Thanks, Hank, that’s interesting data, although I note that some of the hypothetical polls I’ve linked to do show Sanders getting more than 50% of the vote. Given that you only need 50%+1 to get elected, I’m not sure that’s an insurmountable barrier, but this does constitute evidence that it could be a significant problem.
You do understand the major way that Norway and Denmark, and other Scandinavian countries, afford their lavish socialist benefits is from oil and gas revenues ? Take away the oil and gas revenues up there and they are ALL in serious financial problems.
Cite that they would be?
Yes, America was rebelling against King George’s socialist policies for Pete’s sake.
Thing Fish, you know popular vote doesn’t choose the President, right?
Got a hunch that most countries, deprived of a major source of income, would experience economic difficulties. Here, we just make 'em up. So, we are more creative!
Yes, of course. Oversimplifying for the sake of brevity.
No, I don’t “understand” that. Norway, yes. Denmark gets far, far less of their GDP from oil and gas, and Sweden – arguably the most socialized of them all – has a diversified mixed economy, and historically one of the strongest in Europe. Stop getting your information from Fox News.
Stop getting your “information” from Fox News.
Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.
Following the second world war there was a limit to how far to the right a candidate could go, that limitation has clearly ended. We’re in a similar period following the end of the cold war as regards to how far to the left a candidate can go.
Republicans have only themselves to blame as they have been calling all Democrats socialists for so long a lot of people will be thinking, “Hey, why not vote for the real thing.”
I just don’t want to see Bernie Sanders’ Fitness Revolution.
And that’s why he has no chance of becoming president. It’s a total loser argument.
Considering that the major substantive critique of Sanders from the centrists is that his payroll taxes to fund single-payer health insurance would cost most Americans more than what they’re paying for insurance now–including raising taxes on working poor who qualify for Medicaid–you are, again, dead wrong.
Does he support a “Robin Hood” financial transactions tax? Yes, of course. That doesn’t make him unrealistic; it’s actually realistic about the present shape of the USA economy. But he is a real live social democrat.
Just curious, are you against welfare in particular, or the whole capitalist state apparatus in general? Like spending gigabucks on corporate subsidies, infrastructure, research, energy, the defense industry, etc.
But as he points out, the payroll tax only replaces health insurance premiums, so middle class Americans do actually skate under his plan.
The “soak the rich” mentality does actually owe more to the old Progressives than to EUropean Social Democrats.
Paying a First-World amount for First-World healthcare instead of a 50% markup and getting worse care is what you call “skating” now?