Would Bernie Sanders make a good POTUS? Why or why not?

Politics & Elections
61

There’s a difference between a leftist able to compromise on policy and someone who is no leftist at all.

For example: Why do most Democrats never even mention that Medicare as we know it is already compromised, and it was supposed to be single-payer for all? Why don’t we hear much about greater subsidies to universities and lower tuition?

I’ve noticed that Democrats, in my state at least, typically stand for very little. They barely even throw sops to their constituencies to win elections, and they don’t build new constituencies. They think it’s enough to condemn the GOP as crazy.

FDR was crazy. He won. Bernie is crazy? Also going to win.

ETA: He may even *accomplish something, *which mainstream Democrats don’t even seem to dream about.

62

I’m sorry to get off track.

My answer is, “It depends.” I voted, “Maybe.”

But you know, I don’t expect good. It’s an impossibly hard job to do well, and I expect shortcomings.

At this point, I think I’ll vote for him. If I do, I’m voting for him to lead the party away from cowardice and Clintonism, and I don’t believe that there’s some negative feedback that makes that vote counterproductive on net. The last twenty years of post-Gingrich politics has taught me that"centrist" backlashes like that don’t really come easy, nor fast.

63

Seriously, how so? He’s not really a socialist, after all, based on his positions he is what elsewhere would be called a social democrat – and those have a pretty good track record for broadly shared prosperity and enriching the lower classes.

64

He’s a protectionist, and an otherwise economic illiterate.

65

Mainly the truly-independent late deciders who actually determine who actually wins. That includes the still-existent reality-connected Republicans whose party support has been wavering due to its embrace of ideology-driven wackos, and would prefer an adult instead of Trump or whoever they come up with. The ones who have become inoculated to GOP attacks on Clinton, but would be receptive to attacks on Sanders - and you know what those attacks would be, too.

Lack of a record of any real accomplishment, mainly. Embrace of a party title that is off-putting in this environment. And that reflects a reason for his lack of accomplishment - a desire to be seen, including to be seen by himself, as morally pure and superior to the ordinary lot of the dirty-handed “doers”. The emphasis on moral purity and refusal to consider compromise is how the Republicans got where they are today, remember? Do you want that from the Democrats, too?

See above. Same question.

A claim that Obama was less well-known by primary time is absurd.

They didn’t hate all that peace and prosperity that last time they were in office, did they? You’re right that there are many who put personal spite ahead of the national interest, but you’re not right that they need to be pandered to. That’s true on both sides, btw.

He’s a fine speechmaker, that’s true. But that’s all. The platform is not enough, you have to have execution too, or it doesn’t matter.

You’re conflating the man with the speeches. That’s a mistake as well.

Bluntly, yes, that’s a part of where her support comes from, obviously. So?

Unless you’re claiming that Obama’s nomination was a “stunt”, you’re picking an argument to fit the conclusion.

You do need to keep a clearer distinction between what you want to be and what is.

Why would you think otherwise? Where does that “even you” line come from? Believe it or not, I do not personally hate the opponent of the candidate I choose to support in the way you obviously do. Nor, I think, do most adults. :dubious:

If Sanders does get the nomination somehow, he cannot afford to have even his most ardent fanboys imply that he doesn’t want the votes of those less pure than him. Yet that’s the approach you’re taking here, isn’t it? Put it this way, when (okay, if) Clinton get the nomination, I am not at all convinced by the evidence here that you’d vote for her. And the result would be a Republican administration - for which you would bear part of the blame. Is that not true?

66

Not so Fear Itself.

Back in the day I lived in Burlington and heard Bernie speak a number of times. In person, on the radio and on TV. Also consumed other news such as the newspapers, The Free Press was much thicker in those days with lots of local coverage. So I am stating my opinion on personal experience.

You also have the absence of proof to your belief, what else does your religion believe ?

67

Protectionism is sometimes a bad idea and sometimes a good idea.

68

This ain’t economic illiteracy.

69

That depends on whether you believe impoverishing lower class individuals is sometimes a good idea.

Look. Nobody seriously looks at protectionism as a good idea. It’s proponents are demagogues like Sanders and Trump and the narrow band of corporations that benefit from protective tariffs.

70

Just to get this out of the way, I am not going to support Sanders in the primaries. But I would absolutely vote for him in the general election if he were the Democratic nominee, and I would campaign for him as well (as I always do with Democratic candidates). And I would do so enthusiastically. I know I am not the intended target of your last comment there, but I don’t suppose my position is very different from that of ElvisL!ves. I have no clue where this “even you” is coming from.

Mostly what I wanted to respond to is your assertion that “‘Anybody But Clinton’ has endorsements well in hand.” This is not my impression, but you could well be right. I would like to know which elected officials you think are in this camp, and in particular those who you think are going to endorse Sanders (or, I guess, who already have come out in support of him). Of course, I’m referring to officeholders with some influence–senators, governors, House members–I assume you’re not talking about, oh, small-city mayors, county tax collectors, dogcatchers, etc.

The reason it matters is that my big concern about Sanders is that I don’t think he works all that well with others. In his career I don’t see lots of coalition-building, don’t see much ability or willingness to compromise, don’t see a lot of interest in listening to people who may not agree with him. I see a gadfly who is more interested in…ideological purity…than in the nitty-gritty of the political give and take. That works great in the Senate. I’m not sure it will work as President.

You may be thinking that it doesn’t matter, that the GOP will not work with him any more than they have worked with Obama, and you’re right about that; but I worry about Sanders’s ability to work with people in his own party. (Well, there’s no one who’s in his own party, but so we’re clear I mean the Democrats.) I don’t think he’s going to spend much time working with the Dems to further the party’s agenda.

That has two potential consequences. First, it may lead to an awful lot of people running away from him in the next election. There were Democrats who ran away from Obama in 2010 and beyond; their number, I fear, will be dwarfed by the number of Dems who will run away from what they see as an unresponsive and uninterested president in 2018.

Second, look at the Iran nuclear deal; Obama, who pretty clearly doesn’t enjoy the process of lining up support in his party but seems to do it reasonably well, managed to get the votes he needed in the Senate. This was a difficult vote for many Democrats, but Obama got what he needed. Would Sanders have been able to do the same thing? The impression I have is no, he wouldn’t have been able to do that; too hard for him to manage the give-and-take of politics and put that gadfly persona aside.

But if there really are a lot of elected officials, important ones, who are lining up behind Sanders, then maybe my impression is wrong. So who are they? Inquiring minds want to know! Thanks in advance.

71

What do you suppose Obama gave to get the Iran vote?

72

Ulf, I have not even a quibble with that post, except for this:

I don’t see it having worked in the Senate, either.

It’s amusing to see him be represented as a “Washington Outsider” when he’s been there longer than Clinton. Whatever outsider status he holds, whatever its value may be, is because he’s chosen to alienate himself.

And this:

I think there was a more visceral reason for those Democrats who “ran away from Obama” than his personality, sadly. Some of that would apply to a Jew, too, but not nearly as much.

That has my curiosity piqued, too.

73

This article gives some details about how the White House used a full-court press to win votes of some on-the-fence senators: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/politics/obama-congress-democrats-iran-nuclear-deal/.

Beyond that…there are all kinds of possibilities. If you’re looking specifically at what Obama “gave” them, well: An agreement to fast-track an infrastructure upgrade wanted by the senator and his or her constituents. A promise not to endorse an opponent in an upcoming primary. An assurance that he will steer plenty of money to a particular senator’s re-election campaign.

But you know, it’s not necessary to assume that any of these promises were actually made. I suspect that at least some wavering senators were moved to vote on Obama’s side not because of anything he promised them now, but because he had had their back from the beginning of his term. He’d showed up to help them in their reelection bids (or in some cases, he’d stayed away); he’d championed legislation of interest to them and their constituents, even if it wasn’t exactly what he wanted; he’d taken the time to learn–and to support–their legislative goals. I think it’s significant that while Chuck Schumer refused to vote on Obama’s side, he agreed not to use his influence to sway others.

That’s political capital, and it goes a long way. Does Bernie Sanders know how to get people on his side? Is he interested in doing so? Is forming alliances important to him? That’s my question. If he can’t or won’t, it’s going to be a very difficult four years.

74

Oh, I didn’t think you would disagree in any substantive way. Just wanted to make it clear that I knew the post had been directed at you, not me–and I don’t want to speak for anyone but myself.

I do see the gadfly role in a body such as the Senate as a potentially important one. There’s something to be said, IMO, for keeping people honest, for reminding them of the ideal. I appreciate that people may disagree, and of course whether Sanders has filled this role effectively is another question. My sense is that he’s done pretty well at it–but I could easily be wrong.

Sadly, you’re probably right about that…In any case, I can easily see a situation in which President Sanders is cordially invited to “stay away from my district” by a vast majority of Democratic senators and representatives who are running for re-election.

75

Besides “commie” and “filthy Yid”? I think* Senator *Bernie Sanders has established a pretty good track record of responding to those.

“Where they are today,” is the sun around which American electoral politics revolves. And the Democrats revolve around our electoral politics like a moon. Yes. I want some of that.

:dubious: Yeah, I’m not conceding that point, and you know why.

“Hail to you, Bubba, you kept us out of war”? Really? This is an embarrassingly desperate reach. Or do you mean to claim that keeping out of war is a skill specific to the Clinton clan?

It was a stunt. It worked. It worked on me. But it was a stunt.

I implied no such thing. Quite the contrary. I think Bernie can get voters to show up for him, even if they only partly agree with him. Like any other candidate.

I spend a disturbing amount of time considering whether it’s worth it to declare that I will not support Hillary Clinton if nominated. The truth is, I would probably vote for her as a lesser evil.

But given a choice between a Reagan Democrat (HRC) and a [del]Gingrich Republican[del] another Reagan Democrat if Trump wins the nomination, you can’t blame me for arguing forcefully for a third option.

You know what? You’re laboring under the delusion that Clinton can win. You’re laboring under the delusion that this is proven. It’s not. Maybe most Americans really won’t vote for a “Jewish communist.” But most Americans have never voted for a Clinton, and they’ve had opportunity.

76

Ha-Joon Chang is a pretty good economist.

77

OK,** Ulf**, you raise good points.

Here’s the sad thing: I think I *want *the less progressive Wall Street and Silicon Valley Democrats to run away screaming from a populist. Please. The sooner the better. Then they can be primaried. The likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are nice old folks for new-age Bourbon Democrats, but they do not represent the interests of the “common man” base who show up to vote for Democrats.

Obama, something of a centrist himself, failed to capitalize on these defections and to recruit baby Obamas to run. More than that, the Democratic Party failed to do so. The job of the Democratic Party this year, and every year, is to primary the “corporate” Democrats and build a progressive majority. A Democratic Party that won’t try to do that, that insists it can’t, is either a useless fraud, or a gang of sad sacks and losers. Not even also-rans, because that would imply they were ever in the running.

I did say, of Bernie’s ability as President, “Maybe.” I did say it depended on winning legislative elections. Let me be clear what I mean.

I want to do to the Clinton-Obama wing of the party what the TEA Party did to the Dick Lugars of the GOP. You betcha.

78

I didn’t remember his name. His arguments seem grounded in history and empiricism over pure theory. That’s a pretty good sign in economics.

79

Yes and no. What do you think Canada spends on health care? The last time I looked at a reasonable analysis of comparative federal budgets, the US and Canada spent approximately the same percentage of the GDP on health care. Yet US citizens are struggling with huge individual insurance costs and there is still a vast population of uninsured, whereas Canadian citizens have universal coverage with zero co-pays. Something has apparently appeared for “free”. As all businesses have discovered, you can get a lot of free stuff out of the productivity that emerges out of sensible policies that promote efficiency. The only sector that suffers is the unproductive deadwood that is rightfully thrown out of the system to promote those efficiencies – like private medical insurance companies – and that’s a good thing.

As for Sanders, my first thought was along the lines first suggested here, the massive Republican roadblock. But I think like most presidents, he would moderate after taking office and may well be smart enough to work with these guys and put through, if not his ideal legislation, at least the foundations of future progress.

80

Indeed it is, considering where pure theory leads you.