Do you believe that Bernie will beat Trump?

Politics & Elections
181

We aren’t even debating the typical Dem-GOP argument of higher income taxes. This is an 8% “wealth tax” as in We Will Take Your Shit.

When people understand this, they will flip. I look back with fondness when we debated such simple things like whether or not it is a good idea to take more of a person’s income because he or she “could afford it.” This is not that. This is confiscation, not only of Amazon, but of pretty much every major corporation because he is going to tax the corporation at the same rate as if it was an individual. The corporation, if it makes over $10 million/yr gets taxed at 52% and individuals who get dividends also get taxed at their marginal rate (PLUS 12.6% as social security is not capped).

Further, after the wealth tax kicks in and you have confiscated wealth above a certain amount, how then do you keep paying for these myriad of programs when there is no more wealth to tax? And these numbers keep adding up…52% income tax (including capital gains), 7.5% health insurance tax for all employees, 8% wealth tax, 12.6% social security (no cap), 4% health insurance tax (for yourself), plus whatever else I missed in Bernie’s confiscatory tax plan.

Hey, but those are rich bastards, right? They can afford it. You think Amazon will cost the same for the end consumer? You think the little guy won’t pay more for food in the grocery store when the shipping costs have went through the roof because of fossil fuel taxes?

You think investment in startup companies will continue at the same pace when the tax rate goes from 15% to 52%+12.6% or 64.6%? Maybe helping you start your widget company was worth it for Daddy McRichbucks at 15% but they’ll be a swath of businesses never getting off the ground because of the nearly 35% surcharge that Bernie has put on investment.

Again, I’ll remember with fondness our debates over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 33% or 39.6%. I just hope you, or I, the SDMB can still afford to get on here and post about it.

And what is all of this for? For a health care universal plan when most people are already satisfied with what they have? Free everything? Wouldn’t it be far, far, far better just to patch the holes in the current system which is largely working well?

182

At this moment, the guys at ACA decided that I should apply with the state medicare, but the state just told me that I just make about a bit more than what they stipulate, so I don’t have health insurance now; curiously, my wife was allowed to remain in the ACA.

So again, During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%–and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

Incidentally, a lot of independent business are growing thanks to allowing entrepreneurs to not be burdened early with extreme health care costs at the beginning.

IMHO while there should be a wealth tax, thanks to moderates in congress it is unlikely that a wealth tax will come, but that then the top bracket tax will increase.

183

Hillary was a smart and articulate opponent, and how well did that work to her advantage? Trump could pull his pants down onstage and take a massive dump on the floor on live TV— it won’t sway his supporters one bit. People already know he’s a complete idiot and don’t care.

184

Probably not from the campaign itself but I can see that from the PACs. Thankfully I probably won’t have to see it because they won’t waste money in my state. Sorry swing state people.

And why should they care about the primaries? For large portions of the country their primary vote has been meaningless for decades while their choice is made by places like Iowa.

185

You are getting carried away. He hasn’t taken responsiblity for his words in public in 2 years or more.

You think a debate wtih trump will be the same, after 2016? When we saw that stuff?

70 million people can’t wait to see him try to pull his stunts again just so bernie or liz or (if only kamala huh) can show the world who he really is. He can’t compete intellectually outside of a very small lane and I don’t think he can improvise well on topics other than his narcissistic supply.

186

I’ve got data. You’ve got feels.

Roger that.

187

We both have data. Your data is what Sanders’ popularity is in February.

My data is the historical record that says candidate’s popularity in February does not reflect what their popularity will be in November.

So a February poll does not necessarily predict a November victory.

188

Maybe we should have a vote on that!

189

Which holes? So, do you support Obamacare with better subsidies and a public option?

190

And even more importantly, what we should have learned from 2016 is that national polls can be misleading or inaccurate. State polls are what we should be tracking, state polls in the swing states Dems need to pick up in order to win in 2020. It is early still but looking at 538’s state polls page Bernie appears to be doing well in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and North Carolina. Pennsylvania he is only up by 2% in the latest poll. It will be interesting to see how much of this holds once the full on slander and screaming about socialism gets going.

Still too early to mean much but I would say more revealing that national polls at this point.

191

I don’t even think the “swing” voters will even look at his position site. As mentioned, the base of each side is locked up, and then there are the “undecideds.” Some of those may be single-issue economy voters who will go where the economic winds blow. At this point, they are probably leaning Trump, and less likely to switch from Trump to Sanders than any other Democrat, but could if the economy tanks in a way that Trump is clearly to blame for.

Most of the rest are probably un-engaged in politics. They probably won’t go look stuff up. They will take in some part of what is put in front of them. I’m not super concerned about whether Sanders is more susceptible to the Socialist label than other Democratic candidates. But you know who is super concerned about that? US businesses. If Sanders is nominated, I think PAC money goes through the roof, and there will be a non-stop flood of Sanders’s face and voice backed by ominous music and dire words until everyone in America that was not already a Sanders fan gets a reflexive cold chill down their spine every time they hear his name.

I do not prefer Sanders. I will absolutely vote for him if he is the nominee. But I think most likely he will lose, primarily due to the enormous opposition he will draw from corporate interests.

By the way, I also think this election might be Sanders’s best chance to win, as well, because some of his natural opposition will be more strongly opposed to Trump. So, I think it’s his best chance to win, but also that it likely won’t be enough.

Yeah, those who think they have evidence backing their opinion because of national polling in February are off base. Hillary Clinton won in actual national votes, but that is not the way we measure winning in this particular contest. And it’s even more meaningless 8 months before the election.

192

Have the past few years not taught you that Trump’s lack of intellectual might doesn’t hurt him nearly as much as it ought to? Sure it’s made himself and the country he represents an international laughing stock, but aside from that what damage has that perception brought on him? Absolutely none. He made a complete ass of himself on the debate stage in 2016, more than any candidate ever did. He still won (only thanks to a hideously outdated and thoroughly undemocratic electoral system, but he won nevertheless. And that shitty system is still around and can still help him win). So how exactly is facing off another dem candidate in a debate going to change anyone’s mind at this point? If multiple unnecessary government shutdowns, consistent attempts at destroying ACA, grossly inhumane immigration policies, abjectly incompetent mismanagement of federal agencies, revolving door of cabinet replacements, numerous credible allegations of corruption, FBI investigations and an impeachment hasn’t convinced someone by now that he has absolutely no business being president any longer, then what on earth makes you think they’ll be swayed by a freaking debate? People who realize what a horror show he is didn’t just recently arrive at that conclusion. It was always self evident to those willing to acknowledge it.

193

There is not the mythical swing voter that is talked about on these boards who’s sitting around with a pen over D and R and just waiting for something to tip them to pick one or the other major party candidate. “Stay at home voters who might be convinced to come out” is pretty much the direct opposite of the ‘swing voter’ who’s just waiting for the word ‘socialist’ to check ‘R’ instead of ‘D’. I don’t buy the idea that there is a huge pool of people sitting around saying ‘well, this guy is a socialist like the Republicans have said about every Democratic candidate since at least the 90s, therefore I need to come out and vote for a Republican’.

I do think that there are a lot of people who are indifferent to the usual offering of far-right and ‘right wing, but OK on a few things’ that the establishment offers through candidates like Hillary and Biden (or the “Republican and Republican in Blue” that Bloomberg offers). “None of the above” actually won the last election, more people didn’t vote at all than voted for any particular candidate. I haven’t seen any actual support from the Bernie-Bashers to support the contention that more people will run away from ‘socialist’ than turn up to vote for his rather different campaign. And most of the arguments about ‘swing voters’ seem to be very much like the arguments that showed that there was no way Hillary could lose to Trump in 2016, which were rather dramatically discredited.

I’m more than a little skeptical of Gallop polls, since they only capture responses from people who do not screen their calls for unknown numbers, and include at least 30% landline responses. That skews the demographic that they’re looking at pretty severely, and I would expect that skew to be very strong towards people who think of ‘socialist’ as a scare word. But accepting it as valid, you’re mischaracterizing the poll anyway - the poll didn’t ask ‘could you ever vote for someone with the label socialist’, it asked “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [characteristic], would you vote for that person?”. Someone doesn’t have to believe that they ‘will never vote for a socialist’ to answer that question that way. Not sure what the ‘Atheist’ bit has to do with anything, Bernie Sanders isn’t an atheist and has stated so publicly in response to leaked emails that Hillary’s campaign was going to try to portray him as one to try to push him out of 2016 primaries. The fact that you’re picking one poll about something that doesn’t ask about Sanders directly and ignore all of the other polls now and from 2016 that show very broad support for Sanders is also a bit troubling.

Putting these together, it really looks like you’re cherry picking data and badly skewing what the data in the single poll you have says to support a conclusion. I’ll look at the wide variety of polls and election results over one single poll that doesn’t even say what you claim it does.

194

While they will need to do so to campaign against him, I don’t think that any candidate is going to cause Trump to lose support by trouncing him in debates, making him take responsibility for his words, or competing intellectually with him. And I don’t think that there is a significant pool of people who will watch the debates and would move from ‘not voting’ to ‘voting D’ based on any of the above either - I think that anyone engaged enough to follow debates has already decided whether they can stand Trump or not. While there will obviously be some campaigning against Trump, I think that for any candidate victory will rest on whether they can sell people on what they’re actually offering, Trump has already been painted as negatively as you’re going to paint him.

I also remember an awful lot of crowing on here about how Clinton won the debates in 2016, and look where that ended up.

195

An interesting piece on the Electoral College and the remaining Democratic field: MSN

196

That was indeed helpful. Besides Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the key states are likely to be Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina — and the piece describes why Sanders has liabilities specific to each of several of these states (Bloomberg has some, too, but not as badly).

197

It’s not about one debate, or about whether he can be “trounced” or not. twitler has ducked all unscripted reality for years now as potus. He needs to be held accountable in public routinely to avoid the creeping totalitarianism. To just bag it and leave the field is death.

If we just decide that he can’t be challenged, and have invested in that belief then he will win.

If we tell ourselves stories about how invulnerable he is to our liberal strategies he is going to win.

A lot of what you say is rationalization. We have had debates and used them to organize our electoral life. If trump is immune to it, it would be strangely superhuman of him. But why decide beforehand?

We need to drag turnp into unscripted reality to beat him. It has to happen a lot and he needs to be embarrassed in front of his less secure supporters.

If every debate arguement around him is just know it alls decrying any debate at all because he can’t be trounced, then he will win, no?

Debates are not to trounce others. They are unscripted civic speech in public.

198

I do think it could make a difference if debates showed, not just that he doesn’t care and lies, but his actual cluelessness and inability to cope with information and words on the fly. I really do think there are some declining mental acuity issues in play, and if he came off as truly bumbling, I think it might help.

I think if he lies and is ill informed and doesn’t care, it might not make a big difference because that was clear in the last election.

199

What are you suggesting? That the Democrats try to get a Constitutional Amendment enacted and ratified in the next six months requiring a Presidential candidate to participate in a debate as an eligibility requirement? I don’t see that happening. And that’s the only way we’re going to compel Trump to appear in a debate if he isn’t willing to.

I think Democrats would be wiser to accept the possibility that Trump might refuse to attend a debate and spend their resources on trying to turn his refusal into a campaign issue against him.

200

I have come to the conclusion that we are doomed.

Too many of the Trump voters I know (and there are quite a few) believe all the superlatives Trump throws around. Try and get them to look at the markets’ trajectories, or job growth, and they simply reject any data they don’t like. Try to point out that we have been shedding manufacturing jobs, and they won’t believe it. Try to point out that coal’s decline has been going on for 70+ years, and that natural gas will kill it, and they will tell you Trump’s deregulation push has reinvigorated coal.

On the other side, I am noticing a lot of my less informed* acquaintances on the left think the Democrats are a bunch of idiots, and that somehow “politicians are all the same” and I see a lot of them disengaged.

The nature of my job is such that I regularly interact with people from every walk of life. From minimum wage couriers in the deep south to NYC billionaires. I’m definitely not in a bubble.

*I’m surprised at how many people don’t really understand what the Ukraine call was really about, or what Stone did, etc. They have a very simplistic understanding; and they assume that there’s an equality of shame, in that Hunter and Joe Biden surely did something wrong.