Berning down the house!

[Belz...]

Seriously? Are you trying to support an argument that all, or even many, of the slaves in the south were supporting the policies of the Confederate States of America and that they so hated the policies of the USA that they supported the CSA and their war of exodus from the USA?

That's... I can't fathom how you could possibly conclude this. Did you miss the smiley? Did you not get the reference?

Sheesh. Were you in dire need of outrage that morning?

 

[Segnosaur]

If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.

What an odd notion considering the moderates/ centrists controlling the Dems in 2016 resulted in Trump winning in the first place.

The 2016 election was a single data point, so its not really indicative of what would happen in future elections. Furthermore, there were certain... issues that the Democrats had to deal with at the time, that had nothing to do with how "moderate" they were.

In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference

All of those are going to be things that negatively affect a candidate, regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum. Trying to suggest the loss in 2016 was due to the Democrat's "moderation" is to ignore much of what was going on at the time.

 

[varwoche]

Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff

Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.

Are you assuming that applecorped's unsupported claim is true at face value? Or did you independently fact-check?

 

[Segnosaur]

Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff

Unsurprising, I wouldn't expect them to change their tactics now, this stuff has been going on for years now with regard to Sanders.

Are you assuming that applecorped's unsupported claim is true at face value? Or did you independently fact-check?

What reason would applecorped (who seems to be a Trump supporter) have in trying to cause problems in the Democratic party?

Oh, right.

Hadn't heard of Ebersole before. Looks like she is a low-level Democrat executive (The Baltimore County democratic chair, who is married to a congress-critter.) She was at a meeting where she asked Sanders about his health care plans, not exactly a 'gotcha' type question.

So you had 1) a person who, by their position, would be someone you would expect at a 'town hall' meeting, 2) asking a question which was pretty basic.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/ph-ca-at-cnn-bernie-20190226-story.html

 

[varwoche]

What reason would applecorped (who seems to be a Trump supporter) have in trying to cause problems in the Democratic party?

Oh, right.

Hadn't heard of Ebersole before. Looks like she is a low-level Democrat executive (The Baltimore County democratic chair, who is married to a congress-critter.) She was at a meeting where she asked Sanders about his health care plans, not exactly a 'gotcha' type question.

So you had 1) a person who, by their position, would be someone you would expect at a 'town hall' meeting, 2) asking a question which was pretty basic.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/ph-ca-at-cnn-bernie-20190226-story.html

Indeed. I (briefly) fact-checked before I posted. Even in my sampling of the right-wing echo chamber, the "Hillary shill" aspect wasn't mentioned.

 

[The_Animus]

In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference

Your point is valid that there were other factors. There always are. Nonetheless the evidence points towards a more progressive candidate and stance having a better chance than the moderate type we saw from Clinton and the DNC in 2016.

Aside from the democratic defeat we've seen polling that Sanders had better odds in a matchup vs Trump. Sanders polled as the most popular politician. The rising stars with huge popularity such as AOC are also progressive. The DNC and the presidential hopefuls this time around have all gone left towards policies and ideas Sanders supported. The blue wave in 2018 saw a huge number of progressive candidates winning, often in spite of gerrymandering and other nefarious tactics. Most of the progressive policies that people like Sanders and AOC stand for share majority support among Americans.

A moderate may beat Trump this time around. But the idea that unless we run another moderate, Trump will for sure win reelection just doesn't make sense.

 

[Segnosaur]

Your point is valid that there were other factors. There always are. Nonetheless the evidence points towards a more progressive candidate and stance having a better chance than the moderate type we saw from Clinton and the DNC in 2016.

Aside from the democratic defeat we've seen polling that Sanders had better odds in a matchup vs Trump. Sanders polled as the most popular politician.

How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans. Heck, republican politicians were more likely to praise him than attack him. And that would have changed had he won the nomination.

Why exactly do you think it is that the Republicans weren't attacking Sanders with as much ferocity as they attacked Clinton? Is it because they had nothing to use against him? (No, they had a ton of material.) The reason they didn't is because they thought they could slaughter him in a general election. They wanted him to win the primaries because he would be easier to defeat in a general election. He wouldn't be "Bernie Sanders, the scrappy outsider trying to become the people's president", it would be "Comrade Sanders, the Jewish Atheist thief who thinks its great that Americans should die (unless they're women, in which case they should be sexually assaulted first)". All of which are actually supported by evidence. Just what do you think would happen to his popularity then?

(Oh, and by the way, despite claims that "people love socialist policies", there is a poll showing 76% people do not like the word socialist and would not vote for one, and since Sanders has used that label to describe himself, you can be assured the republicans would take every opportunity to remind people of that.)

So, Sanders might get a bunch of college students to vote for him (well, at least the ones that can get off their couches), but he would have lost much of the minority vote (he had even less appeal to minorities than Clinton), and he would have lost much of he middle class (his policies included an increase in tax on the middle class). Plus, the whole "Yankees die" and "socialist" thing might lose him some support among the more patriotic Americans.

https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-...-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ity-of-americans-say-the-would-not-vote-for-a

 

[dudalb]

The 2016 election was a single data point, so its not really indicative of what would happen in future elections. Furthermore, there were certain... issues that the Democrats had to deal with at the time, that had nothing to do with how "moderate" they were.

In 2016 you had:
- 8 years of the Democrats in the white house (and often people demand a 'change' after 2 terms, even if things are going well.)
- A candidate who had been attacked for years (often over issues that had nothing to do with her political policies)
- Russian interference

All of those are going to be things that negatively affect a candidate, regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum. Trying to suggest the loss in 2016 was due to the Democrat's "moderation" is to ignore much of what was going on at the time.

It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.

 

[Venom]

Hillary shill and lobbyist Tara Ebersole was planted at a CNN town hall to try and derail Bernie, funny stuff

Of course there are thousands of politically connected people who work around the area the town hall took place. Not particularly surprising. And not unlikely that CNN sometimes tries hard to nudge a debate a certain direction using circumstances like this to their advantage, but the questions weren't particularly bad.

It would be great if CNN could introduce their questioners with more relevant background info. Politically connected people introduced as mothers, students, and concerned citizens is irresponsible at best, shady at worst.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.

What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters. So why run a centrist? Are you implying that the "moderates and centralists" would never vote for Bernie in a general election? Do you think they'd vote for Trump, instead?

Purity tests, indeed.

 

[Segnosaur]

What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters. So why run a centrist?

Because even though a lot of people claim to like "free college" and "single-payer", its very easy to support such concepts when they are done in relative isolation, with little or no details given about how they will be implemented, and with little or no opposition presented.

So people like "free college"... would they still like it if they knew their taxes would go up to support it (keeping in mind that Sanders proposed increasing taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy)? They like "single payer health care"... will they be happy with they type of government control that would be required, and/or the waiting lists that might result? Would private insurance be completely outlawed?

Are you implying that the "moderates and centralists" would never vote for Bernie in a general election? Do you think they'd vote for Trump, instead?

Some might, some might not. (Some might decide instead to sit out of the election, or pick a 3rd party candidate.)

Remember, many minority voters who had voted for Obama didn't vote at all in 2016, even though a vote for Clinton would have probably been best for them. So people don't often act in a way that is necessarily beneficial to themselves. (Not to mention the BernieBros who failed to support Clinton, even though she was clearly closer to Sanders in policy than Trump was.)

Lets say you're a moderate/independent voter who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past. You have no problem with things like gay marriage or minority rights, but you don't personally have any gay or minority friends, so Trump's bigotry won't resonate with you. For the most part you're happy with things as they are. So you see a choice between an ignorant con-artist on the right, and a self-labeled socialist who's going to increase your taxes in order to provide services you may not want.

And this is assuming that there aren't other reasons to vote against far-left candidates... as I pointed out, some people might like socialist policies in theory, but they don't like the "socialist" label and may vote against a politician just because he uses that label for himself. And then there are the other issues: Sander's history as a thief, his "Yankees Die" video, etc. So your choice is now between an ignorant con-artist on the right, and a self-labeled socialist who steals and wants Americans to die (before or after their taxes are raised is unknown.)

 

[Shadowdweller]

As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.

 

[Brainster]

What's the evidence for this? Everything I see points to the opposite. Progressive issues (such as free college, single-payer health care, taxing the rich) are popular among a majority of voters.

I am just a little bit skepticla of the polls that claim this. Here's a gushing article about them that accidentally highlights the problem with taking them at face value:

Seventy percent of Americans said they support a single-payer or Medicare for All health insurance system — including 85 percent of registered Democrats and 52 percent of registered Republicans. Compare these numbers to 2014, when only 21 percent of Americans thought we should have a single-payer system.

The number of Americans who want to eliminate the private insurance industry and replace it with a single universal public program has more than tripled in just four years.

(Italics in original)

Now it seems to me that there are two explanations for the startling change in the matter of a few years. Either the American people did suddenly do an abrupt 180-degree turn on this issue or the questions they were asked changed. I know which seems more likely to me.

 

[The_Animus]

How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans. Heck, republican politicians were more likely to praise him than attack him. And that would have changed had he won the nomination.

It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.

We've all seen these arguments here numerous times before. Many find them unconvincing and I have no desire to rehash them for the 37th time.

I guess we'll see how this plays out

 

[Segnosaur]

As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.

That's quite possible. He probably has the most name recognition of all the candidates (current and potential), and I'm sure the Democrats will be bending over backwards to give him every advantage, lest they give the appearance of favoritism.

He might even win the presidency. But not because "gee wiz... people are really fans of socialism" (and I think the election will be much tighter than BernieBros seem to think)... I think he stands a chance at winning because Trump has become so toxic to many people (even more than he was in 2016), a benefit Sanders wouldn't have had in the previous election when Trump was more of an unknown quantity. Heck, the Democrats could probably nominate a ham sandwich and it would probably get elected.

 

[Belz...]

As of right now, I think Sanders is going to end up with the nomination this time around.

If Sanders loses to Trump, does that mean that centrism AND far-left ideas are off the table for 2024?

 

[Segnosaur]

How often does this need to be debunked?

The reason why Sanders was so popular is because he was never the subject of sustained attacks by the Republicans.

It's the lost tribe school of politics again. Vastly overpredicting the number of "hard left" voters there are out there.

We've all seen these arguments here numerous times before. Many find them unconvincing and I have no desire to rehash them for the 37th time.

In that case would you tell the BernieBros who keep claiming "OMG Sanders was so popular he would have won in 2016" the same thing? Because as long as that claim is made, the problems with that claim need to be pointed out.

But hey, maybe you think "People love a good thief, and Americans really do deserve to die". Or maybe you think "Well, the republicans are honorable people and they'd never stoop so low as to use a person's history against them".

 

[kellyb]

Because even though a lot of people claim to like "free college" and "single-payer", its very easy to support such concepts when they are done in relative isolation, with little or no details given about how they will be implemented, and with little or no opposition presented.

You're typing from Canada which has single payer. I had my bank account seized and had to sleep in a tent in winter because of medical bills. My mother died on my living room couch in November because she had no health care.

Why you want to deny health care to Americans is perplexing. Is it just sadism?

 

[Segnosaur]

You're typing from Canada which has single payer. I had my bank account seized and had to sleep in a tent in winter because of medical bills. My mother died on my living room couch in November because she had no health care.

Why you want to deny health care to Americans is perplexing. Is it just sadism?

I can really see this going off topic...

Yes, the American system is broken. (Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but I recognize that there are still significant problems.)

But, there is actually a multitude of medical systems in the world, many of which give universal health care, and pretty much nobody runs theirs like Canada's. For example, Britain covers everyone with the government system, but also allows private insurance for those wanting better/faster service. Switzerland covers everyone with private insurance, (and provides subsidies for poorer people).

Canada's health system has flaws... its a true "single payer" with no user fees (at least for basic care... eye and dental aren't covered). It means no private insurance for those wanting specialized care. And while its nice to think "gosh darn, everyone is treated equally and nobody goes bankrupt", there are also also flaws.. waiting lists can be quite problematic, and we have problems with people finding personal doctors.) If someone were designing a health system from the ground up, I would strongly suggest not to follow Canada's model. I'd suggest following the path of Britain, Switzerland, Finland, or any one of a dozen other countries that offer universal health care without being "single payer"... Countries that also have relatively low costs, but also seem to avoid the problems the Canadian system has.

Whenever anyone talks about "single payer" health care in the U.S., you need to question what exactly they are suggesting... do they mean true "single payer", or do they simply mean some sort of universal coverage (allowing user fees and private insurance to exist). If they mean "single payer" (with the idea of following in the footsteps of Canada) I'd suggest they look elsewhere for a system to emulate.

You do have my sympathies. U.S. health care does need to be improved. But then, instead of having your property seized, would you truly be better off if you simply got stuck on a waiting list waiting for health care? It does happen... I have a cousin who injured his shoulder playing hockey and it took months to arrange an MRI (despite the fact that such things could be done in a week in the U.S. That's months of unnecessary pain.)

 

[The_Animus]

In that case would you tell the BernieBros who keep claiming "OMG Sanders was so popular he would have won in 2016" the same thing? Because as long as that claim is made, the problems with that claim need to be pointed out.

I think the number of people who actually qualify as "BernieBros" is pretty small but some like to use that term instead to refer to anyone who disliked Clinton or thought Sanders was a stronger candidate regardless of whether their reasons had merit.

In any case, while evidence can be presented for why Sanders would have won or Sanders would have lost, the answer is ultimately unknowable at this point unless you have an alternate reality machine.

What is still potentially knowable is the original claim which triggered this series of responses. That claim was:

If the progressives take over the Dems in 2020,and alientate the moderates and centralists (whom they seem to hold in contempt) Trump will be reelected.GUaranteed.

Considering the progressive shift in candidates and democratic platform I'm guessing a progressive candidate is going to get the nomination. Time will tell.

But hey, maybe you think "People love a good thief, and Americans really do deserve to die". Or maybe you think "Well, the republicans are honorable people and they'd never stoop so low as to use a person's history against them".

I have no idea what you're talking about here. We've literally been over all of this before so there's no need to guess what I think.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=327943