Of course they had. Why do you think Clinton backed NAFTA, and the only guy running against it was an independent who was considered a bit crazy?
It’s a nonstarter because it largely subsidizes rich people and middle class people who can afford in the long run to make the investment. Obama couldn’t even get free community college on the table. What makes you think Sanders could get congress to pay for it? And even Sanders argues it will cost $75 billion, but we all know it would end up costing more. Additionally, the costs of such a plan will almost assuredly swell because more people would go to college and fewer, as a percentage, would finish (as we see in most countries with free college). I personally think it’s largely a stupid idea as long as we still have terrible primary and secondary schools in a number of areas that almost preclude most of their students from succeeding in college.
Hello? John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie among others. Christie and others even wanted to offer free tuition to undocumented immigrants. None are for mass deportation, and most of the above argue for some path to citizenship. Coupled with Trump’s rhetoric, all the above are to the left of him.
What exactly is the point in mentioning it then?
But they themselves don’t think they are victims. I suppose the establishment has arguably lost control, but I don’t think the average republican thinks this is anything bad. It would be like a republican arguing the democratic party would get what it deserved if they nominated Sanders.
I disagree. Elizabeth Warren was the face of the movement before Bernie, and most people hoped she’d run against Hillary because Hillary was known to be a vulnerable candidate. I guess if you mean that someone like Sanders’ personalty wise, I would agree. But I think most knew his message would resonate to some extent.
I don’t think that’s quite accurate as the perspective policies he’s espousing do little to hold the capital class accountable.
He is a social democrat. Social democracy is anything but loony, it is a system that works well in many countries where things in general go much better than they go here. And there is nothing particularly unstable or detached-from-reality in Sanders’ mind or personality. In what sense is he a loony?
I don’t give a shit if he’s a socialist OR a social democrat. And I know what he says he is, and what others say he is. I didn’t just emerge from a cave yesterday to look the guy over.
Having read his platform, listened to his speeches and what he’s proposing as well as read glowing reports of the guy on this board and by at least one ‘economist’ I, personally, think the guy is a loon and is completely detached from reality in the same old left winger ponies and unicorns way. Even leaving aside the fact that I disagree almost categorically with his platform and think it’s ridiculous, the fact that he and his followers think they could actually get any of that crap through our current political climate when Obama, a much more capable politician (IMHO) couldn’t get even his less ridiculous or ambitious agenda through is telling.
I also think that he’s just off, listening to him talk. But, like Trump, he’s struck a cord with the pining left wing types as well as youngsters who are hoping for a free ride and some cool stuff as well as to be edgy and part of the new wave, blah blah blah. YMMV, of course, and our definitions of what is or isn’t realistic or loony are and have been for ever simply light years apart, so why bother with this?
Certainly he is much less of a "loon"then any of the Republicans who ran. Although I find it remarkable you think that somehow advocating single-payer, a higher minimum wage, and reviving unions is “ponies and unicorns”.
Because we are not even in YMMV territory here. We are in territory where there is an objective truth, and Bernie Sanders is siding with that truth, and you are siding against it.
Normally, the primary process is about choosing between different varieties of vanilla. This year Hillary is going to have to run to the left of where she would have run, she can’t tack to the middle as she might normally have done. Trump is going to have to work very hard to attract traditional Republicans who make up the bread and butter of a general election.
I reckon its more viable today than before Sanders started touting the idea.
We don’t have to increase the class size at state colleges. We don’t increase the class size at west point because there is more demand than supply. We will simply become more selective and probably achieve a HIGHER graduation rate than we currently have.
We don’t always tackle problems in the order that YOU think they should be prioritized. We tackle problems in the order in which they become politically viable.
We have been talking about detaching school funding from real estate taxes for as long back as I can remember but there is a lot of resistance to this from people who bought homes in expensive school districts.
We have only recently started talking about expanded early education and free community college. I think free state schools are on that spectrum.
Good point, I reverse my position on that. Trump is pandering to the racists in his party.
Because it didn’t have to be that way. Things could very easily have reverted to a big money machine situation if the presumptive nominees are Bush and Hillary.
I don’t think Establishment Democrats feel about Sanders the way Establishment Republicans feel about Trump.
Yes to the personality issue and no, I don’t think that people really thought a left wing liberal like Sanders would do as well as he did. Kucinich never did this well and he is no less personable than Sanders.
He wants to enact laws that don’t force rich guys like him to do things that are not in the best interests of America (or at least that’s his argument for why he has been running his business with little to no loyalty to the American worker).
I just think Trump and Sanders represent outsiders in an election where most of the time you get the same old - same old. And people are tired of that. They are almost like a 3rd party alternative.
It’s more viable in the sense that it’s an idea that’s out there, but I can’t see something like what Sanders is proposing passing anytime soon.
You could do that, but then you would basically be back at square one where a good portion of the population is not going to college. Right now, there are very few good students who cannot afford to go to a college. Many cannot afford to go to the best, most expensive college they were admitted to, but I don’t think most literally cannot afford college. Additionally, if they have to, it is not a bad deal economically for them to go into debt to do so.
True, but given we don’t even have universal pre-K, I doubt free college is politically viable.
I have to say I am impressed you were open and honest enough to revise your position on this point.
I guess he didn’t have to do that, but I think it’s an obvious play given his relative wealth.
True, but my point was that I don’t think establishment republicans are connecting Trump’s success with their pandering to racists and idiots. I think that is probably a logical and defensible connection to draw, but I think they’d disagree. As such, I doubt they are going to learn any lessons.
Yes, but Kucinich was running against more formidable competition in a different time. I don’t think Sanders is that great a candidate; he is just a candidate that could do well in this moment. Accordingly, I think there was some idea that a Sanders-like candidate could do as well as he is doing which is not that well in actuality).
Well shit nothing is going to be exactly as you imagine it but the notion of free public school tuition was not really on the horizon before.
Paying for college is one of the biggest concerns that middle class folks have when they have children. The fact that we already have a system that serves our purpose of providing access to college by sending kids into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt before they get their first job seems like something that can be and should be improved upon.
Depends on who wins the election. I’m voting for Hillary.
I try to do this whenever I can, I’m not always successful.
We have had wealthy Republican candidates before. Heck, we have had wealthy candidates from all parties before. In any event, the repudiation of money in politics (and Trumps obvious campaigning against Hillary on the “Hillary is bought and paid for” platform) is probably good for our democracy.
I live in the DC area and the Republicans around here tend to be establishment Republicans. The Republicans I know are drawing the lesson that they should no longer equate private sector success to qualification for holding public office. Hopefully they learn a few other lessons as well.
Who was he running against in 2004? John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean?
2008 was chock full of great candidates but one of the strongest candidates that year is also running this year and she is even stronger now than she was then.
He is doing better than anyone thought and I agree he is not an appealing candidate. I can’t help but feel that is there was a more charismatic liberal running against Hillary, that charismatic liberal would be doing better than Sanders.
When people ask him “Hey Donald, if you hate outsourcing to China so much, then why do you outsource so much shit to China?” His response is that business realities force him to do so in order to compete. If we passed laws that discouraged outsourcing and encouraged domestic production (protectionism), he wouldn’t have that incentive and he (along with other businessmen) would start bringing jobs back to the USA. His argument seems to be that our laws are crafted in a way to maximize profits but also to screw the American worker. And the additional profits to businessmen aren’t really worth the damage it is doing to the American working class.
Said like a true believer. Keep the faith, BG…