Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore

[kellyb]

I'm just glad that you're not running the campaign of any Democratic presidential candidate.

Yeah, the people who backed/selected the second least popular candidate in American history did a lot better. Obviously.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't disagree that some groups such as minorities and moderates preferred Clinton over Sanders. Clinton winning the primary was a pretty clear indicator.

While they preferred Clinton in a Sanders vs Clinton matchup, I think they'd have preferred Sanders in a Sanders vs Trump matchup.

I'm sure most minorities would prefer Sanders over Trump. But you not only need to get them to prefer one candidate over the other, you need to get them motivated enough to actually get out and VOTE.

Clinton got fewer minority votes than Obama did in the general election (even if she did get more than Trump). In theory, since Trump is a racist, it would have been in the minority voter's best interest to turn out in the same numbers as they did for Obama, but they didn't. Not enough felt the motivation. Given Sanders had even less support among minorities than Clinton did, the problem would be even worse.

And the relevant states that won Trump the election voted for Trump because they saw Clinton as the standard elite politician that wouldn't do anything for them on jobs and economic disparity whereas that was a Sanders strong point relative to Clinton.

Sander's inability to appeal to hispanic voters would likely have kept Florida republican. And while Clinton lost Michigan (supposedly over her inability to connect with "rust belt" workers), the margin was relatively slim and its possible Sander's problems with minorities would have prevented a Democrat victory there too.

 

[dudalb]

Seg, you are dealing with the Lost Tribe school of politics...that there is some vast hidden pool of hard left..or hard right..voters just waiting for the right candidate to come forth and swamp the polls. Common belief among the hard line ideologues on both signs of the political spectrum.

.

 

[portlandatheist]

Does it bother anybody else that Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders are protectionists/economic nationalists/mercantilists just like Donald Trump, Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, Reed Smoot, and Willis Hawley? It is a completely vacuous ideology that all these clowns share.
https://www.axios.com/elizabeth-war...ina-4c70a663-8558-4997-a92d-75fd583919a6.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday that she approves of President Trump's move to bring tariffs into the trade conversation. "What I'd like to see us do is rethink all of our trade policy. And, I have to say, when President Trump says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are one part of reworking our trade policy overall," she told CNN's Jim Acosta on State of the Union.

How many times must we relearn the lessons of history?

Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.

--Henry George (1839-1897)

 

[dudalb]

In addition, the Berniebots seems a lot like the Trumptards in that they have endless, blind faith in their beloved leader.
I don't meant to equate Sanders with Trump;Sanders is basically a decent person whoever much I might disagree with his policies;Trump is not. But I hate and fear political personality cults of ANY type.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah, the people who backed/selected the second least popular candidate in American history did a lot better. Obviously.

The fact that Clinton lost does not necessarily mean that Sanders would have obviously done better. And there is a difference between being a "popular candidate" and one that people would vote for. (Especially when, as I have pointed out, that 'popular' politician has not been subject to the same amount of scrutiny that other politicians have).

So, what has been argued so far:

On my side, I have:

- Provided a reference to an analysis (see the Mother Jones link in a previous post) that shows that NO democrat holding far-left views has won a general election in the past half century. None. Election success (at least on the democratic side) tends to go to the moderates. Those with far-left views tend to go down to defeat (Oh, but I'm sure somehow Bernie would have been different!)

- Provided references showing Sanders had significant problems with minority demographics

- Provided a significant list of scandals that Sanders had that were largely ignored during the primaries, that I think most people would recognize would be damaging

And what have you (and other Sander's supporters) done?

- Suggested that "Oh, I'm sure people will forgive him for being at a rally that favored killing Americans" (and forgive him for wanting to dump radioactive waste in minority areas. And forgive him for saying rape is OK.)

- Suggest that somehow there is a magic campaign strategy that could somehow be used to make people forget about things like the tax increases that would be required to pay for his social programs. (Hey, just talk about corruption and "fixing the system" and somehow people will forget they now have thousands of dollars more in taxes!)

 

[Venom]

Although talk about "wealthy rigging the system" might go over well with those in the "occupy Wallstreet" crowd, its not enough to just appeal to them. Many voters are plain middle-class voters who are more concerned about their own day to day lives (including their taxes) than they are about corruption and rigged systems. To those people, seeing some politician promise to increase their taxes to pay for social programs that will benefit other people will have a negative effect, even if the politician may also talk of ending corruption.

Day to day lives are intertwined closely with Sander's rhetoric about healthcare and the shrinking middle class. You can tell someone yes it may rise but your premiums may fall as well. It doesn't look to be some enormous obstacle at all.

 

[kellyb]

Suggest that somehow there is a magic campaign strategy that could somehow be used to make people forget about things like the tax increases that would be required to pay for his social programs.

Nope. Just point out that what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer, so outside of the transition cost, there would be no needed tax increase. You just wouldn't have to buy insurance.

 

[kellyb]

And forgive him for saying rape is OK

Uh huh.

 

[Venom]

Seg, you are dealing with the Lost Tribe school of politics...that there is some vast hidden pool of hard left..or hard right..voters just waiting for the right candidate to come forth and swamp the polls. Common belief among the hard line ideologues on both signs of the political spectrum.
.

No. Sanders is only "hard left" relative to the current position of the Democratic Party, which is more centrist. What we CAN do is rally the people around a cause, framing it as pretty common sense stuff that a lot of people already support. Of course there will be costs that may turn some folks off but that's the part where we FIGHT and point to excess spending on wars and prisons and etc.

People on both sides value honesty, even Trump supporters, upon seeing a politician who cares in the flesh, in town halls for instance, let their guard down. You don't need to drastically change the populace to win enough for Sanders.

Clinton got her shot and lost.

 

[Segnosaur]

Although talk about "wealthy rigging the system" might go over well with those in the "occupy Wallstreet" crowd, its not enough to just appeal to them. Many voters are plain middle-class voters who are more concerned about their own day to day lives (including their taxes) than they are about corruption and rigged systems. To those people, seeing some politician promise to increase their taxes to pay for social programs that will benefit other people will have a negative effect, even if the politician may also talk of ending corruption.

Day to day lives are intertwined closely with Sander's rhetoric about healthcare...

Health care that would need to be paid for by raising taxes. Even if overall it may result in a cheaper system, do you really think that the majority of the electorate (especially the ones in the middle of the political spectrum) will just accept it if you say "We're going to increase your taxes, and we THINK the result will be falling premiums"? I'm pretty sure 99% of middle-class voters will just hear "tax increase" and ignore everything that is said after that.

...and the shrinking middle class.

The "shrinking middle class" rhetoric may appeal to a certain group, but I doubt most middle-class voters will actually care for it, once they learn that that his solution to the "shrinking middle class" is to increase taxes on them.

 

[Hellbound]

Nope. Just point out that what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer, so outside of the transition cost, there would be no needed tax increase. You just wouldn't have to buy insurance.

Sorry, you lost me here.

Medicaid and Medicare currently do NOT provide coverage to 100% of the population, for what we pay. You can get current stats at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...-Trends-and-Reports/CMS-Fast-Facts/index.html. Medicare covers an estimated 57.5 million for 2017. Medicaid 72.3 million, That's about 130 million, out of 325.7 million U.S. citizens. So they only cover about 40%. When the other 60% of the population start using those services, costs will (of necessity) rise. Right now, everyone pays into those services whether they use them or not, but only 40% use them.

In addition, much (if not all) of the Medicaid and Medicare program is currently done by private companies under contract; until a few years back our company held the contract for both in several states; we administered the plans (processed and paid claims and such), while the governments (state and federal) underwrote themselves.

So I guess I'm going to ask what you intended to say here? I'm missing it, most definitely.

 

[kellyb]

So I guess I'm going to ask what you intended to say here? I'm missing it, most definitely.

I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:

 

[lobosrul5]

I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:

Oh if only it was like the good 'ole days of 2004. Its now over 10k per year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184955/us-national-health-expenditures-per-capita-since-1960/

 

[The_Animus]

Seg, you are dealing with the Lost Tribe school of politics...that there is some vast hidden pool of hard left..or hard right..voters just waiting for the right candidate to come forth and swamp the polls. Common belief among the hard line ideologues on both signs of the political spectrum.

.

You've said this twice now even though that's not what was being said in this thread.

 

[dudalb]

No. Sanders is only "hard left" relative to the current position of the Democratic Party, which is more centrist. What we CAN do is rally the people around a cause, framing it as pretty common sense stuff that a lot of people already support. Of course there will be costs that may turn some folks off but that's the part where we FIGHT and point to excess spending on wars and prisons and etc.

People on both sides value honesty, even Trump supporters, upon seeing a politician who cares in the flesh, in town halls for instance, let their guard down. You don't need to drastically change the populace to win enough for Sanders.

Clinton got her shot and lost.

Your casual dismissal of Centrists is noted.
God help this country if both major parties are dominated by the "my way or the highway" ideologues.

 

[Segnosaur]

No. Sanders is only "hard left" relative to the current position of the Democratic Party, which is more centrist.

I would hardly call the Democratic party "centrist". While most in the party have taken some pro-business positions (free trade, etc.), on average the party: prefers more environmental and financial regulations than the republicans, is pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, almost all favor some added gun regulations (even if its not an outright firearm ban), and want drug laws (marijuana) liberalized. All of these clearly put the Democrats on the left side of the political spectrum, even if there is some variation on how FAR each Democrat wants to go. The fact that they may not go as far to the left as YOU (or your average BernieBro or Occupy Walstreeter) want does not make them centrist.

Now, compared to (For example) Sweden the Democrats may not be considered left-wing. But the American Electorate is not Swedish, and a politicians position on the political spectrum has to be measured by the country he is actually living in.

Sanders is on the far left of the American political spectrum. And NO democrat in the past half century has EVER won an election with views that far to the left. Never. Ever. (But I'm sure THIS time it will be different.)

What we CAN do is rally the people around a cause, framing it as pretty common sense stuff that a lot of people already support. Of course there will be costs that may turn some folks off but that's the part where we FIGHT and point to excess spending on wars and prisons and etc.

Ah yes, the whole vague notion of how "Of course there is some magic cause that we can invoke that will automatically make people forget about tax increases". Its Bernie magic I tell you! Make him Democratic candidate and it will automatically appear! I guarantee it!

People on both sides value honesty, even Trump supporters, upon seeing a politician who cares in the flesh, in town halls for instance, let their guard down. You don't need to drastically change the populace to win enough for Sanders.

You are assuming Sanders would still be seen as "honest" once the republican smear tactics started to get invoked. Given the fact that he's a thief (stole electricity) who violated campaign finance laws, his reputation as "honest" might end up taking a hit were he ever made the Democratic candidate.

And even if candidates did "value honesty" I think there is a limit on how much they are willing to sacrifice (in terms of taxes, personal freedom, etc.) in exchange.

 

[dudalb]

Health care that would need to be paid for by raising taxes. Even if overall it may result in a cheaper system, do you really think that the majority of the electorate (especially the ones in the middle of the political spectrum) will just accept it if you say "We're going to increase your taxes, and we THINK the result will be falling premiums"? I'm pretty sure 99% of middle-class voters will just hear "tax increase" and ignore everything that is said after that.

The "shrinking middle class" rhetoric may appeal to a certain group, but I doubt most middle-class voters will actually care for it, once they learn that that his solution to the "shrinking middle class" is to increase taxes on them.

It boils down to if you think that Government or the Market is better when it comes to dominating the ecomomy. I mainstain that it is pretty cjearly established that the Market's record is a lot better.
I am not a lassiaz faire believer by any means, but for me the Progs want to expand Governement role in "managing" the economy way,way,too much.
We have seen what happens with Command Economies, and it has always ended badly.

 

[Segnosaur]

Suggest that somehow there is a magic campaign strategy that could somehow be used to make people forget about things like the tax increases that would be required to pay for his social programs.

Nope. Just point out that what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer, so outside of the transition cost, there would be no needed tax increase. You just wouldn't have to buy insurance.

Yes, because voters are always SO rational and well informed that they'd be willing to accept tax increases and give up what control they have over their health insurance because "obviously this way is SO much better".

Obviously you've never actually met a voter.

In case you don't understand... its not always a case of "what is best" during an election... it is "what is acceptable to the electorate".

Oh, and by the way... in case you didn't know... single payer actually sucks. The best health care results tend to be those that use mixed systems.

And forgive him for saying rape is OK

OK

Go back and look at the references I provided. It provides a segment discussing that very issue.

I do not think Sanders actually thinks rape is OK. But he one wrote a paper that used it as a premise (but with a rather long, complex argument that made it clear it was not his actual position.) And it would be enough for the republicans to latch on to show Sanders is somehow "anti-woman".

Remember, Clinton lost, and was often seen as dishonest, even though many of the supposed "scandals" involving her were artificially manufactured.... Benghazi (which, after multiple republican investigations was found not responsible, yet she was smeared endlessly), her emails (basically using external servers like many other past secretary of states), the Clinton foundation (which actually has a very high rating according to Charity Navigator). Sanders is currently seen as honest/decent but that reputation would likely be diminished if/when the republican media machine went into full attack mode. Statements like "Rape is OK" may not represent Sander's actual positon, but the fact that he made it (even with whatever disclaimers he added) would still make him vulnerable to an electorate that is used to dealing with small little sound bites.

Can you imagine in a hypothetical Sanders candidacy, after the Billy Bush "grab em by the pussy" tape, the republicans put out an add saying "Sanders said Rape is OK". So instead of pointing out how sexist Trump is, the democrats have to waste time clarifying what Sanders actually said/meant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:

The problem here is that you're not thinking about how the Republicans would have presented this.

This is what Bernie would have faced.

"Death Panels" would have been a thing again....



Stories like these would have been advertising fodder.

So this would have been the choice that Republicans offered to voters.

1) Trump's Healthcare which will cover everyone, even the uninsured, be cheaper for the Government, thus the Taxpayer, and have premiums drop across the board for users. All this with the US's high health standards and support for being the number 1 health system in the world, MAGA!

or

2) Bernie's Nationalised Health Care which will be bloated, cost the Government, and thus taxpayers, far more. Introduce Government interference into your healthcare and create death panels where patients who are considered too expensive will be just left to die without treatment. On top of that it'll be inefficient and have major safety issues for patients as is shown by the cases from overseas.

Now which do you want?

The simple fact is that Trump was promising a lot of the same things Bernie was, pulling out of the TTP, bring jobs back, good healthcare and so on, but the Republicans could have pointed out that their versions were "better" and didn't come with a real communist attached.

If you think Bernie could have even gotten close to winning after the Republican machine had started up on him, you're kidding yourself. Instead of the defeat Clinton got where it came done to about 10,000 voters, it would have been a Republican win in the style of the Reagan era.