Berning down the house!

[Segnosaur]

What exactly was "non-progressive" about Clinton? You mean besides the fact that she was a centre-right corporatist more interested in defending the status quo and her filthy-rich backers rather than the interests of USAian workers?

Come on man, there is nothing even remotely "progressive" about the establishment US Dems. They are bought and paid for, just like the Repubs.

Keep in mind that this person you labeled a "center-right corporatist":

- Wanted an increase in the federal minimum wage. (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-hillary-clinton-want-15-or-12-minimum-wage/)

- Supported increased banking regulations, including enforcing rules to prevent banks from taking big risks with other people's money, better funding for regulatory agencies, and additional punishments for banking executives who break financial laws. (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175)

- Supported paid family leave, supported with taxes on the wealthy. (https://qz.com/782652/hillary-clintons-family-leave-plan-is-more-radical-than-it-needs-to-be/)

- Proposed increased taxes on the wealthy, including the removal of deductions that primarily benefit the rich, and a 4% tax surcharge on families earning more than $5 million. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clintons-plan-to-squeeze-the-ultra-rich)

Tell me, just how many right wing politicians are calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, and MORE banking regulations?

Just because she doesn't want to throw every rich person in jail or burn all the banks to the ground, doesn't mean that she wasn't interested in changing the "status quo". Its possible to want changes to the economy that benefits lower and middle class people without going all Bernie Sanders and burning everything to the ground.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lol, right.

You had a winky emoji, I thought you were joking. When I get back from work...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can we all agree that "better than Donald Trump" is not a high enough bar?

The bar isn't "better than Trump": it would be hard to find anyone worse than Trump outside a Super-Max.
The bar is "able to beat Trump in an election".
More details of plans means more surface for attack, more chance for Fake News bolstered by a fragment of actual fact.

I would consider it a wiser strategy if Candidates kept their plans to themselves until the start of the Debates.

 

[Donal]

The bar isn't "better than Trump": it would be hard to find anyone worse than Trump outside a Super-Max.
The bar is "able to beat Trump in an election".
More details of plans means more surface for attack, more chance for Fake News bolstered by a fragment of actual fact.

They will invent things to smear a candidate with. It doesn't matter. The right wing talking heads are not interested to relaying facts and the right wing sheep aren't interested in hearing them. Stop worrying about what they will say.

I would consider it a wiser strategy if Candidates kept their plans to themselves until the start of the Debates.

No, the plans should come out and be criticized. Let the candidates address the perceived flaws and weaknesses.

 

[varwoche]

They will invent things to smear a candidate with. It doesn't matter. The right wing talking heads are not interested to relaying facts and the right wing sheep aren't interested in hearing them. Stop worrying about what they will say.

It's not as simple as that.

While what you say is true for most candidates, the COMMIE charge sticks easier to some than others. It sticks a lot easier to candidates who self-identify as "socialists", and who in the past cut slack for a dictator like Castro, and who currently is cutting slack for a dictator like Maduro.

 

[portlandatheist]

I would consider it a wiser strategy if Candidates kept their plans to themselves until the start of the Debates.

It probably is intentional and strategic. It is also cowardly. The public should be having an open debate about single payer health care, a plan to deal with climate change, globalization, immigration, etc.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It probably is intentional and strategic. It is also cowardly. The public should be having an open debate about single payer health care, a plan to deal with climate change, globalization, immigration, etc.

I disagree.
Experts should be the ones checking the plans for flaws and potential - feasibility isn't determined by majority vote.

 

[portlandatheist]

I disagree.
Experts should be the ones checking the plans for flaws and potential - feasibility isn't determined by majority vote.

But don't you feel it is also important to understand a candidates relationship with expertise and established knowledge? Once aspect of populism, and certainly of Trumpism, is the contempt of expertise and the celebration of going with your gut instincts instead of being data driven or expertise driven.
Tom Nichols book "The Death of Expertise" is a great exploration of this aspect of populism and how we can square democracy and the problem of when people think democracy is supersedes truth and actual knowledge.
From his book:

And this, sadly, is the state of modern America. Citizens no longer
understand democracy to mean a condition of political equality,
in which one person gets one vote, and every individual is no more
and no less equal in the yes of the law. Rather, Americans now think
of democracy as a state of actual equality, in which every opinion is as
good as any other on almost any subject under the sun. Feelings are
more important than facts: if people think vaccines are harmful, or if
they believe that half of the US budget is going to foreign aid, then it is
"undemocratic" and "elitist" to contradict them.

Bernie Sanders isn't only wrong about an issue like trade, tariffs and protectionism but he isn't open to listening to what knowledgeable economists have to say or to look at the data. He isn't nearly as bad as Trump, who knows more about everything than anybody else, but he has it too to some degree also.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The US is in desperate need of a Technocratic government.

 

[dudalb]

It's not as simple as that.

While what you say is true for most candidates, the COMMIE charge sticks easier to some than others. It sticks a lot easier to candidates who self-identify as "socialists", and who in the past cut slack for a dictator like Castro, and who currently is cutting slack for a dictator like Maduro.

And Sanders continued..support for Maduro has caused the first real problem in his campaign.
ANd that is a problem I have with Sanders...he seems unable to see evil and stupidity on the left end of the political spectrum..and I think a President needs to be able to see extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. Obama was never afraid to criticize evil on the left end of the spectrum, though he was a liberal.

And I have a basic problem with the Cult of Bernie:To his followers he is GOd and no do no wrong and is incapable of making a mistake. I have had more then enough of that crap over the past two years.

 

[dudalb]

Keep in mind that this person you labeled a "center-right corporatist":

- Wanted an increase in the federal minimum wage. (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-hillary-clinton-want-15-or-12-minimum-wage/)

- Supported increased banking regulations, including enforcing rules to prevent banks from taking big risks with other people's money, better funding for regulatory agencies, and additional punishments for banking executives who break financial laws. (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175)

- Supported paid family leave, supported with taxes on the wealthy. (https://qz.com/782652/hillary-clintons-family-leave-plan-is-more-radical-than-it-needs-to-be/)

- Proposed increased taxes on the wealthy, including the removal of deductions that primarily benefit the rich, and a 4% tax surcharge on families earning more than $5 million. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clintons-plan-to-squeeze-the-ultra-rich)

Tell me, just how many right wing politicians are calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, and MORE banking regulations?

Just because she doesn't want to throw every rich person in jail or burn all the banks to the ground, doesn't mean that she wasn't interested in changing the "status quo". Its possible to want changes to the economy that benefits lower and middle class people without going all Bernie Sanders and burning everything to the ground.

TO some people, anybody to the right of Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung is a evil tool of the capitalists....

 

[portlandatheist]

And Sanders continued..support for Maduro has caused the first real problem in his campaign.
ANd that is a problem I have with Sanders...he seems unable to see evil and stupidity on the left end of the political spectrum..and I think a President needs to be able to see extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. Obama was never afraid to criticize evil on the left end of the spectrum, though he was a liberal.

And I have a basic problem with the Cult of Bernie:To his followers he is GOd and no do no wrong and is incapable of making a mistake. I have had more then enough of that crap over the past two years.

Another super annoying aspect of the Cult of Bernie was the complaint that the primaries were rigged(Sanders loves that word nearly as much as Trump) and indulgence in Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

For three years I've had Bernie Bros attacking me on facebook and Twitter calling me "genocide supporter" and "murderer" because I voted Hillary in the general election and not Stein. You see, it goes like this, anyone not Bernie is a centralist, establishment or "globalist" and they are all in favor of genocide and war for profit or something. All I know is that they find out I voted Hillary and I get invective thrown at me until I block them.

People were mean to you? On Facebook and Twitter, you say?

If I were to judge a candidate by their supporters, Hillary still wouldn't have gotten my vote, either. Some of the most toxic stuff I've ever heard came from Hillary supporters. A lot of them didn't sound much different from the MAGA-hats.

I'm just through with it. His supporters online are little more than bullies that refuse to actually talk policy and go straight to screaming "murderer" if you are not immediately all in on Bernie and disagree at all that he was robbed of his rightful nomination and dear god help you if they find out you voted for Hillary and not Stein.

As a Stein voter, I can assure you that I didn't get hugs and flowers from the Democrats.

Here's what I find so funny about Democrats. I used to think that they were about pragmatism. Ideology be damned. You're supposed to back the candidate who can win. Winning is the only thing that matters! I think that's backwards morally, but I can kind of see where they're coming from. You want to put up a lesser-evil candidate who can beat the greater-evil Republican.

What Bernie revealed is that the whole "pragmatism" thing is a load of bull. Both in 2016 and 2020, Bernie's their most compelling candidate, and the one most likely to beat Trump. The Democrats apparently aren't interested in beating Trump, though. They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill. He's not a "real Democrat", he's too white, too old, too male, etc. etc. They would rather lose with the "right" candidate than win with the "wrong" one. In other words, they're doing exactly what they accuse the Green Party of doing.

 

[kellyb]

They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill. He's not a "real Democrat", he's too white, too old, too male, etc. etc. They would rather lose with the "right" candidate than win with the "wrong" one.

It wasn't really the white male thing - the real centrist purity test is just pleasing the donor class. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Garrison]

Besides his political position how is it going to play with the women and ethnic minority voters that the Democrats answer to a 70-something year old white incumbent is a 70-something white male challenger?

 

[portlandatheist]

People were mean to you? On Facebook and Twitter, you say?

If I were to judge a candidate by their supporters, Hillary still wouldn't have gotten my vote, either. Some of the most toxic stuff I've ever heard came from Hillary supporters. A lot of them didn't sound much different from the MAGA-hats.



As a Stein voter, I can assure you that I didn't get hugs and flowers from the Democrats.

Here's what I find so funny about Democrats. I used to think that they were about pragmatism. Ideology be damned. You're supposed to back the candidate who can win. Winning is the only thing that matters! I think that's backwards morally, but I can kind of see where they're coming from. You want to put up a lesser-evil candidate who can beat the greater-evil Republican.

What Bernie revealed is that the whole "pragmatism" thing is a load of bull. Both in 2016 and 2020, Bernie's their most compelling candidate, and the one most likely to beat Trump. The Democrats apparently aren't interested in beating Trump, though. They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill. He's not a "real Democrat", he's too white, too old, too male, etc. etc. They would rather lose with the "right" candidate than win with the "wrong" one. In other words, they're doing exactly what they accuse the Green Party of doing.

from article:

In 2016, he upset Clinton in both Michigan and Wisconsin, which in the general election she desperately needed to win, but capitulated. Sanders would have won both states, as he did in the primaries. After all, he defeated Clinton by a total of 152,337 votes in Michigan and Wisconsin. Clinton lost both to Trump by a total of 33,452 votes. Had Sanders been the nominee, Dems would have won both by a margin of ≈100k.

Am I missing something here? How does knowing how much more votes Sanders received in the primaries translate to he would have won in the general election in those places? I'm going to vote for whoever is on the Dem ticket, even Sanders, despite who I support in the primaries.
Is there actual data here that would tell us Sanders would have won these states had he been on the ticket?

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's what I find so funny about Democrats. I used to think that they were about pragmatism. Ideology be damned. You're supposed to back the candidate who can win. Winning is the only thing that matters! I think that's backwards morally, but I can kind of see where they're coming from. You want to put up a lesser-evil candidate who can beat the greater-evil Republican.

What Bernie revealed is that the whole "pragmatism" thing is a load of bull. Both in 2016 and 2020, Bernie's their most compelling candidate, and the one most likely to beat Trump. The Democrats apparently aren't interested in beating Trump, though. They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill.

This claim has been made before, and it has been debunked before.

Basically, while people may point to how popular Sanders was, Sanders has never been subject to the sort of widespread attacks that Hillary was subject to.

(I should also point out that some of the claims in that article you referred to were out and out wrong. For example, it claimed that Sanders was popular among minorities, but it was actually Clinton who earned the most votes from minority voters. See: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/)

See:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12607702&postcount=108
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12607746&postcount=113

 

[kellyb]

Sometimes attacks are effective, but other times (like the ones on AOC) they basically backfire.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Basically, while people may point to how popular Sanders was, Sanders has never been subject to the sort of widespread attacks that Hillary was subject to.

Sure. Maybe the Republicans will invent a time machine to go back and start attacking Bernie in 1996, like they did with Hillary.

Besides, if the Republicans can just defeat anybody with "widespread attacks", then why does it matter who gets nominated?

 

[Segnosaur]

What Bernie revealed is that the whole "pragmatism" thing is a load of bull. Both in 2016 and 2020, Bernie's their most compelling candidate, and the one most likely to beat Trump. The Democrats apparently aren't interested in beating Trump, though. They want a candidate who is pure, and Bernie doesn't fit the bill. He's not a "real Democrat", he's too white, too old, too male, etc. etc. They would rather lose with the "right" candidate than win with the "wrong" one. In other words, they're doing exactly what they accuse the Green Party of doing.

from article:
In 2016, he upset Clinton in both Michigan and Wisconsin, which in the general election she desperately needed to win, but capitulated. Sanders would have won both states, as he did in the primaries. After all, he defeated Clinton by a total of 152,337 votes in Michigan and Wisconsin. Clinton lost both to Trump by a total of 33,452 votes. Had Sanders been the nominee, Dems would have won both by a margin of ≈100k.

Am I missing something here? How does knowing how much more votes Sanders received in the primaries translate to he would have won in the general election in those places?

It is certainly questionable logic, as it ignores the fact that a politician needs to appeal to voters outside the party as well, so success within a primary is no guarantee of success in a general election.

Frankly, that whole article read like a Bernie Sanders campaign ad. Some of its claims are completely bunk (like Sanders' appeal to minorities.) Some of its claims seem to apply equally to Sanders and Clinton (e.g. both believe in global warming). And much of it seems to be pretty empty rhetoric, of the "Look at Sanders! He's authentic!" type.