Bernie Sanders makes it official. How far will he go in 2020?

Politics & Elections
141

Man this post is cute. It’s like you live in a fantasy world where you’re going to be able to effectively counter Trump messaging on Bernie with Snopes links and other forms of fact checking. If that was true, he wouldn’t be President today. Some portion of the public has heard these attacks on Bernie before—but they haven’t seen the President of the United States say them every day for 6 months, the media gullibly repeat them as “controversial claims”, the conservative media repeat them as fact etc. Bernie has benefited from being in a cocoon. During the primaries the Republicans clearly wanted him to remain viable to hurt Hillary. Hillary didn’t want to go after him because she didn’t want to alienate her voters.

I can assure you whatever polls you have about someone who has never been a party’s nominee for President, they just aren’t relevant because a lot of stuff is going to be done to Bernie that has never been done before if he’s nominated. Even aside from Bernie’s many vulnerabilities, the simple fact is many of his beliefs are well out of the mainstream—and something like 60% of Americans view socialism unfavorably. The argument you guys want to make to counter this take time to explain, and in politics a wordy counterargument to a resonating and short attack never work.

142

You’re a smart person. How can you admit the above and still assert that you’d work hard to elect Trump over Sanders?

143

Can I get a cite for this?

Fox News polling from 1/4/19 says that Americans prefer capitalism 56% to 37%. Is this the 60% you mean–people who prefer capitalism to socialism? That trend seems to be shifting quickly. The young and the Democrats have already shifted positions to favoring socialism over capitalism. Considering that the US is a capitalist society, I thought it would be higher.

The reason Fox News gave for the shift toward socialism is Bernie Sanders. And of course, it’s democratic socialism where the means of production is not owned by the government in most cases.

According to Fox News, the shift is recent.

Americans warming to socialism over capitalism, polls show in Fox News

Socialism’s Rising Popularity Threatens America’s Future in National Review

144

I actually think Bernie would be among one of the worst Presidents ever elected? I’m not a liberal or a leftist. I think Trump is probably the worst President aside from a couple of mid-19th century ones who basically were pro-Confederacy during the Civil War; but I also have more of a sober view of politics than is typically seen around these parts.

Trump is very stupid, he has very inappropriate opinions on the constitution, Presidential power etc. But a lot of the doomsaying about Trump has never happened because there are many institutions that have proven resilient to his behavior. I know what I’m getting with Trump. Even two years of full Republican control of congress, Trump got very little accomplished due to how bad a President he is, which also mitigated the damage he could do. When I’m picking between two people I think are both deeply unsuited to the office, I’m certainly not voting for the socialist.

145

One of them has been rhetorically aiding and abetting white supremacists - the worst and most dangerous group to Americans, by far, in American history. Canadian/northern European style socialism isn’t even in the same ballpark as far as actual harm to Americans in terms of actual history. Canada is doing fine. So is most of Northern Europe. If you think the latter is a greater threat to Americans than white supremacism, you’re either highly ignorant of history or highly tolerant of white supremacism.

I think it’s reasonable to oppose that type of socialism, by the way. But not at the expense of aiding and abetting white supremacists.

146

I feel the same way, especially once you add in all his other faults. Someone even more extreme to the left than Sanders would make me at least think twice about not supporting a genuinely moderate GOP candidate, but not Individual 1.

147

Excuse me…“We’ve” run the numbers? You actually work at taxfoundation.org, or did you have a mouse in your pocket when you typed that?

A random cite is not going to handwave away the very real problems that unregulated, unrestrained capitalism that is a toothpick away from robber-baronism have brought to this nation. I’ll see your TANSTAAFL and raise you a No Man Is An Island.

And no, I’m not in Bernie’s camp as yet.

148

none of the polls really matter now because Trump has not started flinging all kinds of mud at whoever the nominee ends up. You can be certain he has all kinds of stuff lined up ready to throw out there and truth or facts won’t matter.

149

So let me get this right.

ou are not worried about Trump because he, having had majorities in both Senate and the House and a conservative Judiciary, can’t accomplish much. But a President Sanders, dealing with a vary likely still GOP majority Senate, many Dems who are not hardcore progressives, a predictable backslide in the House, and a conservative Judiciary … WOULD be able to drive through a hard left socialist agenda?

S’alright.

150

Plenty of creationists and climate change deniers are pro vaccination. Does that make them pro-science, too?

So you’re anti-science as well. Got it.

I’m not afraid; you (and Sanders) are. GMO foods are highly tested and safe. There’s no reason label them. If one thinks there’s enough difference between GMO and non-GMO foods that they need to be labeled then they are anti-science.

If I had to choose between Trump and Sanders I’d probably vote third party. Trump is a narcissistic, incompetent moron but once he is (thankfully) out of office I believe we can repair most of the damage he’s done (in part because he’s too incompetent to get stuff done). In the areas where I disagree strongly with Sanders (like his anti-science positions) I’m concerned he could set us back in ways that will take a long time to repair.

151

never heard that anti-nuclear power is anti-science. Where does that idea come from?

152

By definition of course. If one questions the safety and cost efficiency of nuclear power then one is not a true scientist. Cue bagpipes. And tell these guys.

FWIW I am agnostic on nuclear power. The industry does not deserve the subsidization it gets and without it it is not competitive. That subsidization should go to technologies that are not yet matured. Many basic issues, such as waste management long term, have not yet been adequately addressed either. There are, in my mind, better alternatives in fair head to head comparisons.

Now some who are very pro-science agree with that assessment and some do not. We’ve had fine debates about it on these boards with much data and good discussion. Two people both pro-science can disagree about how to interpret the data and what values to place on what outcomes. What is anti-science is to argue for a position by name-calling.

153

Nope. Watch any Bernie rally from 2016.

Bernie: ‘…the Democratic Party’
Crowd: BOO!!!

That’s the difference between Clinton 2008 and Sanders 2016.

154

There are some scientists who deny that humans have anything to do with climate change. There are some doctors who argue against vaccinations. They are both still anti-science positions.

Nuclear power has been debated plenty of times on the Dope and neither of us will be changing our minds. I feel confident, however, in declaring all those against nuclear power, GMO, evolution, vaccinations, and climate change as anti-science. Sanders ticks off two of those. He needs to go away.

155

LOL

156

I’m not sure what this even means. Fortunately, I don’t think it matters.

We don’t have unregulated or unrestrained capitalism in this nation, so this is more or less irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Bernie’s plans will depress the economy, kill millions of jobs, reduce income at all levels, and further bloat the national debt. If you have a substantive response to that, perhaps you could post it. If not, I wouldn’t talk about hand-waving.

IOW you can count. Keep up the good work.

Regards,
Shodan

157

^This. Current polls concerning Bernie’s chances are utterly meaningless.

Bernie Sanders’ chief selling point is that he’s the Candidate of Integrity.* This concept is unsustainable if he continues to give cute excuses for failing to reveal his tax returns.

Like it or not, tax returns have become the standard for transparency–not just about particulars of a candidate’s financial life, but about honesty, upright conduct, and accountability to the electorate.

If he declines to provide them, his ‘integrity’ claims become shaky at best.

  • Yes, far more than the socialism, it’s the idea that Bernie is the Incorruptible One that has won him ardent adherents. No, I won’t provide a citation. It’s my opinion. However, I think that opinion is well-supported by any cursory look at what Bernie’s fans say about him.
158

Yeah, I did Google it and found those articles from spring 2016. I’m surprised there hasn’t been any followup. Well, I’m sure there will be before the voting resumes, so we’ll see what happens.

It’s very weird. If any other politician did this, I’d assume they had something sleazy to cover up. But, really, why would anyone think you could run for President and not have to show your tax returns? You’d have to be an idiot.

OK, it might work if your brand is “Cartoon Supervillian”, but not if it’s “Crusader for Honest Government”.

159

what foreign-language word did I use that Google Translate can’t help you with?

Yes, of course. The fact that wages per man-hour haven’t gone up in nearly forty years while the cost of living has virtually tripled is completely incidental. Or is this one of those not-a-bug-a-feature things?
[/quote

Given that people of similar outlook to you said this in the early nineties in re the Clinton tax increases, you’ll forgive me if I file this somewhere between the moon-landing hoaxes and the Flat Earth Society’s Welcome brochure.

I always do. :wink:

160

Well, 538 published an article today looking at the always heated topic of whether disloyal Sanders voters cost Clinton the election. A new (?) 50,000 voter poll shows that the data supports…a position, as far as I know, advocated by absolutely nobody on this board. :frowning: Yet we must fight on.

On the one hand, it seems previous polls significantly underestimated the number of Sanders voters who failed to vote for Clinton in the general election. This poll has it at 26%, far above historic norms. So, yes, it is safe to say that if Clinton had received the support from Bernie’s voters that the candidate can ordinarily expect to get from the supporters of the runner-up, something like 85-90%, she would have won handily.

But on the other hand, contrary to widespread assumption, it wasn’t Bernie’s far left supporters who were spurning Clinton; it was his moderate and conservative supporters! Of Sanders voters who identified as “Very Liberal”,“Liberal”, or “Somewhat Liberal”,about 85% voted for Comrade Clinton in the fall. But of Bernie’s moderate and conservative backers, only 65% did. Of Bernie’s self-identified Democratic voters, 88% went on to vote for HRC; of his independent and Republican voters, only 69% did.

Here’s Silver’s analysis of the factors that distinguished Sanders-Not Clinton voters from Sanders-Clinton voters:

Also, the percentage of “NeverHillary” voters increased in open primary States once Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, suggesting that many of these people were actual Republicans who either were voting strategically or just wanted to vote against Hillary twice.

TLDR: it appears that about one-fourth of Bernie’s primary support came from people who were never likely to vote for Clinton if she won the nomination, and that the large majority of those voters were to Clinton’s right, not her left. These also seem to be voters who are unlikely to ever in life vote for Bernie Sanders unless Hillary Clinton is the only other name on the ballot.