Decision 2016

[taki15]

Well, don't take it up with me. It's not MY false equivalency. You don't remember the arguments that Obamacare would at the very least be a job-killer?

As for the second paragraph -- thank you for proving my point. It's as unreasonable as a Republican tax plan.... and yet the Republicans run on that same platform every single election year. But why is that? I guess the Republicans and their think tanks have pundits and economists of their own who've crunched the numbers and decided supply-side economics is the way to go. And there's a devoted following of voters who agree, and are counting on these proposals to be the American way of life. They're not questioning how such proposals will get paid. They just want those proposals, and assume the rest will take care of itself. IOW, I sense that Bernie's followers are no more unrealistic in their hopes than any other constituent who supported any other politician ever. Are Bernie's proposals equally unrealistic? I have no idea. But I'd rather we head more in that unrealistic direction for as far as possible, than head the other way.

I thought the Democrats took pride of being the reality-based crowd. I didn't know that they suddenly felt the urge to start mimicking the Republicans' belief in dogmas that have been disproved by the cold, hard reality.

This is a campaign, Taki. Do you know what politicians say during a campaign in order to get elected, and what voters are willing to believe? Anything and everything. A little perspective, please...

Well, I guess then nobody should complain about Trump saying that Mexicans are rapists and murderers or that US should bar Muslims from entering the country, or Rubio saying that he wants to re-ban gay marriage.

[Sonic Youth]

Well, don't take it up with me. It's not MY false equivalency. You don't remember the arguments that Obamacare would at the very least be a job-killer?

As for the second paragraph -- thank you for proving my point. It's as unreasonable as a Republican tax plan.... and yet the Republicans run on that same platform every single election year. But why is that? I guess the Republicans and their think tanks have pundits and economists of their own who've crunched the numbers and decided supply-side economics is the way to go. And there's a devoted following of voters who agree, and are counting on these proposals to be the American way of life. They're not questioning how such proposals will get paid. They just want those proposals, and assume the rest will take care of itself. IOW, I sense that Bernie's followers are no more unrealistic in their hopes than any other constituent who supported any other politician ever. Are Bernie's proposals equally unrealistic? I have no idea. But I'd rather we head more in that unrealistic direction for as far as possible, than head the other way.

I thought the Democrats took pride of being the reality-based crowd. I didn't know that they suddenly felt the urge to start mimicking the Republicans' belief in dogmas that have been disproved by the cold, hard reality.

This is a campaign, Taki. Do you know what politicians say during a campaign in order to get elected, and what voters are willing to believe? Anything and everything. A little perspective, please...

[taki15]

Well, don't take it up with me. It's not MY false equivalency. You don't remember the arguments that Obamacare would at the very least be a job-killer?

As for the second paragraph -- thank you for proving my point. It's as unreasonable as a Republican tax plan.... and yet the Republicans run on that same platform every single election year. But why is that? I guess the Republicans and their think tanks have pundits and economists of their own who've crunched the numbers and decided supply-side economics is the way to go. And there's a devoted following of voters who agree, and are counting on these proposals to be the American way of life. They're not questioning how such proposals will get paid. They just want those proposals, and assume the rest will take care of itself. IOW, I sense that Bernie's followers are no more unrealistic in their hopes than any other constituent who supported any other politician ever. Are Bernie's proposals equally unrealistic? I have no idea. But I'd rather we head more in that unrealistic direction for as far as possible, than head the other way.

I thought the Democrats took pride of being the reality-based crowd. I didn't know that they suddenly felt the urge to start mimicking the Republicans' belief in dogmas that have been disproved by the cold, hard reality.
As someone mentioned elsewhere the last thing America needs is a Democratic Tea Party. And knowingly or not that's exactly what Sanders fosters with his blithe disregard of numbers and the branding of anyone who disagrees with him as a corporate tool.

[Sonic Youth]

But as for "How would we pay for single payer"? Well, that same question was asked about the Affordable Care Act. Obama didn't let that stop him. He found a way. That's the same question that should be asked about Hilary's financial reform package, or anyone else's ambitious projects. And are they being asked this?

Sorry but that's a false equivalence if I ever saw one. Obamacare was fully paid from the beginning, there was never a question about that. And it proved to be an even bigger money-saver than initially thought.

OTOH, Sanders' plan has been lambasted by every pundit and health care policy expert as unrealistic. Krugman compared it to the Republican candidates' tax plans where they argue that they can taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget at the same time.

Well, don't take it up with me. It's not MY false equivalency. You don't remember the arguments that Obamacare would at the very least be a job-killer?

As for the second paragraph -- thank you for proving my point. It's as unreasonable as a Republican tax plan.... and yet the Republicans run on that same platform every single election year. But why is that? I guess the Republicans and their think tanks have pundits and economists of their own who've crunched the numbers and decided supply-side economics is the way to go. And there's a devoted following of voters who agree, and are counting on these proposals to be the American way of life. They're not questioning how such proposals will get paid. They just want those proposals, and assume the rest will take care of itself. IOW, I sense that Bernie's followers are no more unrealistic in their hopes than any other constituent who supported any other politician ever. Are Bernie's proposals equally unrealistic? I have no idea. But I'd rather we head more in that unrealistic direction for as far as possible, than head the other way.

[taki15]

But as for "How would we pay for single payer"? Well, that same question was asked about the Affordable Care Act. Obama didn't let that stop him. He found a way. That's the same question that should be asked about Hilary's financial reform package, or anyone else's ambitious projects. And are they being asked this?

Sorry but that's a false equivalence if I ever saw one. Obamacare was fully paid from the beginning, there was never a question about that. And it proved to be an even bigger money-saver than initially thought.

OTOH, Sanders' plan has been lambasted by every pundit and health care policy expert as unrealistic. Krugman compared it to the Republican candidates' tax plans where they argue that they can taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget at the same time.

[OscarGuy]

Sonic brings up a good point. Now might not be the best time for a candidate like Sanders to emerge. What we need is to go into 2020 and create a political movement that will help retake legislatures across the nation so that when the census is conducted, it's the Democrats who'll be drawing congressional districts and not the Republicans. While Dems have a habit of gerrymandering as well, Republicans are so much more devious about it and, quite frankly, it's the reason we'll struggle to retake the house in November. The Senate, I can see very easily flipping.

[Sonic Youth]

It's not a question of money. There's always a way of finding the money. It's a question of will and the will simply isn't there yet.

On this, I absolutely agree. And Democrats aren't going to dismantle Obamacare after years of fighting for it, potentially putting their careers on the line with it, after spending all that money implementing it, and (a few hiccups aside) after demonstrating that it's a true success. This is one of the reasons I'm hesitant about supporting Sanders. It's just not the right time for a Sanders presidency. We need to focus on congress instead and strengthen those numbers. Then, someone like Sanders would be more feasible.

But as for "How would we pay for single payer"? Well, that same question was asked about the Affordable Care Act. Obama didn't let that stop him. He found a way. That's the same question that should be asked about Hilary's financial reform package, or anyone else's ambitious projects. And are they being asked this?

[Sonic Youth]

And Sonic, I wasn't addressing my post solely to you. I addressed you directly in the beginning of the post because I felt like you were being unfair to Magilla (and you were), but it went general pretty quick.

(I could swear I saw an article with the title "If you believe Hilary is corrupt, you've fallen for 25 years worth of Republican propaganda"... or something close to that.)

So, you're accusing me of plagiarism now? I wasn't, for the record. That sentence is a pretty obvious concept. I'm a published writer and have been plagiarized myself in the past. I wouldn't do that. And don't compare me to Akash, dude. That's so lame.

Happy, guys? Let's continue discussing.

First paragraph: fair enough.

Second paragraph: It may be a pretty obvious concept (to those who are fully convinced by it) but the point is, it was an article that went viral a week or two ago with that accusatory headline used for clickbait. (I guess I'll have to look for it, although I'd rather not.) I accept you didn't consciously plagiarize it, but these things have a way of entering the discussion so effortlessly once they're repeated often enough, that it enters our stream of discourse. I see lots of people make charges of one side resorting to talking points, and those people argue the talking points with.... more talking points. So, it's an accusation I wish people didn't make, seeing as how so many of us are guilty of it ourselves. (I won't exclude myself.)

I would sincerely apologize comparing you to Akash, if I knew exactly what you were referring to. I have no idea where you got that from.

[Big Magilla]

For the record, I would love to see Universal Health Care and free college tuition in my lifetime, but I don't see how it can happen with such a recalcitrant Congress. Some day, though, I think it can and must happen.

It's not a question of money. There's always a way of finding the money. It's a question of will and the will simply isn't there yet.

[flipp525]

Flipp, I do take some offense to your implying that the bulk of Sanders supporters are sexist. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for her, but, I will vote for her with my fingers crossed. My big problem with Clinton, which I have expressed, is her ties to Wall Street. I have no problem with her gender. Name one sexist remark I have ever made about her.

I never said nor implied that "the bulk of Sanders supporters are sexist" anywhere in my post. I think I said "not all, but a lot" which I still hold firm on. I'm not sure why you're taking offense to something I never said. I'm also not going to name one sexist remark you've ever made about Hillary Clinton, Greg, for the express reason that I've never accused you of doing so.

And Sonic, I wasn't addressing my post solely to you. I addressed you directly in the beginning of the post because I felt like you were being unfair to Magilla (and you were), but it went general pretty quick.

(I could swear I saw an article with the title "If you believe Hilary is corrupt, you've fallen for 25 years worth of Republican propaganda"... or something close to that.)

So, you're accusing me of plagiarism now? I wasn't, for the record. That sentence is a pretty obvious concept. I'm a published writer and have been plagiarized myself in the past. I wouldn't do that. And don't compare me to Akash, dude. That's so lame.

Happy, guys? Let's continue discussing.

[Greg]

Flipp, I do take some offense to your implying that the bulk of Sanders supporters are sexist. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for her, but, I will vote for her with my fingers crossed. My big problem with Clinton, which I have expressed, is her ties to Wall Street. I have no problem with her gender. Name one sexist remark I have ever made about her.

[Sonic Youth]

Funny, I thought the term was "Bernie Bros". Bots is a new one on me, though I admit there are certain detailed intricacies to this campaign I've not been following, the shift from Bros to Bots being one of them. Have we discovered that there are inconsiderate female Bernie supporters, and thus changed to a more encompassing term? You don't need to tell me about bros, believe me. Have you forgotten I was Obama Bro'd here 8 years ago, and by someone who had to pretend he was female in order to get away with it? My complaints with Magilla started with "bots", but it went on from there. I love Magilla, except on this one issue where he's always denigrating the youth with a particular sharpness. Fortunately, it only comes up once every 2 or 4 years, so I usually avoid it.

It's good that you're bringing out all the details you can on behalf of everyone on the board, but there's no need to if you're addressing them solely to me. I've heard and read nearly everything you're bringing up. There's no need to go into detail about the bros or bots. Everything you say is self-evident, I assure you. OtoH, the counter-argument sounds equally scripted and talking point-ed. (I could swear I saw an article with the title "If you believe Hilary is corrupt, you've fallen for 25 years worth of Republican propaganda"... or something close to that.)

Aaand..... I'm going to be late for my 2pm appointment.

[flipp525]

Stop picking on Magilla, Sonic. I'm the one who used "Bernie bots" first on this thread anyway. And this isn't an age issue on my part (I'm probably younger than you are).

Let's first seriously look at some facts about Bernie Sanders, some of which I haven't seen brought up yet in this thread:

- Sanders serves in the U.S. Senate with 45 Democratic-voting colleagues. Not only have none endorsed him, 39 have endorsed Hillary.

- Sanders has been a significant figure in Vermont politics for four decades. Patrick Leahy, his fellow Senator from Vermont, endorsed Hillary.
The incumbent governor of Vermont, and two former Democratic governors of Vermont, endorsed Hillary.

- Sanders has focused on issues relating to the labor movement; virtually every single major labor union has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The people closest to him who know him the best... seem to be endorsing Hillary. I think that says a lot about him and his "brand."

Sanders voted to deregulate the default credit swaps that tanked the economy; he voted against the Brady bill... FIVE TIMES; he voted to dump radioactive & toxic waste into a poor community; he has taken Super PAC and Wall Street money despite claiming he didn't. Karl fucking Rove is supporting him and donating to and helping his campaign. Have you wondered why the Fox News media enclave has largely held off on attacking Sanders in place of yet another round of Hillary-bashing? It's because they want to run against him and think they can beat him (which they, very possibly, could).

The most depressing thing really, and perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bernie Sanders, is that he's not a problem-solver. Problem-solving requires an honest, accurate understanding of reality and the challenges one faces. Sanders shows no interest whatsoever in acknowledging the complicated nature of our country. Sanders is all bumper sticker. Asking a potential candidate for President of the United States to articulate the manner in which he or she plans to enact his policies is not an extreme, unfair question reflective of "any American voter." "What do your first 100 days in office look like, Senator Sanders?" I'd like just one of these shitty, media-whored-out journalists and political wonks to ask him that question and follow-up with him for specifics. No one will.

Why I am (and others are - I didn't make up the phrase) calling them "Bernie bots" is that these Bernie storm troopers sound exactly like Republicans -- spewing misogyny right-and-left, ignoring Bernie's own faults/issues and over-promising, all the while exaggerating, spinning and distorting flaws on Hillary's side. People who "hate" Hillary are really irrational. Their hate is based on little more than smears and lies and twenty-five years of right-wing propaganda. It's just stupid. There's a reason Hillary Clinton is a confident, competent, admirable woman. One has to throw away a lot of humanity to constantly and rabidly attack her like I'm seeing Bernie bots do... and it's really weird how when it comes to Hillary, many so-called progressives and liberals aren't afraid to sound EXACTLY like Republicans and conservatives. They parrot the same bullshit talking points, and engage in the same sexist double-standards.

I can't really count how many times I've heard someone on pull out the "Hillary was against gay marriage until a couple years ago" factoid. Our own sitting President has evolved on the issue - why can't she? I've seen a lot of misogyny, anti-gay, Social Justice Warrior type crap coming from Bernie supporters and I find it very frightening, counter-productive and, frankly, very Republican. A lot of them are just dressed up Republicans - millennial bros at the end of the day "Feeling the Bern" all the way to Hillary's burning stake. So, bots, bros, whatever you want to call them.

Your defense of the unvoiced masses is noble, but it's more empty (and general -- which are the only terms in which Sanders speaks) rhetoric. Do these "left-behind" people have any desire to peek behind the curtain and ask how this revolution is supposed to take place with a Republican-controlled Congress sparring with a Socialist? Please. I don't really think you're giving that disenfranchised group enough credit.

I think Sanders' presence in the race has been good for Hillary in a way - it has pulled her a bit further to the left and made her answer for certain transgressions that are sure to come up in the general election. But her supporters (not all, but a lot) are rabid, many declaring online that they will vote for Trump rather than cast a vote for Clinton in the general election. I think his entire role in this race is now proving to be a detriment and I'd like him to start fading away.

Dangerous. This really isn't an election we can afford to lose. This is not the time to take a gamble on Sanders.

[Mister Tee]

If she could not win the 18-64 year old vote, or win the under $200,000 income vote, it's not because those people are "bots". It's because they feel they are not heard nor respected.

Or it could just mean this particular set of voters -- white and very liberal -- fall so completely outside Clinton's demographic base (and so inside Sanders') that slicing and dicing various groups is pointless. Come November, the Democratic candidate will lose almost all age groups/genders in Utah -- not because they fail to appeal to such groups in general, but because they have no appeal to a largely Mormon population. (Which is not to agree with Magilla's dismissal of young voters; I agree that since '04 they've actually been turning out at a higher rate -- except in midterms, which remains a party problem.)

Hexagon, your take on how Obama related to Republicans, especially regarding the stimulus, could not be further from the truth. It's well-documented that, the night before Obama's inauguration, GOP luminaries like McConnell and Paul Ryan got together and agreed that, since Obama would get credit for anything achieved during his presidency, they would see to it their party withheld votes on any proposal -- McConnell's well-known quote was "Our main goal is to make Obama a one-term president". The economy was in such turmoil, the need for economic stimulus so great, that nearly everyone (even right-wing pundits) assumed the parties could come together and pass something, but the GOP made it clear they would not only provide virtually no votes (except the few remaining actual moderates, in blue states), they would even filibuster any proposed plan. (It's since become routine to filibuster everything that comes up in the Senate, but that was NEVER the case before this radical GOP crowd.) And the plan Obama came up with didn't ignore Republican wishes; it was in fact something like 40% tax cuts, meant specifically to appeal to the GOP (a purely Democratic package would have focused more on infrastructure spending, and aid to the states). As it was, Dems had to cut some of what they wanted to get Susan Collins & Olympia Snowe on board.

And Oscar Guy, you're also wrong that there was ever enough support for Medicare for all in the senate, even at the height of the Dem majority (which was only 60 for a short period -- after Specter switched parties and Franken was finally declared the winner in MN, and before Brown beat Coakley in the MA special election). It would never have passed the filibuster, and probably wouldn't have even got 50 votes. If there was a mistake, it was letting the GOP bottle the bill up in committee for so many months -- that was meant in good faith to let Congress have input, but the GOP simply used the time to stall while their propaganda mills ginned up outrage about fictitious Death Panels; at the end of it all, every single GOPer voted against the bill as they'd always intended. But it's a lefty fantasy (and one I think some of Sanders' supporters believe) that if Obama had only TRIED HARDER -- used his "bully pulpit" -- that we could have had single-payer. It just wasn't in the cards in 2009, and getting SOMETHING through was vital. (Otherwise, any health care reform attempt might have waited another 20 years.)

[Sonic Youth]

Plus, an approval rating isn't just about policies. It's also about his public image and personality and assuredness and communication skills and depth of feeling. I'd imagine most of the world acknowledges he has these qualities, regardless of how they may think of him politically.

No, that's likability. Approval is about believing if he does a good job or not.
And that's exactly why it confounds me when it comes to Sanders' voters. You can't at the same time think that Obama does a good job and support a guy who more or less says that his presidency was a failure and a betrayal of progressivism.

I... think that's very easy to do, actually. It's far less binary than you're making it out to be.

And no, it is more than mere likeability, and it has a significant effect of one's perception of him or of anyone else. Likeability, good job, it's all a part of the same package.