In my understanding, Bernie actually does have a long record of legislative compromise – he just doesn’t compromise in his rhetoric. He did vote for the ACA, after all, along with plenty of other policies that were considered weak or unsatisfactory progress from the most progressive elements of the left.
For what it’s worth, I’ve listened to most of the hour + long recording that Lev Parnas released - the one where Trump tells him to get rid of the ambassador.
He (Trump) talks about lots of other things candidly on tape, things that have gone unremarked by the press. One snippet that I found interesting was he talked about how it would be much harder to beat Bernie than it would a “normal” candidate. I’m pretty sure this happens at around the 50 minute mark, give or take 5-10 minutes but I’m not inspired to find it. But he definitely used the word “normal” .
The difference is the primary structure for the delegates in the Democratic primaries. The Republicans have winner take all or winner take most primaries and makes it easy for someone to steamroll and rack up delegates while winning small pluralities. Democrats allocate delegates proportionally and it’s certainly not realistic to think that a Bernie is going to get 85% of the vote in a large state.
Has there ever been an election in which the electorate would say they’re satisfied with the status quo? I highly doubt it. Almost everyone thinks their taxes are too high, what they receive isn’t adequate, and that too much money is being spent on welfare queens, big banks, energy companies, or insert name of punching bag here.
I don’t think anyone needs secret meetings to determine who will drop out to allow an anyone but sanders candidate. The money will start to dry up very quickly after a couple of bad performances. With Pete, he’s got a huge future ahead of him and can return to fight another day. I don’t see him going scorched earth to try to claw back after a 4th or low 3rd in IA/NH. Warren can always return to the senate and has to keep her eye on a possible
primary challenge in 2024, there’s a deep bench in MA. Biden has SC in his back pocket but if he stumbles badly in IA/NH/NV and squeaks by in SC, he can always ride off into the sunset (as I’d wish he done)
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I don’t think so. The most amazing thing about the 2016 race was that Bernie’s fundraising never let up even after the New York debacle which left him all but mathematically eliminated. I don’t think Biden/Buttigieg/Warren have that type of fervent support.
I’m very hopeful that the Democratic party will figure out that this kind of fervent support is a very good thing, especially for a very progressive politician, and rather than be afraid of it, seek to try to capture and benefit from it.
Exactly. The difference between Bernie and other politicians is that if the best the legislative process can produce is a crap sausage, he’ll accept it rather than take nothing at all. But he won’t try to tell us it’s filet mignon in order to look like he’s “getting things accomplished”.
Biden’s proposing a public option, but if Biden’s proposing a system where nobody gets left behind, I don’t see it. A public option helps, but it doesn’t fill nearly all the holes, AFAICT.
AFAIK, they’re the only ones.
I think that’s a mistake, btw, for the reason that your third question points out: many other developed countries have universal health care where private insurance plays a nontrivial role.
My criteria: health care needs to be universal, cover everything that’s reasonably regarded as not elective, be easily affordable, and be SIMPLE for the consumer.
On this last point, I mean that you shouldn’t have to worry about low or high deductibles, in or out of network, wide or narrow networks, you shouldn’t have to worry even about being covered or not: that part should be seamlessly handled between the government and your employer’s HR department. Health insurance shouldn’t be a headache that people have to spend time figuring out.
That third question: