If you want to “get things done” in a bipartisan fashion, and don’t expect to change Congress over to a somewhat more progressive mix, I think you may be better off with Donald Trump. (Well, not you.)
There is no way the GOP as a party help the Clintons pass anything. Hillary will need a two-chamber Democratic Party majority to get so much as a budget bill passed. And that’s probably mostly true for any Democratic President, for sheer partisan reasons.
So the question is, who can get those giant coattails? Can HRC do it, by running to be the first female POTUS, and recruiting women to run around the country? Or can Bernie do it, by mobilizing the disaffected and disillusioned with someone different and mre populist? Maybe neither.
If we’re nominating someone to serve as “hated evil Leftist” President opposed by a furious white, anglo, anti-tax, anti-EPA, anti-regulation Congress, I think I’d just as soon have the “hated Evil Leftist” be a principled socialist as a triangulating moderate. We tried nominating a nice guy who reached across the aisle; the radicals in the GOP refused to work with him and replaced the reasonable Republicans (like Dick Lugar) who did work with him.
Now, HRC is not Obama, but I’m not convinced that her chumminess with “insiders” means any more to a Congress full of Ted Cruz types than Bernie’s attempts to shame Congressmen into acting decently.
Fair concerns. But it’s not a one-dimensional issue.
Carter appealed to religious voters, being a man of faith himself. The GOP have had to get the religious right vote ever since.
Carter ran as an outsider and reformer. He was the first of several recent presidents to come from a governor’s mansion. While some in the GOP have run as old Washington hands (the Doles come to mind), the GOP today largely run as outsiders and reformers in their own way.
If Sanders wins even one election, that means Republicans and Democrats will be incentivized to copy some of what made him successful. What makes Bernie successful? Well, he’s a populist and has a social conscience, so politicians might copy that. (A few will convince themselves it’s the messy hair and try to play at being Boris Johnson.) And that will take us to a point more to the left.
If voters reject Sanders at the primary level, the political professionals will decide that we don’t really want his policies after all. And that will take us to a point more to the right.
Negative feedbacks to major inputs are not typically larger than those inputs. When you vote for more leftish policies, you largely do what you mean to do.
Socialism is not nearly the same thing as communism.
Health care is free and works well in many wealthy countries. K-12 education is free in America. There are many similar examples – most countries in the world, including America and other wealthy countries, are partly socialist.
The Democratic Party needs to run to the “left,” toward greater subsidy of health care and post-secondary education, because this is good for us economically, and because the GOP won’t.
In the present political climate, moderate Democrats have a very, very strong advantage over immoderate Republicans in Presidential races. (Note that the large GOP statehouse majorities rely overwhelmingly on gerrymandering.) It’s not clear yet how populist Democrats compare, and to what degree they mobilize the disaffected; but if the GOP nominate an immoderate and somewhat racist candidate, the Democrats can likely win with a leftist, too.
A Democratic Party that nominates HRC in a close race against Sanders may be better for progressives than one that nominates Sanders. But a Democratic Party that rejects Sanders early in the season would seem to be worse for progressives than either. I think an argument for HRC and against Bernie has to rest on relative personal competence, not ideology.
Historically, the USA has had both of those things to varying degrees. We got a lot of healthy, educated people out of it. If you want to argue that’s bad, fine. Tell us why that’s bad. But it’s not really that new.
Then there is the cost of health insurance. In some cases, it is included in taxes, but more often, in universal coverage nations, it is a separate charge on a sliding scale for income. Sometimes the separate charge is paid to a government agency, but approximately as often you have to pick a private insurer.
With the Affordable Care Act, in the roughly half of US states that are fully cooperating with the law, there already is universal coverage except for scofflaws. The main difference between those US states, and Germany/Netherlands/Switzerland, may be that our people are more likely to violate the mandate to buy insurance. Three reasons for this: The US tax/fine for not buying insurance is low, EMTALA means you can get a lot of health care even if uninsured, and Americans are less law abiding.
If you like what is going on in Venezuela, then you will love Bernie as President.
He and Chavez are simpatico types and Bernie will want the same type of massive change. I don’t believe he is a European style socialist at all, I believe he is much more radical than he lets on.
If it means winning in November instead of subjecting us to another Republican administration, then damn straight it’s better.
It’s fine to get the power of progressivism apparent to all, including the more reality-based and effective eventual nominee (and President). But at some point the voters have to connect with political reality as well, and go with an attainable good instead of an imagined perfect.
Let’s get something straight. Health care is not free anywhere. Period.
Healtch care in other countries is paid for by taxes or borrowing money. This may be workable, depending on the country. However, it requires certain things, like a sustainable budget, a constant influx of young healthy workers and less spending in other areas among other things. If any of those things disappear, well, then you have a problem.
The historical record of governments giving away stuff for ‘free’ shows one thing very clearly and that is once a benefit is given it is almost impossible to claw it back. Hell, look at Greece. It is the perfect example of what happens when the government cannot cover all the ‘free’ services it had promised. The Greeks lived, in effect, on credit cards and shady accounting
When the creditors realized this and decided it was time to cut off the credit, Greece found out that all the ‘free’ things they relied on actually had a very high price.
If people stopped using the word free in regard to government handouts and instead said ‘paid for by someone else, probably your children’ , which happens to be true, I suspect a lot of people would be less intent on demanding ‘free’ stuff.
As it stand now, in the U.S. it is becoming more and more clear that if we don’t get our spending under control by actually paying for our free stuff the only answer will be either to hope and pray for some new tech that increases growth dramatically or to jack up inflation and inflate the debt away. The first option would be nice but is in no way guaranteed. The second option will work but will also cause gigantiic problems for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
As for Sanders as President, I suspect that, even if he had a congress in place to back him, the public would balk at the costs required to pay for all this free stuff that his supporters seem to want.
Speaking of not free stuff, what it also has to be mentioned is that the Republicans and conservatives do not have any answer to the high costs that the irrational health care that we have in America have to endure.
Only see question #6
As the swiss doctor puts it, it is puzzling how in the USA a plan like the one Obama proposed is considered by many in the USA to be “Socialistic” or “Communistic” when countries like South Korea can offer health care to all their citizens, and with less waste of money.
And yes, on the video Hans Rosling reports that then 15% of the GDP was spent in health care, now it is close to 18%
Thing is that after Obamacare the next step to get better health care is to indeed deal with the high costs, and while it is true that Democrats are not so hot on that, the Republicans are stone cold on dealing with that.
Too far left, too much integrity - he’ll be Jimmy Carter, the sequel - now with MORE OBSTRUCTIONISM so he can’t even gain Carter’s legacy.
(I like him, but oh, my God, I hope he burns out fast - because to govern effectively, he’ll have to compromise, and that will disappoint his followers - and probably himself. And if he doesn’t - we are in shit city).
I’ll have to mostly agree with what Onomatopoeia said (Hey, I typed it right the first time!).
Looking at the provided Wiki link, Bern! seems to already be feeling the backlash of congress on his attempts to reform VA support. Same thing goes for health care as he wants to improve the ACA with lowering drug costs for medication not yet generic. I doubt this will get passed and if it does, more time wasted being challenged over and over again. The GOP Big Pharma supporters will flip their shit and so will their GOP puppets.
His foreign policy will seem too light for many voters for our military and his pushing for a separate state for Palestine should be toned down before debates start.
He MAY have an edge in gun control reform. He seems clear that he is not attacking the second amendment as much as NRA lovers claim Obama is, and he wants to single out the baddies with just gun-show background checks. He even thinks 99.9% of gun owners are law-abiding, so he’s got that.
What makes him more of a real candidate (to me) is how he isn’t flat-out attacking opponents on either side yet. When asked about Hilary’s emails, he says, “You’ll have to ask Hilary.” The best response available. I haven’t seen him make fun of Trump’s hair or bankruptcies yet. If a debate ensues, Trump couldn’t hold water on a guy whose career IS politics, not just something to do after being fired.
I voted yes. His record suggests seriousness about the nuts and bolts of governing, which means he’ll do his job and not worry so much about legislation he can’t get.
Who are these voters who would vote for Clinton over an actual, identifiable Republican running and wouldn’t vote for Sanders?
I’m not clear what disadvantage of Sanders is neutralized by HRC.
Advanced age? OK, that’s a point. One.
What advantages of Clinton would be neutralized by Sanders?
Is he going to lose the “Emily’s List” feminist vote? To whom–an anti-birth-control Republican (anyone but Trump) or a known marital rapist (Trump)?
Her connections in the party? Let me remind you that Clinton got about half the votes in the primaries in 2008 and the party still nominated a less well-known candidate instead of her. A lot of Democrats adore Mrs. Clinton and her husband, but a lot of Democratic office-holders resent them and want the party to get away from their self-serving “centrist triangulation.” “Anyone But Clinton” has endorsements well in hand.
Like it or not, the platform of Bernie Sanders is the platform of Democratic party base. By opposing him, you’re basically telling the actual left wing in this country to shove off and get nothing. Well, why would anyone turn out for that?
Because she’s a woman? Maybe a party that’s relying on stunt nominations like, “First black! Followed by first woman! Next, first conjoined twin President!” is a party that doesn’t have a worthwhile platform to offer.
Hillary is going to* lose.* She’s going to get primaried, hard, and Nate Silver’s reputation will take a hit.
And even you will show up on Election Day to elect Sanders. Even you.
Once again, this is not a thread about Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination, nor about his electability in the general election, we have other threads for that. This thread is about what kind of POTUS Sanders would make – though he need be inaugurated while dodging showers of aviating-porcine feces, what comes after that?
As I understand it, Greece’s welfare state is less robust than those of the northern European nations tut-tutting at the state of its books. Greece’s problems stem from clientelism, tax avoidance, and broad tax exemptions for big business. You know, Dick Cheney/Mitt Romney stuff.
Well, he wouldn’t be the best President ever. I don’t think he has time to be a second FDR.
But it’s like I have been saying. The difference is whether he inspires “baby Bernies.” Not just voters, but lefty officeholders.
The Clintons, and the Democratic Party of the last generation, bought into a one-dimensional “spectrum” theory of electoral politics, where a politician, acting in the interest of his own career, runs toward a “middle ground” to gain votes. The “surf shop in the middle of the beach.” instead of “the rocks at one end.” This has proven an incompetent way to build a party. I believe this is because it’s a false analogy and a bad model.
Gingrich took a revolutionary’s stance, and the version of the “GOP” he built runs toward its base, and it runs away from the middle, from compromise and agreement, and from “enemies,” as fast and as hard as if the very survival of civilization depended on running away. They cultivate a base through education and propaganda, they demonize their opposition, and once in office they behave as if they mean it. And it works.
Gingrich’s tack works because politics is not on a one-dimensional spectrum. You have to believe in your base–the Clintons never entirely did. You have to cultivate your base–that is finally happening, I think. But once it’s cultivated, you have to follow through–that hasn’t been happening. You have to run toward your base, not away from it. Your base is a cluster, like in the Pew typology. You develop your base, you offer them something, and you try to deliver. Cintons and Obamas don’t try, because they’re walking out in the wilderness, or even in the enemies’ base, looking for the “surf shop in the middle of the beach” that doesn’t exist because there is no beach.
Bernie could be a miserably mediocre POTUS. But aren’t they generally? Who wouldn’t be? Sanders is what the progressive movement needs in a leader. One who dreams big things, and insists on them. We need someone like FDR or LBJ without the foreign wars. Bernie is that.
Hillary is more of the same failed paradigm: the party that wins loose and unstable “majorities” for a few years, then betrays part of the base (such as the anti-war and impeachment movements in 2006-2010), and loses five times as often as they win.
The Clintons and Obama decided to be like Dick Nixon, and run as themselves, not as leaders of the opposition party. Well, you know how Nixon is remembered as a conservative who let a lot of liberal stuff pass and still was hated and run out of office? Yeah, they’re like that.
Reagan had a legislative majority (counting the boll weevils). He avoided being impeached even when much of his administration went to prison! What happened in between?
Reagan dared to tell people he believed in a “discredited” political paradigm. He was “The Great Communicator.” Propaganda* matters.* Propaganda works. Not just to win elections, but to change the course of a nation.
The more I think about this, the more I think not only that maybe Hillary could lose to Bernie, but that maybe she can’t win against him.
And if he has any coattails at all, then the GOP may finally have a fight on their hands, instead of a bowed head from the elected “leader” of the “other side.”
So, as to your question:
One, I don’t care that much if he’s a somewhat weaker administrator, although I’ve seen no reason to think he is.
Two, if the Democratic Party careerists are against an “independent” who represents their base better than they do, well, fine, let’s vote them out, too.
Three, he’s very probably what we need now.
