No, they won’t vote for him on the grounds that no one else will be voting for him either so their vote is more efficiently used elsewhere. Same reason why most people don’t vote for third parties.
What did Hillary get done in the Senate again? Please remind me.
I’m a Hillary supporter. Hillary is much more knowledgeable than Sanders in almost every subject. You can see how well informed she is by either reading her white papers, or visiting her website, or just listening to her at a debate. I cannot imagine Sanders coming up with legislation to regulate derivative trading.
I agree with Sanders on almost every issue, but I do not think he has one sensible plan on how to turn his ideas into actual policies. I’m happy with him making his speeches on the senate floor. This is not a guy who I would want in an executive position.
This argument always baffles me. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with having a president be a policy wonk, but for the most part, my understanding is that the president sets overall goals and then lets his policy wonk minions sort out the details. Is that not true?
Myself, I don’t like his nuclear-energy policy. If we’re going to get away from oil, nuclear is simply going to have to be the way to go, like it or not, and he’s very much against that.
One complaint I’ve heard (although I could find no evidence when I tried to search) was that Sanders would not be as strong an advocate fighting tort reform.
According to this article, Sanders introduced 353 bills over his 25 years in Congress. In her eight years as a Senator, Clinton sponsored 409 bills. Both have sponsored three bills that eventually became law.
About 300 of those bills were renaming Post offices, fyi.
Sanders’ or Clinton’s?
A similar percentage of both I would say. That’s why you can’t look at raw bill sponsorships or votes to decide “who gets something done”. Sanders got some Vet health stuff done, but that’s relatively easy. Nothing springs to mind for Clinton.
I think it’s revealing that most Democratic voters seem to like European-style social democracy, but just can’t pull the trigger on such a candidate because the voters aren’t ready.
Which means it’s entirely fair to say that Democrats do indeed want 1970s-style Scandinavian social democracy here. Their moderation is transparently strategic.
A junior senator who spent only eight years in the senate doesn’t have that much influence. Obama did not get much done either.
That’s not really an excuse. Ron Wyden, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Bill Nelson were all pretty productive from the start. It’s about reaching across the aisle. Senators with Presidential ambition generally avoid that in today’s climate. That’s why Obama backed off from his work with McCain on ethics reform. Clinton, as per her usual practice, played it safe and avoided making waves. Sanders of course, is probably the most leftist member of the Senate and wasn’t even interested in finding common ground with Democrats, much less Republicans. And the VA work he did was pretty insufficient, although I’m reluctant to blame Congress for executive branch criminality. Sanders wasn’t in the VA’s chain of command.
There’s certainly some truth to that. I agree that an encyclopedic knowledge of every issue is not necessary. But I would like a president who has a broad base of understanding on important subjects–someone who knows the vocabulary, the broad outlines of the issue, the pluses and minuses. Not necessarily in great detail, but enough to make intelligent decisions, to know who to listen to, to set a direction. Clinton clearly has this kind of experience and this knowledge, and I am comfortable with that. Sanders…well, Sanders knows a great deal about Wall Street and what goes on there, and a couple of related issues…and that’s about it. I don’t know that he knows much about anything else or especially cares about it; I have no idea who he will listen to. In this particular case, I think there’s a real gap and an important one between the two candidates.
Nonsuch’s post #19, by the way, is a really, really good analysis of the Sanders campaign. Very well said. And right on target. Thank you.
So you’re agreeing that Hillary didn’t get anything done, but that’s ok because she quit after only one and a half terms?
My beef with sanders is a few things:
- Inability to lobby effectively.
A president can’t introduce legislation so he needs to get people on board to get an agenda through congress. There are only a handful of democrats that actually like him and nobody is going to want to take a bullet for him by introducing his pie in the sky reforms.
- Unrealistic legislative agenda
Because of my first point but also because gridlock all but gutted the ACA and that was Obama’s blockbuster legislation. He’s tried for 8 years to close gitmo and can’t even do that.
- Inability to take criticism.
The man will outright refuse to answer questions and will accuse anyone that asks a hard question of having a financially motivated agenda. Not a good look for someone trying to lead the world.
- I just don’t think he’s that smart
If his reforms were so clever why have I not seen a single one in my life? He’s been in politics for an eternity and has nothing to show for it.
I’m another person who thinks that while Sanders is promising a lot more, Clinton would get more actually accomplished in office. Some of Sanders supporters may denounce Clinton as being just another politician, but this is about politics. Clinton’s ability to play the game is an asset not a liability.
If the means don’t matter, just the ends, sure. But I think a lot of Sanders supporters, especially the young ones, want a better politics, not the same games and lies and used cars salesman acts we’re used to.
Maybe. I think Sanders’ constituency, like Trump’s, are enjoying the thrill of hearing the people/forces they blame for society’s ills finally get called out for it. For Sanders, that’s the financial system, lobbyists and establishment politicians; for Trump, it’s immigrants, Muslims and establishment politicians. But this mix of scapegoating and unrealizable, broad-brush solutions does not strike me as a better politics. In fact, on the Republican side at least, it’s pretty much politics as usual.
I don’t want to hammer too much on this point, because I think Bernie Sanders is an infinitely better man than Donald Trump, and would make an infinitely better president, for all my misgivings about him. But I see young liberal voters flocking to support a charismatic, self-styled outsider who’s promising things he can’t deliver, which they either don’t realize, or they do realize and don’t care, because they just love the message so much. And yeah, that bothers me. Today’s left certainly has its issues, but in general our body politic has been more resistant to ideologues than the right. Sanders is not doing his young followers any favors by pumping them up about a revolution he has no concrete plans for achieving, and it’s establishing a precedent for the modern Democratic party that I’m not happy to see.
(Thanks for the kind words, Ulf.)