Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[acbytesla]

I believe the number of Sanders supporters who will abstain from voting will be quite small, much smaller than the number of Sanders supporters who will vote, however reluctantly, for Clinton. Clinton's own supporters will still vote for her, presumably.

However, my concern is that Trump votes will outweigh the Clinton votes, even if 100% of the former Sanders supporters vote for Clinton.

That always concerns me. It's way too early to feel confident. I'm still amazed that the Republicans nominated that dIrect offspring of an Orangutan. I know we share a common heritage with apes I just didn't think that some of are that closely related.

I think if the turnout is high Trump will get an epic beat down. But if for whatever reason it's low it could be a tossup. Time will tell.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

However, my concern is that Trump votes will outweigh the Clinton votes, even if 100% of the former Sanders supporters vote for Clinton.

So little faith in the collective mind of the voting public.

Yes there are a bunch of [not sure what to call them] people who are stupid enough to vote for Trump. And the collective mind of the voters didn't pay enough attention to Bush starting a needless war in the 2004 election.

But Trump is truly incompetent and crazy. I can't see it, especially after the Clinton campaign has a chance to get that message out. Trump is going to lose by a landslide.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let me point out another reality.

I was sure Sanders would lose because he represents much to big of a change. People don't like that big of a change.

The same will happen with Trump. The majority will almost always reject major change.

The fact both of these candidates, Sanders and Trump, attracted a significant proportion of one party in the respective primaries which represent only a fraction of general election voters, does not mean the same thing will happen in the general.

Most people reject radical change most of the time.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

On the note of rejecting radical change there is an interesting result in the mathematics of elections called the median voter theorem, which states that under certain circumstances the candidates in an election will be just barely different from each other and cater to the median voter. As with any rational choice-based approach to social science, whether these assumptions are tenable is of course up for debate but it seems fitting for the upcoming presidential election given that HRC is obviously not a liberal and Trump is very likely not as right-wing as he (very inconsistently) lets on.

Reasoning counterfactually, it's not a stretch to think these two possible presidencies would in fact end up very similar, especially with the mediating factors of the Congress and the Supreme Court.

 

[acbytesla]

On the note of rejecting radical change there is an interesting result in the mathematics of elections called the median voter theorem, which states that under certain circumstances the candidates in an election will be just barely different from each other and cater to the median voter. As with any rational choice-based approach to social science, whether these assumptions are tenable is of course up for debate but it seems fitting for the upcoming presidential election given that HRC is obviously not a liberal and Trump is very likely not as right-wing as he (very inconsistently) lets on.

Reasoning counterfactually, it's not a stretch to think these two possible presidencies would in fact end up very similar, especially with the mediating factors of the Congress and the Supreme Court.

I think it is impossible to predict what a Trump Presidency would be like. His rhetoric and temperament are not good.
In theory the President is considered the weakest of the three branches except the President is most responsible for foreign policy and according to the War powers Act the President can make war without Congress for 90 days. Just as I wouldn't put a loaded gun in the hands of a 3 year old, I'm not enthusiastic making this nutjob Commander in Chief.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Let me point out another reality.

I was sure Sanders would lose because he represents much to big of a change. People don't like that big of a change.
The same will happen with Trump. The majority will almost always reject major change.

The fact both of these candidates, Sanders and Trump, attracted a significant proportion of one party in the respective primaries which represent only a fraction of general election voters, does not mean the same thing will happen in the general.

Most people reject radical change most of the time.

Maybe it's my own smugness in thinking that I'm so liberal and cool and stuff that people couldn't possibly be ready for such big moves, but I actually fell victim to this in '08. I was truly afraid that the repressive and reactionary vote would be sufficient to beat Obama.

Having been fooled once, and living up to my nom de plume, I approached this year from the angle that I knew Sanders was much closer to my own thinking and thus not likely electable, BUT that if he actually gained sufficient support to win the nomination, I'd consider that as a signal that maybe America had progressed[more like reverted] to the point that they were throwing off the I've Got Mine So **** You mentality of the last three decades and I was prepared to continue the fight to stomp the GOP but behind Bernie's banner if at all possible.

It isn't happening. The side battles are a distraction.

 

[Fudbucker]

On the note of rejecting radical change there is an interesting result in the mathematics of elections called the median voter theorem, which states that under certain circumstances the candidates in an election will be just barely different from each other and cater to the median voter. As with any rational choice-based approach to social science, whether these assumptions are tenable is of course up for debate but it seems fitting for the upcoming presidential election given that HRC is obviously not a liberal and Trump is very likely not as right-wing as he (very inconsistently) lets on.

Reasoning counterfactually, it's not a stretch to think these two possible presidencies would in fact end up very similar, especially with the mediating factors of the Congress and the Supreme Court.

Hillary's SCOTUS picks will be liberal judges. Guaranteed, 100%. Trump's picks will most likely be an attempt to throw "red meat" to the base. Picture a lot of Scaliest-type picks

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe it's my own smugness in thinking that I'm so liberal and cool and stuff that people couldn't possibly be ready for such big moves, but I actually fell victim to this in '08. I was truly afraid that the repressive and reactionary vote would be sufficient to beat Obama.

Having been fooled once, and living up to my nom de plume, I approached this year from the angle that I knew Sanders was much closer to my own thinking and thus not likely electable, BUT that if he actually gained sufficient support to win the nomination, I'd consider that as a signal that maybe America had progressed[more like reverted] to the point that they were throwing off the I've Got Mine So **** You mentality of the last three decades and I was prepared to continue the fight to stomp the GOP but behind Bernie's banner if at all possible.

It isn't happening. The side battles are a distraction.

Obama did not represent big change as I define it. Do you think he did? Obama was not much different from Clinton. And the Democrats are not that much different from the Pubbies in the way I am talking about.

Sanders, OTOH, was talking outright socialism. Something you or I would be fine with. But the society as a whole? That's a bigger step than just the shift from a Democratic POTUS to a Republican one.

By the same token, Trump is not POTUS material any more than the country is leaning toward socialism.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe it's my own smugness in thinking that I'm so liberal and cool and stuff that people couldn't possibly be ready for such big moves, but I actually fell victim to this in '08. I was truly afraid that the repressive and reactionary vote would be sufficient to beat Obama.

Having been fooled once, and living up to my nom de plume, I approached this year from the angle that I knew Sanders was much closer to my own thinking and thus not likely electable, BUT that if he actually gained sufficient support to win the nomination, I'd consider that as a signal that maybe America had progressed[more like reverted] to the point that they were throwing off the I've Got Mine So **** You mentality of the last three decades and I was prepared to continue the fight to stomp the GOP but behind Bernie's banner if at all possible.

It isn't happening. The side battles are a distraction.

Bernie comes closer to my values than Hillary, but only by a little. But I believe that Hillary will be more effective bringing about change than Bernie. They voted the same 94 percent of the time they were in Congress and despite the Hillary hate, (most is manufactured nonsense...a show for their constituency) Hillary is liked by the Republican leadership.

I know people are cynical about politics, but I'm a realist. Hillary is not going to accomplish all that Bernie would have liked to have accomplished and campaigned to do. BUT neither would have Bernie. Chances are his legislative proposals would be Dead on Arrival.

Granted, this is impossible to say for sure, but anyone who has witnessed the gridlock in Congress knows that large changes face a high hurdle.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Obama did not represent big change as I define it. Do you think he did? Obama was not much different from Clinton. And the Democrats are not that much different from the Pubbies in the way I am talking about.

Sanders, OTOH, was talking outright socialism. Something you or I would be fine with. But the society as a whole? That's a bigger step than just the shift from a Democratic POTUS to a Republican one.

By the same token, Trump is not POTUS material any more than the country is leaning toward socialism.

I was thinking of that other recalcitrant side of the electorate.... e.g. that America wasn't ready to elect a black man as President.

 

[acbytesla]

Obama did not represent big change as I define it. Do you think he did? Obama was not much different from Clinton. And the Democrats are not that much different from the Pubbies in the way I am talking about.

Sanders, OTOH, was talking outright socialism. Something you or I would be fine with. But the society as a whole? That's a bigger step than just the shift from a Democratic POTUS to a Republican one.

By the same token, Trump is not POTUS material any more than the country is leaning toward socialism.

Trump's attitudes about others and himself as well as his understanding of the founding principles of the US makes him unacceptable. His positions on the issues could be identical to Bernie's and I'd still vote against him.

 

[Segnosaur]

...I have no fault with that, but that in itself doesn't mean that single payer is the best system, even if it does have the potential to alleviate some of the problems...

Where do you get the idea that a single-payer primary healthcare system means that there is no room or place for private healthcare?

Probably because every place I've seen it described, they state that the government handles all health care funding.

For example: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ngle-payer-health-care-but-what-is-it-exactly
A single payer refers to a system in which one entity (usually the government) pays all the medical bills.
...
As far as countries that have true single-payer systems, Anderson lists only two: Canada and Taiwan.

Or from: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services

Notice the use of 'all' when describing coverage? I'm assuming 'all' means 'everyone', and not just 'some people'.

And if you go to Sanders' web site, he does not mention allowing private insurance; the only time he talks about it is to complain about their profits, and then talk about how much single payer will save.

Now, perhaps he's misusing the term 'single payer'. Perhaps under Sanders plan he will allow private insurance. Or maybe he hasn't really thought things through some of the details. If he has has stated that he will allow private insurance companies to continue to operate, by all means show me where.

There won't be many places where it is profitable, but neither expanded Medicare for all (which is essentially federal health insurance)
nor most all of the most popular variants of Universal healthcare (more akin to the VA medical system, if we are looking at comparable US variants) exclude or outlaw parallel private coverage...

There is a difference between "Universal coverage" and "single payer". You can have universal coverage without single payer.

...they just tend to make it more expensive and less profitable.

As I pointed out before...Canada's single payer health care system is more expensive than Australia's and Britains, both of which allow private insurance.

Medicare for all and even universal healthcare, are more safety-net services meant to generate a higher standard of health maintenance and chronic ailment prevention/treatment as well as emergency care and repair in the case of emergent disease and injury.

Universal health care is not a bad thing. The problem is when it is delivered with no funding options.

 

[Segnosaur]

Mad props to Bernie for being the most anti-science candidate in the race, with respect to GMOs...

GMOs are not the only issue that people should have with Sanders... He is also anti-nuclear (he does say he won't turn them off "overnight", but he's still promoting ending a form of power that is generally clean and reliable) and also is supportive of alternative medicine.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ate_plan_calls_for_end_to_nuclear_energy.html

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsr...-on-complementary-and-alternative-health-care

Good heavens! Well, let's all support Hillary instead. Sure, she was all about invading Iraq, but she apparently has the correct approved position on labelling potato chips so that's just fine.

Well, keep in mind that the vote to invade Iraq was not exactly black-and-white. Yes, there were problems with some of the evidence for invading, but even with some faulty evidence, there were reasons to want Saddam out of power.

On the other hand, issues like GMOs are pretty much black and white... science has ruled that they are safe and that should be the end of discussion.

I wonder exactly when Clinton's more irritating supporters will finally feel confident enough in their candidate to stop trying to trash Sanders?

Sanders continues to have significant support among certain elements of the population. As long as they are convinced of the miracles of "saint" Bernie, some potential support for Hillary is being sapped. The sooner that the diehard Berniebros understand the faults in their client, the sooner that they can (hopefully) line up behind Clinton.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was thinking of that other recalcitrant side of the electorate.... e.g. that America wasn't ready to elect a black man as President.

Black and/or female doesn't represent the kind of change I'm referring to here. I mean big social change. The 60s/70s social change was a big change. The revolution took a decade to build and another decade to settle in as the new norm. That was a big social change. The voters reelected Nixon as the social changes were happening. Voters are the last group to change.

 

[acbytesla]

Black and/or female doesn't represent the kind of change I'm referring to here. I mean big social change. The 60s/70s social change was a big change. The revolution took a decade to build and another decade to settle in as the new norm. That was a big social change. The voters reelected Nixon as the social changes were happening. Voters are the last group to change.

I think drawing parallels from one election to the next is difficult and almost impossible to make. Too much depends on the personalities of the candidates and the issues of that time. Nixon was almost elected in 1960 as a continuation of the popular Eisenhower administration and was elected in 68 for a host of other reasons not the least of which was a very unpopular war. But Nixon himself was never very popular.

A popular President can sell his ideas which would lead you to believe that Trump should be able to find a way to sell his ideas to the public. But contrary to the old joke even a good salesman can't sell ice to an eskimo. But as a career salesman I know it's relatively easy to sell a good product to almost anyone.

Still, even though most of Bernie's ideas aren't that revolutionary. (Some are) I'm just not sure Bernie is the one to sell them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think drawing parallels from one election to the next is difficult and almost impossible to make. Too much depends on the personalities of the candidates and the issues of that time. Nixon was almost elected in 1960 as a continuation of the popular Eisenhower administration and was elected in 68 for a host of other reasons not the least of which was a very unpopular war. But Nixon himself was never very popular.

A popular President can sell his ideas which would lead you to believe that Trump should be able to find a way to sell his ideas to the public. But contrary to the old joke even a good salesman can't sell ice to an eskimo. But as a career salesman I know it's relatively easy to sell a good product to almost anyone.

Still, even though most of Bernie's ideas aren't that revolutionary. (Some are) I'm just not sure Bernie is the one to sell them.

Just what 'good product' is Trump selling? Remind me again?

And yet Sanders lost the primary just as I predicted. And Trump's chances aren't looking so good outside of his circle of like-minded white boys.


I wasn't talking about one election, BTW, just citing one example. It's social studies 101 that societies change slowly unless you are talking civil wars and revolutions and those are in a different category.

As for Bernie's changes not being that radical, to the voting public, yes they were.

 

[acbytesla]

Just what 'good product' is Trump selling? Remind me again?

And yet Sanders lost the primary just as I predicted. And Trump's chances aren't looking so good outside of his circle of like-minded white boys.


I wasn't talking about one election, BTW, just citing one example. It's social studies 101 that societies change slowly unless you are talking civil wars and revolutions and those are in a different category.

As for Bernie's changes not being that radical, to the voting public, yes they were.

I don't think Trump is selling any real good ideas but I can see how some of them appeal to some people. To those people, deporting illegals and building a wall is attractive as they hope that will lead to better opportunities for themselves and their children. America won't feel so strange with all these foreigners.

I'd like to put more limits on immigration but I think it's wrong to blame anyone looking for a better future for coming here.

As for societies changing slowly or fast, I'm not really sure what that means. What is slow and what is fast? That's far too subjective a statement.

Both FDR and LBJ made some radical changes and I don't think war had anything to do with it.

Sometimes it just takes the right leader.

 

[Trakar]

Probably because every place I've seen it described, they state that the government handles all health care funding.

For example: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ngle-payer-health-care-but-what-is-it-exactly
A single payer refers to a system in which one entity (usually the government) pays all the medical bills.

And then this link goes on to call Medicare an example of single-payer health care,...and yet, much as I stated before, Medicare does not cover all medical wants and needs, even for it's target population. As we see later in your list there is an important qualification missing from most of these definitions: "medically necessary." Those who wish to have procedures, treatments or therapies which are not considered medically necessary go outside these systems and this would be where private health care facilities would exist in parallel to the single-payer system. This would also be the case in a fully socialized medicine system where the state actually owns medical facilities and the medical professionals are state employees (which is actually my preference).

...Or from: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services

Indeed, "medically necessary" is a fluid term and (for instance) while it might include plastic surgery to reconstruct and compensate for traumatic accidental injuries, it generally does not include elective surgery to reshape a nose into a pert, button nubbin. Likewise, it might be stretched to include fertility medicine for the first two children a woman has, but probably wouldn't (or possibly shouldn't) cover a third child.

An additional area allowing for a parallel private health care would be for those who don't want to be in a four person room for the minimally required time and would rather have a private room with a few extra days to recover, or would rather have a partial knee replacement which has them back on the golf course three days later, instead of a total knee replacement where it might be 3 months before they could do nine holes without a cart...

The whole idea isn't that single payer or even universal national health care covers any medical process that you could imagine, it is that basic necessary health care needs are covered by the state.

...And if you go to Sanders' web site, he does not mention allowing private insurance; the only time he talks about it is to complain about their profits, and then talk about how much single payer will save.

Sanders is talking about Medicare for all,...as mentioned, Medicare doesn't cover every medical need, yet alone every medical desire. BTW, Medicare is single payer insurance not national healthcare. Personally, I believe that if insurance is allowed, it should be a non-profit industry (as it is throughout most of the world). Medicare for all would be better (more affordable) than the current system and wouldn't exclude private healthcare any more than it does now, it would merely reduce the profitability of private healthcare at least with respect to the majority of Americans.

...Universal health care is not a bad thing. The problem is when it is delivered with no funding options.

I am not aware of any proposed health care system without funding options. What are you talking about?

 

[Trakar]

I think it is impossible to predict what a Trump Presidency would be like. His rhetoric and temperament are not good.
In theory the President is considered the weakest of the three branches except the President is most responsible for foreign policy and according to the War powers Act the President can make war without Congress for 90 days. Just as I wouldn't put a loaded gun in the hands of a 3 year old, I'm not enthusiastic making this nutjob Commander in Chief.

This is also one of the main reasons I will not support Hillary. She is seemingly way too eager to use US military force at the jerk of a knee and worry about the consequences later on.

 

[acbytesla]

This is also one of the main reasons I will not support Hillary. She is seemingly way too eager to use US military force at the jerk of a knee and worry about the consequences later on.

I don't get that impression at all. I'm not sure you can base all that judgment solely on Iraq and it's important to remember that was not a vote to go to war, but authorize military action based on phoney evIdence.

But you make what choice you want. Do you really belive given Trump's rhetoric that he would be less likely to use military force? Realky?