Progressives (Liberals)

My sentiment exactly, c i.

Only Bernie and da Shadow knows.

What's important: There’s a refrain we hear about political campaigns every election cycle: "this year, campaigns waged an unprecedented ground game, having a face-to-face conversation with almost every single voter."

Baloney. As academics who study campaigns, we hear this claim all the time. But we also know it’s important to investigate whether data backs it up. We did. And it doesn’t. In fact, there’s a paradox at the heart of American campaign craft. Mountains of rigorous research show that campaigns should be having personal conversations with voters at their doors. But, campaigns spend almost all their money on TV ads — and, every year, most voters say they’ve never had a conversation about the election at their door. What gives?

I can think of one good reason to wait.
If I felt a sense of duty to the progressive movement that I gave voice to—but my family was hurt during my first campaign-and I knew a person who reasonably closely espoused my views who was already in the race, I’d hope she’d be successful enough to win, so I wouldn’t have to endure the same **** again.

If she doesn’t catch on, I’d come in to give a voice to progressives.

If it were me, I would have remained in campaign mode through the whole of Trump's time in office and would file at the earliest opportunity. Of course there are times to be quiescent and then times to push hard and it's hard to know when to do what.

You evidently have a higher opinion than I of the academic plodders who do this kind of after the fact "research". Most of it is highly selective and self serving with respect to questions asked and sources sought. Life moves on, conditions change, and candidates must deal with evolving and highly unpredictable situations, the complexity of which dwarfs the relatively narrow and bounded topics of this "research".

What might those "unpredictable situations and complexities be?" Research is never 100%, but that's the only tool we have in today's world. Even polls are revised, and they don't predict the outcome 100% of the time. Having studied Statistics in college, I believe that's the best we have until there's a way to poll 100% of the voters, and that's not practical.

For one thing, the actions other potential candidate take or don't take

https://www.ozy.com/2016/the-contenders-why-latecomers-dont-win-the-presidency/68656. THE CONTENDERS: WHY LATECOMERS DON’T WIN THE PRESIDENCY
By Sean Braswell

Have you "herd" him?

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexual-harassment-sexism/
LAST WEEK, MY experience, and that of some of my female co-workers, became the focus of a New York Times story on the sexual harassment and sexism that took place in the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign. I told my story to bring attention to the sexist environment that is unfortunately endemic to most workspaces, including political campaigns. However, I was disheartened to discover that the takeaway by many pundits was not that sexism and harassment is pervasive, but that Sanders was somehow uniquely culpable. I was also struck by some of the messages and tweets calling into question the character of the women who spoke out.

As was the case throughout the 2016 campaign season, my personal experiences as a woman of color were sublimated to serve an establishment media narrative that pretends the progressive movement is all white, all male, and runs counter to the interests of women and people of color.

But my story should not be taken to confirm the “Bernie bro” mythology. It should be taken to confirm the pervasiveness of sexism in professional life and distill the hard truths that all campaigns should learn from.

It’s not as if the Sanders campaign alone is nursing the last vestiges of sexism and sexual harassment in the political sphere. Both were reportedly features of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. During her first run at the White House, Clinton’s campaign chose to retain a senior adviser who reportedly harassed a young woman repeatedly rather than fire him. And just last month, an aide for Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., resigned after it was reported that he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $400,000.

Politics reflect society’s general problem with sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.
Politics reflect society’s general problem with sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. As a whole, our country does not believe, respect, or even like women as much as men. Our president has bragged about sexually assaulting women and made countless demeaning comments about their physical appearances. Two out of 9 Supreme Court justices have been accused of sexual misconduct. One in 3 women have experienced some form sexual violence. A nonprofit administered an online survey last January and found that 81 percent of women have experienced some form of sexual harassment. The numbers and stakes are even higher for women of color and transgender women.

It’s not surprising, then, that these systemic problems infect political campaigns — especially since those calling the shots are mostly male, white, and disconnected from the working class. In my experience, women hired as strategists or managers are frequently treated like assistants and translators. Men often pass off our ideas as their own and “put us in our place” if we are too assertive.

It’s the classic double-bind: We are not smart enough or too smart; not attractive enough or too attractive; not dressed appropriately or dressed too nicely; not poor enough or too poor; not confident enough or too arrogant; not likable or too female. To be a woman in politics is to be held to an unattainable standard of perfection. To be a woman of color is even harder. When we see women like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez overcome the odds against her, set these expectations on fire, and score impressive accomplishments like getting the media and Democratic leadership to take a Green New Deal seriously, we should rejoice. But even she’s not immune.

AFTER THE NEW York Times story, I was hoping to see a more productive discussion about the insidiousness of sexual harassment and sexism in politics. In sharing my experiences, I was hoping to highlight this issue for all future campaigns and celebrate the power of women organizers who worked together and successfully got the attention of Sanders and his team. But that’s not what happened.

For one, the corporate media unfairly focused on Sanders — casting the harassment that happened within his campaign much differently than similar cases with other campaigns — implicating his personal ethics in a way that they’ve declined to do with other politicians.

Sanders recently apologized and acknowledged that his 2016 campaign could have handled sexual harassment and sexism claims better, and in his 2018 re-election campaign, he reportedly instituted sharper protocols like better hiring, training, and designating an independent firm that staff could utilize to report sexism and harassment. But new allegations of sexual harassment in his 2016 campaign have since surfaced, indicating the depth of the problem was likely deeper than most knew. Now, Sanders should take the rare step of setting up an independent investigation into the 2016 allegations.

Join Our Newsletter
Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.
I’m in
At the same time, I was deeply disappointed by the feedback I received from some on the left. Both myself and other women who spoke on the record about our experiences on Sanders’s campaign received messages and tweets from Sanders supporters accusing us of lying and wanting to purposefully attack the Vermont senator. I was told to “enjoy my 15 minutes of fame” and was mocked while the sexual harassment I endured was normalized. Neoliberals and corporate media are unfair to Sanders and his supporters because our movement threatens their supremacy. But to dismiss our claims as mere bias is at best disingenuous and at worst cruel.

By blindly attacking anyone who raises valid concerns about sexism because it’s “not a good look” for the senator, they are actually making him look worse. Ironically, in their defense of Sanders’s campaign, these individuals are behaving as if acknowledging the presence of sexism and sexual harassment in his campaign is akin to calling Sanders a sexist — the implication that the establishment media seems keen to draw.

Accusations of sexual misconduct during a political campaign should not be weaponized to serve a political agenda. Nor should claims be ignored to protect a beloved candidate — doing so only adds to the cycle of shame and punishment that makes sexism so hard to tackle.

Sexism will persist if women are discouraged from openly talking about our experiences. I sincerely hope that neither fear of political exploitation nor personal attacks discourage other women from speaking out against sexism or any abuse they’ve suffered.

What you and the unnamed "researchers" believe campaigns "should" be evidently fails to persuade those who do the actual campaigning. You might ask yourself why that remains so. In a competitive free economy and society effective goods and ideas tend naturally to dominate.

In the first place such door to door campaigns would be impossibly expensive, and, equally, very hard to control, unless, of course, the political body doing it exercised complete control over its members. That would require a very undemocratic political organization that would quickly reveal its character to those it attempts to persuade. Such authoritarian organizations usually fail of their own internal contradictions. More to the point, they would quickly alarm the electorate they would be attempting to persuade and would fasil as a result.

Gallifreyan Jedi
‏

@JediofGallifrey
3h3 hours ago
More Gallifreyan Jedi Retweeted Jennifer
I knew they'd figure out how to make it sexist to support @AOCGallifreyan Jedi added,
Jennifer

@leftyjennyc
It’s offensive the MSM makes us pay attention to AOC. She’s a junior rep frm a wildly blue area she won in a low turnout race. Sharice, Danica, Kyrsten are far more interesting but theyre not perceived as “fuckable.” I am so sick of men’s penises deciding whom we should discuss.

Bernie Sanders
@SenSanders
·
13h
Why do Americans pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world?

Why are there no restrictions on what a drug company can charge?

The answer is simple: other than Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful political force in the country.
———————————
Brother Bernie, telling it like it is. We will vote for NO CANDIDATE who takes Big Pharma money. Period.

Actually the reason is because the rest of the world is not paying their fair share of the R&D costs for new medicines.

American consumers fund the R&D for all of the rest of the world.

They can call it whatever they want, but I call bullshit on that noise. Don’t let them sell you that ****.

People are dying because they can’t afford a pill they have to take every day to keep them alive. Diabetes is ravaging our country—becoming a common illness because of bullshit poison *Monsanto is allowed to spray in our food, and the cost of life-saving diabetes medicine is over $1000. a month! This is only one example.

**** that R & D noise. There’s NO EXCUSE for costs like that! It’s nothing but unregulated greed. It’s time for the American people to join a class action suit against every Pharma big wig who raises these prices and every lawmaker who takes their money and codifies this mass murder into law—and go for the death penalty. I don’t know how these people are still walking around. Our government, Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry are completely unaccountable and complicit in the failing health and unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans. It is time they were held accountable. A reckoning is coming.

(*in addition to pesticides, our agencies allow cattle and chickens to be injected with hormones and other bullshit that get into our bloodstreams and severely alter our nation’s health. All of the agencies that are supposed to protect us are on the take and allowing corporations to do what is best for their profits—and to hell with consumers. Our lawmakers alter laws to make it possible. Everybody is enjoying a lovely moneytrain—and we’re all dying.)

Research and development doesn't happen for free. Where do you think they get the money to pay for it?

Diabetes facts
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes

The number of people with diabetes has risen from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014.
The global prevalence of diabetes* among adults over 18 years of age has risen from 4.7% in 1980 to 8.5% in 2014 (1).
Diabetes prevalence has been rising more rapidly in middle- and low-income countries.
Diabetes is a major cause of blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, stroke and lower limb amputation.
In 2016, an estimated 1.6 million deaths were directly caused by diabetes. Another 2.2 million deaths were attributable to high blood glucose in 2012**.
Almost half of all deaths attributable to high blood glucose occur before the age of 70 years. WHO estimates that diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death in 2016.
Healthy diet, regular physical activity, maintaining a normal body weight and avoiding tobacco use are ways to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes.
Diabetes can be treated and its consequences avoided or delayed with diet, physical activity, medication and regular screening and treatment for complications.
What is diabetes?

Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs either when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone that regulates blood sugar. Hyperglycaemia, or raised blood sugar, is a common effect of uncontrolled diabetes and over time leads to serious damage to many of the body's systems, especially the nerves and blood vessels.

In 2014, 8.5% of adults aged 18 years and older had diabetes. In 2016, diabetes was the direct cause of 1.6 million deaths and in 2012 high blood glucose was the cause of another 2.2 million deaths.

Type 1 diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (previously known as insulin-dependent, juvenile or childhood-onset) is characterized by deficient insulin production and requires daily administration of insulin. The cause of type 1 diabetes is not known and it is not preventable with current knowledge.

Symptoms include excessive excretion of urine (polyuria), thirst (polydipsia), constant hunger, weight loss, vision changes, and fatigue. These symptoms may occur suddenly.

Type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (formerly called non-insulin-dependent, or adult-onset) results from the body’s ineffective use of insulin. Type 2 diabetes comprises the majority of people with diabetes around the world, and is largely the result of excess body weight and physical inactivity.

Symptoms may be similar to those of type 1 diabetes, but are often less marked. As a result, the disease may be diagnosed several years after onset, once complications have already arisen.

Until recently, this type of diabetes was seen only in adults but it is now also occurring increasingly frequently in children.

Gestational diabetes

Gestational diabetes is hyperglycaemia with blood glucose values above normal but below those diagnostic of diabetes, occurring during pregnancy.

Women with gestational diabetes are at an increased risk of complications during pregnancy and at delivery. They and their children are also at increased risk of type 2 diabetes in the future.

Gestational diabetes is diagnosed through prenatal screening, rather than through reported symptoms.

Impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) are intermediate conditions in the transition between normality and diabetes. People with IGT or IFG are at high risk of progressing to type 2 diabetes, although this is not inevitable.

What are common consequences of diabetes?

Over time, diabetes can damage the heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys, and nerves.

Adults with diabetes have a two- to three-fold increased risk of heart attacks and strokes (1).
Combined with reduced blood flow, neuropathy (nerve damage) in the feet increases the chance of foot ulcers, infection and eventual need for limb amputation.
Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of blindness, and occurs as a result of long-term accumulated damage to the small blood vessels in the retina. 2.6% of global blindness can be attributed to diabetes (2).
Diabetes is among the leading causes of kidney failure (3).
How can the burden of diabetes be reduced?

Prevention

Simple lifestyle measures have been shown to be effective in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes. To help prevent type 2 diabetes and its complications, people should:

achieve and maintain healthy body weight;
be physically active – at least 30 minutes of regular, moderate-intensity activity on most days. More activity is required for weight control;
eat a healthy diet, avoiding sugar and saturated fats intake; and
avoid tobacco use – smoking increases the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
Diagnosis and treatment

Early diagnosis can be accomplished through relatively inexpensive testing of blood sugar.

Treatment of diabetes involves diet and physical activity along with lowering blood glucose and the levels of other known risk factors that damage blood vessels. Tobacco use cessation is also important to avoid complications.

Interventions that are both cost-saving and feasible in developing countries include:

blood glucose control, particularly in type 1 diabetes. People with type 1 diabetes require insulin, people with type 2 diabetes can be treated with oral medication, but may also require insulin;
blood pressure control; and
foot care.
Other cost saving interventions include:

screening and treatment for retinopathy (which causes blindness)
blood lipid control (to regulate cholesterol levels)
screening for early signs of diabetes-related kidney disease and treatment.
———————
For people who can’t afford decent healthcare (substandard healthcare won’t be good enough), a diabetes diagnosis is a death sentence. I’m beginning to think that’s the plan. Survival of the richest... it’s more and more like a genocide.

Poison them and make healthcare inaccessible.

Bernie and Ro to the rescue!!!

Confronting Pharma Greed That Is 'Literally Killing People,' Sanders and Khanna Unveil Bills to Lower Drug Prices

"How many people need to die, how many people need to get unnecessarily sicker before Congress is prepared to take on the greed of the prescription drug industry?"

byJake Johnson, staff writer
22 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and several other Democratic lawmakers in introducing the legislation on Thursday.

Confronting the rampant and deadly greed of the pharmaceutical industry, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and several other Democratic lawmakers on Thursday to introduce a package of legislation aimed at dramatically reducing the nation's sky-high prescription drug prices.

"The United States pays by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders declared in a statement. "This has created a healthcare crisis in which one in five American adults cannot afford to get the medicine they need."

"If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them," the Vermont senator added.

The Democratic lawmakers unveiled their legislation at a press conference in Washington, D.C. Watch:



"I believe that healthcare is a basic human right," Omar said during the press conference. "Instead of taking donations from the pharmaceutical industry, we need to hold them accountable for taking advantage of the American people. Medications are too expensive, and we must act boldly to lower prices."

According to a preview provided to ABC News on Wednesday, the legislative package introduced on Thursday includes:

The Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, which would "peg the price of prescription drugs in the United States to the median price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan";
The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act, to "direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D"; and
The Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act, which to "allow Americans to import safe, low-cost medicine from Canada and other major countries."
"How many people need to die, how many people need to get unnecessarily sicker before Congress is prepared to take on the greed of the prescription drug industry?" Sanders asked on Twitter.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/10/confronting-pharma-greed-literally-killing-people-sanders-and-khanna-unveil-bills?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

David Hildebrand 🌹
@David4Progress
·
17h
Perfect NeoLiberal analogy!

Buy a rich woman 25,000 roses, while she denies Healthcare for everyone.

Neolibs: "What a beautiful gesture."

Progressives: "People are literally starving and living in the streets right outside!!!"

#MedicareForAll #PublicHousing
—————————
An example of the vastly different mindsets of neoliberals and progressives. Who would buy a rich woman in ‘public serice’ 7000 flowers while children don’t have a coat at the bus stop in the morning? Food for breakfast? A bed to sleep in?

And she says they can go to the doctor, as well.

Disgusting.