Why don't you support Bernie Sanders? (if you don't)

[Buck_Godot]

@Ludovic

The simplest explanation is that they think Bernie is the weakest candidate. Even in other, less likely, frames of mind, where Putin is doing it for the sake of chaos or some other multidimensional reason, it still isn’t “utterly, almost unspeakably, unreasonable” to wonder if he’s still doing it because Bernie is the weakest candidate because Russia would never just declare “nope! We’re scared of Bernie! We just thought backing him would cause him to lose the nomination and he’s the strongest candidate!”

Another bonus is that it gives Barr the excuse he needs to start an investigation of the Sanders campaign. The evidence in favor of Putin helping Sanders may be even more strong than that of them helping Trump, as is usually the case when the co-conspirators actually want to be found out.

[BigAppleBucky]

At this point, after Nevada and before South Carolina, I support Elizabeth Warren over Sanders. Mainly because I believe she would make the better chief executive.

I certainly would strongly support Sanders over Trump in the general election. If Trump wins, the United States might not see another free election for generations.

[survinga]

I guess if were to summarize why I don’t support Sanders, here are the main reasons below in no particular order. I would first however say that if he wins the Democrat primaries, I will support him over Trump. I don’t like Bernie, but I’m not a “never Bernie” guy either:

1. I don’t think he’s electable in a general election. He seems to wear the “socialism” label on his sleeve, and I don’t think that will do well in a general. Any Dem will get tarred with that label, but with Bernie, I feel like we’d be leading with our chin.

2. I don’t agree with his version of Medicare for All, which includes doing away with Private Insurance. That would be incredibly disruptive, and I have many problems with his proposals on this issue. I would prefer something that builds on the ACA, and that doesn’t get rid of private insurance.

3. In total, his policies are a huge shift in the domestic sphere. I know he won’t be able to implement everything he talks about. But I like more incremental changes than what a Bernie type advocates.

4. He’s shown support (somewhat) for MMT by having Stephanie Kelton as an economic advisor back in 2015/2016. I don’t agree with MMT, which I think is a fringe theory that’s gained momentum politically. This admittedly is not a huge concern to me, as I don’t think he’ll go full-bore MMT. But when I see who advises him in economics, it concerns me.

5. His surrogates slime people, sometimes with disinformation, such as some things that they said about Biden. Those tactics bother me. They don’t rise anywhere near the level of Trump. But it’s enough to make me wonder about him, since he won’t seem to deal with these incidents.

6. He’s not a bridge-builder. He seems to be best when attacking others, which worries me. I’m worried that he might spend too much time fighting unwinnable fights. He’s been in congress for decades. And I’ve never seen him as being someone who works well with others. Presidents often have to be persuasive in their arguments. I don’t see anything in his background in congress that points to that.

[Locrian]

For me you could add:

7. Even with a democrat majority in the Senate, many dems don’t work well with or vote supporting Sanders. He’s a DINO, and if he’s the final nominee, I don’t see the party rallying around him.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

If I may, “Democrat” is a noun, and “Democratic” is the proper adjective. Thanks.

[Locrian]

@Elendil_s_Heir

If I may, “Democrat” is a noun, and “Democratic” is the proper adjective. Thanks.

Yeah, tried fixing that, but hitting save brings you to Gateway 504-land.

[Shodan]

@Velocity

Since Russian support for anyone is the political kiss of death, then, as mentioned above, it makes perfect sense that Moscow would endorse everyone in some way or other, thus being able to sabotage any candidate down the road in some way or other.

Or just fuck around with the election no matter who is running.

I don’t think Putin cares who is elected. He just wants to weaken the process so that whoever is elected is weakened.

Regards,
Shodan

[carrps]

@elanor

Ah, some people have such well-reasoned responses. My reason for disliking Sanders is more personal. I want old, white men to STOP YELLING AT ME!!! Stop stabbing the air with your finger and shouting! I loathe Trump, but I can no more tolerate listening to Sanders’ voice than I can to his. I switch off the TV or close the video when either of them starts speaking. Just shut up, already. I’ll read what you have to say, but I’m not going to sit here and be yelled at.
That said, I’ll vote for Sanders if he’s the nominee. But if he wins, I’ll spend 4 more years of reading Presidential speeches instead of listening to them.

I think I posted the same thing here a little while ago.

I like his message, but, dang, he’s irritating as hell to listen to.

[Mikemike2]

Coming to this discussion late, and I am Canadian.

I am horrified that Sanders is getting close to securing the Democratic nomination. He is unelectable because of his socialist stance. Trump would easily scare voters into not electing Sanders. He is also too old (he will be eighty in his first term) and has had a heart attack he has not had time to recover from - and is not disclosing his medical records about it, even though he promised he would.

The democrats need a moderate to have a chance to win. If they do not select someone suitable, I guess they can look in the mirror when they help re-elect a monster to do unimagined damage to the US democracy and its world standing.

[Mikemike2]

duplicate because this website is not working

[iiandyiiii]

@Mikemike2

Coming to this discussion late, and I am Canadian.

I am horrified that Sanders is getting close to securing the Democratic nomination. He is unelectable because of his socialist stance. Trump would easily scare voters into not electing Sanders. He is also too old (he will be eighty in his first term) and has had a heart attack he has not had time to recover from - and is not disclosing his medical records about it, even though he promised he would.

The democrats need a moderate to have a chance to win. If they do not select someone suitable, I guess they can look in the mirror when they help re-elect a monster to do unimagined damage to the US democracy and its world standing.

This is a wild guess. This stuff can’t be predicted this early. We just don’t know. It’s entirely possible that Bernie is the strongest candidate (which is what I think, BTW, but I recognize it’s just a guess right now).

[Sherrerd]

@Buck_Godot

Another bonus is that it gives Barr the excuse he needs to start an investigation of the Sanders campaign. The evidence in favor of Putin helping Sanders may be even more strong than that of them helping Trump, as is usually the case when the co-conspirators actually want to be found out.

Good points.

Of course Barr won’t breathe a word of his plans until after Bernie officially becomes the nominee. Then it will be investigations into Bernie non-stop. The Senate will be holding hearings on the Really Impressive Evidence that Bernie is working with the Kremlin. FBI and CIA and other intelligence agencies will all have their own investigations. It will be in the news every day.

The GOP has probably planned to at least make a pass at doing this (non-stop “investigations”) no matter who the Democratic candidate is—but it wouldn’t really stick or be plausible with, say, Klobuchar or Buttigieg.

With Bernie it will be a slam dunk.

[Bijou_Drains]

Maybe this was posted but Sanders is in the top 1% if you look at his assets and income.

[Sherrerd]

@Bijou_Drains

Maybe this was posted but Sanders is in the top 1% if you look at his assets and income.

That’s why he removed “millionaires and billionaires” from his speeches, and replaced it with “billionaires.”

(As someone who’s listened to a lot of his speeches, I can tell you that it’s very noticeable.)

[Razncain]

Just finished the 60 Minutes episode of Anderson Cooper interviewing Bernie Sanders of which Cooper said the Medi-Care for all was going to cost $30-40 trillion dollars over ten years. Does that sound about right? To put it into perspective, I suppose insurance costs for everyone over that ten year period probably runs somewhere around that too. Just trying to get a basic understanding of it all.

When confronted with his term Democratic Socialism, he gave a good example of the difference of his, and of Trump’s 800 million dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury housing in NY.

If Bernie gets the nomination, I just hope he continues to give plenty more examples like this, not just Trump’s, but a lot of others of how the tax dollars are often going to the 1%, not the working people, and how it’s hurting them when they continue to have to compete with that. David Cay Johnston has documented a great deal of this in many of his books and articles.

[GIGObuster]

@Razncain

Just finished the 60 Minutes episode of Anderson Cooper interviewing Bernie Sanders of which Cooper said the Medi-Care for all was going to cost $30-40 trillion dollars over ten years. Does that sound about right?

'Medicare for all' could save businesses trillions of dollars

That might seem outrageous, but it’s worth keeping in mind that a Sanders-style single-payer system would transfer all health care spending to the federal government. “I’m scoring the federal cost here, and it’s enormous,” Blahous told Yahoo Finance. “The other side of the coin is businesses, individuals, states and others are not going to be paying these costs. They’re going to be given to the federal government.”

On the whole, the Blahous analysis finds that total health spending would actually decline under the Sanders plan, compared with the status quo, with the feds paying a lot more, but everybody else paying nothing. And more people would get coverage, since everybody would be eligible. As the only buyer of health care, the government would have the power to demand deep discounts, and there would be lower overhead because there would only be one administrative structure. Of course, we’d all have to get care through the government, and deal with the pitfalls that would entail.

Still, the tradeoffs for businesses could be attractive. Federal tax revenue from individuals and businesses will total about $3 trillion this year. So taxes would need to more than double to cover a giant new health care plan. Doubling everybody’s taxes sounds like a death wish for politicians. But it might not be as crazy as it sounds.

Businesses now pay about $1.2 trillion in health care costs per year, which provides coverage for about 49% of the American population. Federal income tax payments for businesses will only total around $243 billion this year. So corporate America pays 5 times as much for health care benefits for employees as it pays in federal taxes. If you tripled or even quadrupled corporate income taxes, while eliminating all their spending on health care, it would still amount to a net savings for businesses.

IMHO this looks, as someone that got his early training in social studies and history, like our way out for the unsustainable path the USA is headed to regarding health care, if no plan like this is considered, then the eventual health care bubble burst will make the housing one to look like child’s play.

[Bijou_Drains]

Williamson endorsed Sanders!! Break out the crystals and tarot cards and reiki!

[pjacks]

Here is an interesting experiment that seems to disprove the notion that labeling Sanders as a socialist would hurt him:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/1/31/21113780/bernie-sanders-socialism-electability-primaries?__twitter_impression=true

Data for Progress used the Lucid survey sampling platform to test three different versions of a Sanders and Trump polling matchup question. The survey was in the field from January 9 to January 19 of 2020 and ran these three polls:
No information: “If the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump?”
Partisan cues: “If the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump?”
Socialists and billionaires: “If the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Democrat Bernie Sanders, who wants to tax the billionaire class to help the working class and Republican Donald Trump, who says Sanders is a socialist who supports a government takeover of healthcare and open borders?”
In all three versions, Bernie beats Trump, albeit by slightly different margins. Sanders does best in the version of the question that provides no information at all. Giving the candidates their partisan labels increases Sanders’s lead somewhat, and giving the hypothetical messages leaves Sanders with a lead that’s somewhere in between the two other scenarios.

The most interesting thing is Sanders seems to lose actual support when he is labeled as a DEMOCRAT, instead of as a socialist or democratic socialist.

[asahi]

@iiandyiiii

This is a wild guess. This stuff can’t be predicted this early. We just don’t know. It’s entirely possible that Bernie is the strongest candidate (which is what I think, BTW, but I recognize it’s just a guess right now).

Bernie’s taking a position on healthcare that’s all-or-nothing.

Check out this poll on M4A in swing states:

Kaiser Poll: Swing Voters In Key States Rate Medicare For All A ‘Bad Idea’ -...

As Americans continue to learn about the unaffordable costs and consequences of Medicare for All, a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Cook Political Report finds that nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of swing voters in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin rate Medicare for All as a “bad idea.”

He’s counting on his ability to sell “socialism” to low-information voters. That works when trying to win the party’s nomination, but it’s DOA when selling it to a general population.

[asahi]

@pjacks

Here is an interesting experiment that seems to disprove the notion that labeling Sanders as a socialist would hurt him:
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/1/31/21113780/bernie-sanders-socialism-electability-primaries?__twitter_impression=true
The most interesting thing is Sanders seems to lose actual support when he is labeled as a DEMOCRAT, instead of as a socialist or democratic socialist.

Pff, it’s a label.

What people will start paying real attention to is what Sanders proposes to do. This guy is proposing to change the healthcare system entirely.

Also, I think Bloomberg gave us a little taste of the strategy that will be used to hammer Sanders. The most famous socialist in the US has three houses.