last gasps of lot of old thinking. And Bernie, ironically, represents the new direction, whether now or ten years from now. The sad thing is, it may already be too late in terms of damage to the environment and to the courts. Especially if he (or the democrats generally) don't win in November.

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. — Hanover

No, objective research shows that what Americans want, right or left, gets ignored.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own.

Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist. — Hanover

Great analysis. Why does the Trump crowd so often sound like adolescents?

Also, try looking up what "reactionary" means. You've continually used it wrong.

No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA. — Benkei

Absolutely right, and there's very good research about this. Take a look at Tom Ferguson's work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. — Benkei

Despite the Republican establishment trying to tear Trump down, he used his existing notoriety, outlandish behavior and free media coverage to push through. He's also a very skilled politician, knowing exactly what played well to crowds and what to repeat. His voting coalition is gun enthusiasts, evangelicals, pro-lifers, white nationalists, xenophobes, and the uneducated. He throws them bones once in a while to keep them happy, and it's working -- 95% approval rating in the party. The Republicans having consequently kowtowed to him.

But you're right -- he plays to the worst aspects of the right. But why is the "right" so insane these days? Look to the financial crisis and the election of Obama. What came out of that? The Tea Party -- anti-establishment, feeling like their country is being taken from them, etc. Years of Fox News and conversation radio propaganda stirring their worst impulses, and suddenly you have a "movement" of voters reacting to things in their own way. The result was Trump.

Meanwhile, look at the Occupy Movement. For those who remember, this was a very big deal, drawing massive crowds and a lot of publicity. The the slogan of "We are the 99%" has stayed around, as has a lot of the imagery that developed within it, all despite critics saying it wasn't leading anywhere. It's led to Bernie. The difference between him and Trump is that the Democratic establishment in 2016 was able to beat Bernie back, as the Republicans did in 2012 with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

And here we are. There was a good article today in the NYT about how Bernie has already won, in the sense that he's transformed the party. I agree with that. Whether he gets elected is hard to tell, given he has no support by the establishment and democratic voters seem much less interested in the (necessary) solidarity needed to prevail. Still, one can hope. It would be very good for the country right now.

Who really thinks that a "democratic socialist" can command enough votes? I'm a socialist, but most people are not, and I just don't see a DSA candidate winning. — Bitter Crank

The term "socialism" is almost devoid of meaning these days. Look at the proposals. All of them have majority support. He has the enthusiasm and the young voters. If he's the nominee, more people will hear the message, and it's precisely that which accounts for his popularity: the message. Let him promise the world -- GOOD. The question of how you're going to pay for it has been answered: tax the wealthy. But people don't really care about that. Trump got elected by saying Mexico was going to pay for a wall, did the voters really care? No. The Republicans were screaming for years about the debt, and now they've run it up. No one seems to care. The level of ignorance of our electorate is stunning.

There are plenty of people "on the fence" with the same level of thinking. They LIKE the idea of student loan debt forgiveness, free public universities, free healthcare, doing something about climate change, etc. Keep hammering home that message, and it doesn't matter if Bernie is an old, cranky, white, Jewish socialist. We already have the numbers in this country, we just need to come together and organize in solidarity. Defeat Trump, and don't worry so much about the rest.

I agree of course, which is why I'm voting for anyone who gets the nomination. I also think Bernie stacks up very well with Trump. According to the polls, only Biden does better in some of the key states...but Bernie isn't far behind. So if there's no clear "guarantee" then let's go with the candidate with the enthusiasm behind them? If Trump could do it in 2016, the democrats can do it in 2020.

I think the answer is organization and solidarity on the left. They already have the numbers. I've spoken to some Bernie-or-bust people and Never-Bernie people, and both groups boggle my mind. We need to come together after someone is nominated.

I've seen most of these. I don't buy Virginia and Penn especially, too early and all indications for Virginia is that it's basically blue now. Pennsylvania is trickier -- maybe it's purple now, maybe not. I don't know what poll is showing Trump beating everyone there, but from what I saw last time I checked Biden has the edge.

Regardless, even with these polls it's still pretty close. We tried running the "guaranteed" nominee in 2016 and narrowly failed. Let's do something different this time -- no more establishment, no more vague promises and wishy-washy stances. If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. But if they ARE...watch out, because that changes politics completely. Sanders has already reshaped the Democratic party, and for the better. Trump didn't reshape the Republican party -- they're still the party of corporations -- but he DID get them all to kiss his ass. If he could get elected without the establishment helping, so can Sanders -- who people actually like and who has popular New Deal-style ideas.

Well fine, but with enough people like you it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You must see that.

Yes, here in NH.

No, I won't be traveling to NC unfortunately. If I could I would.

Bernie getting the nomination is the only hope the Democrats ever really had for beating Trump. Winning elections is not about convincing people to change their minds -- that almost never works -- but about exciting people enough to actually go out and vote. The left half of America have been sorely disappointed with the Democratic party for a long time, and Bernie's loss in 2016 encouraged a bunch of them to vote 3rd party (which is fine in some cases, problematic in others), stay home, or worse, "burn it all down" and vote Trump in protest (which... what, I don't fucking understand that). Mainstream party-line Democrats will still vote for Bernie anyway, mainstream Republicans won't no matter what, there are apparently those wtf voters who prefer Bernie over Trump but Trump over anyone else, and most importantly, the many discouraged progressive youths will actually get excited enough to show up on election day. — Pfhorrest

Exactly right.

And I'm sorry, I will not believe that Bernie Sanders will ever become president until I see it. The American political system will never let that happen, not in a million years. If I do see it I'll gladly eat my words. — Wayfarer

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular.

Your "gut" is truly irrelevant. Spread your apathy and hopelessness elsewhere -- those of us that still fight will do everything we can to get Sanders nominated and elected. Feel free to sit there and say how none of it can be done -- you have plenty of company.

The blindness? There's corruption everywhere. If you truly believe Trump is interested in investigating corruption, you're completely blind. He was looking for dirt on an opponent. Period.

Is Hunter Biden corrupt? I'm sure of it. But that wasn't my point. See the blindness.

Investigating corruption. What a joke. Suddenly Trump, the most corrupt in history, is interested in corruption? Please.

Yeah, everyone buys that you're the judge and jury while quoting a book of superstition from savage ages.

Easy to ignore.

I mentioned him. Looks like he'll win. Good for him. Seems like a decent guy and campaigned hard. It was very close and not all the results are in but if he wins he wins.

You misinterpret this how?

Yes, as I just mentioned. So you WEREN'T saying the phrase was taken from Warren? Just that it was a favorite phrase of hers. Fine. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was at all relevant to the discussion. Who cares what Warren said? What does it have to do with Trump?

Either clarify what you meant or move on. I'm bored.

Nate Silver's model expected Biden to do poorly in Iowa, but well nationally, like the polls. — Pfhorrest

I'll say it again: the Iowa polls showed Biden doing well.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

I don't know who was saying Biden wouldn't do well in Iowa. Look at the polls -- he was either leading or in second place for most of them. Looks like he'll finish 4th or so. Regardless of how it plays, that alone tells you something.

Bloomberg might "rescue" them? No thanks. I'll stick with Bernie -- he's actually saving the party, despite the propaganda.

Does anyone know when they next plan to release the rest of the results?

I don't think so. Once the full results come in, it'll get out there how poorly he did. The media may downplay it. The fuck-up only helps Biden for a couple of days tops, in my view.

I'm surprised by how poorly Biden is do, given all the polling. Not even third place (so far). I hope that's a little "fuck you" to the DNC and the media.

I think there's definitely a bias against Bernie, beyond question. But the way they have (and continue) to screw him has been "subtle" in the media, or at least more so than rigging election results. The superdelegate rule, remember, was changed because of Bernie. We can't have it both ways. But your point is taken regardless. Playing Devil's advocate a bit today.

God bless our straightforward and democratic elections.

OK...but why don't the delegates line up with the votes?

Wall Street Journal: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
NY Times: Sanders 26.3% and in the lead.
Washington Post: Buttigieg 26.9% and in the lead.

All with 62% of precincts reporting.

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but boy is it irritating.

Let's not buy into conspiracy theories without a lot of evidence to support such claims.

As silly as it is that Iowa is the first state to caucus, and that they can't seem to pull off the ONE thing they should have made fool-proof, making unsubstantiated, from-the-gut conspiratorial accusations makes us look like the Trump crowd.

What's deemed "illness" or "disorder" in psychology isn't well defined, nor is "abnormal." It's not pinned on one thing. Of course anything considered to be causing suffering or impeding well-being in some way usually deviates from a statistical mean -- but so what?

I don't see your point here.

Yeah, you did:

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't.
— creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system."
— Xtrix

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

I don't know how this can be interpreted in any other way given the context, short of you irrelevantly pointing out that Warren also used the phrase -- but I don't know why you would do that. Or, perhaps, you're truly unsure that Bernie used that phrase during the '16 election? If that's the case, fine -- but then it kind of undermines your credibility, despite your general thesis being an accurate one.

She need not be a candidate in the 2016 election to have repeatedly claimed that "the system is rigged" years before.

It could be that both use(d) the phrase...

Warren did a lot of research work into the financial disaster of 2008 and it included her famously saying that the system was rigged as a result of her findings... That was all long before 2016 my friend. — creativesoul

There were many people using that phrase. I've been using it for 20 years. It's irrelevant. I doubt Donald Trump was listening to Warren. We're talking about the 2016 election. When Bernie generated massive crowds and enthusiasm, Trump noticed and took some of his rhetoric. That's fairly obvious.

You can continue to claim it was taken from Warren, but it's borderline ridiculous.

Bernie discusses several different aspects of the system that could be called "rigged" including, but not limited to, taxes, health insurance, financial/banking legislation, trade deals, anti-trust laws, etc. — creativesoul

True, but he particularly uses the term regarding the economy.

Actually, I think that was Warren's phrase of choice. — creativesoul

Warren wasn't running in '16. Bernie was talking -- and continues to talk -- about a rigged economy for the wealthy. Trump appropriated the "rigged" shortly thereafter.

How hard is it to direct a caucus?

Maybe this stupidity will be the death knell for Iowa, a state with no reason for being the first.

Touche.

An astute observer will have noted how Trump picked up some of Bernie's talking points after Hillary received the nomination in 2016. The only reason he could, is because she couldn't. — creativesoul

This is an important point. Especially things like "rigged system." Trump wanted to appear to be an outsider running against the establishment, and saw the excitement of the Bernie crowd. He also said over and over how badly Bernie was being screwed. Since it was a rare moment of telling the truth, you have to question the motives -- in this case, it was to sow discord in the Democratic party. He even encouraged Bernie to run as an independent, if you recall. I think we all know why that was.