Even without the socialism, Bernie's policy positions alone would sink him in the GE.

[DanTex]

Single payer is a big example. Obamacare barely maintained public support, and one of the big selling points was that you could keep your current care if you wanted. When that happened not to be true for some tiny number of people (mainly because their plans covered so little that they didn't satisfy the new minimum regulations), there was outrage.

With single payer, nobody gets to keep their current plan. If you like your current plan, and don't want Medicare, you're SOL. If you don't trust the government to run a large program like this (trust in the government's ability to run things polls at about 25%), you're SOL. If your doctor currently doesn't take Medicare, and you're worried that if SP happens s/he will instead go all-cash, you're SOL. Good luck with that sale.

And the other thing is, the people who have examined Bernie's plan in detail so far are liberals like Krugman, and even among them the near-unanimous verdict is that his plan is unworkable. In the GE, there will be a lot more examinations done, and they won't be nearly as friendly or honest as the current liberal consensus of "nice idea, but it's gonna cost more than that." Not only that, but the Hillary campaign has barely gone after single payer -- her critique is basically that instead of starting over, we should build on what we have. Hardly a mention, for example, of the fact that every single person who likes their current coverage would be forced off of it and into Medicare, with no choices.

Then there's foreign policy. Bernie hasn't actually given his long-promised foreign policy speech, but we all know what his foreign policy is. Essentially, he's a pacifist, and certainly a non-interventionist. Which plays great with the left, but the American public is not pacifist, it is at least modestly hawkish. With respect to ISIS, polls show that a Americans, by a large margin, think we are not being aggressive enough against ISIS, the opposite of what Bernie is selling. Even committing ground troops to Iraq and Syria, which is heresy among many Dems, polls about 50-50.

In the primaries, he's been criticized for lack of experience, and for answering all questions with "I didn't vote for Iraq." And those are good points, but again, it's absolutely nothing compared to how hard he's going to get hammered for his pacifist stances in the general. And, it's not just right-wingers who think we should be more aggressive in the Middle East.

And so on. The tax raises. Yeah, you can sell them to some people by arguing that they will end up saving more money. Of course, that's only if you believe Bernie's projections, which not even liberal economists and health policy researchers believe. On DU, people who ask the obvious question: "OK, but what if it costs more?" get pilloried, but in the real world, when faced with the prospect of middle class tax increases, the electorate is going to be asking that question and more. And they're not going to just ignore the tax increases because a politician promises them that "you will end up more money under my plan."

[Kip Humphrey]

1. Can't trust the gubermint to run a big program? What a great argument! Wish I'd thought of that!

[DanTex]

2. Laughing at people who think that wont change the fact that they are a significant majority.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Actually laughing at and about right wing foolishness is a very useful tactic for changing the fools

themselves. This is how LGBT got conservative Democrats to give up their bigoted tirades and trips to bow to the hate preacher alter, by mocking the living daylights out of them. No mercy, full satire and never let up on them, never.
It was an actual majority that opposed equality, now the majority supports it.
Way back in 78 California had the Briggs Amendment on the ballot to fire all the gay teachers. At the top of the cycle, 60% of CA supported it. By the time it came to a vote, it failed by 60%, the numbers reversed and even Reagan came out against it. All of that took place between primary and general, and your mindset would have had us look at that 60% support for injustice and give up. But we don't give up, we win. We beat the centrist Democrats and the Republicans then, and that's how it always shakes down in the end.

Cannabis reform, in my lifetime when from no support to legality in 4 States and counting. Your mindset says 'don't try to change that, it is a big majority, respect them don't laugh at them and certainly don't dare to oppose them!!!'

[DanTex]

64. I would imagine that there's psychological research on the question of whether

laughing at people or engaging with them respectfully is a more productive way of getting your ideas across to them.

But in either case, changing people's minds is hard, and takes time. People aren't just going to say "yay socialism" overnight.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. If you have to imagine why are you affecting authority? What goals have you accomplished with your

methods? I cited examples, you said you imagine things. And yet you lecture me about how hard it is to change hearts and minds? Did you read what I wrote to you? You don't think I understand the level of difficulty? Why is that? Do you think we made all of that change by accident or via good fortune? Think again.


"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance." Mel Brooks


My advice to you, keep up that rhetoric!

[Dustlawyer]

111. Sorry Dan, nice try!

Bernie will wipe the floor in the General, it is Hillary who can't win. Wall Street connections alone will sink her, even without all of the other considerable baggage she has! Your strident attacks on Bernie all over DU are not helping the Annointed One, you may want to take a new tack or some much needed time away from DU.

[ShrimpPoboy]

118. i don't think moderates and independents care much about her wall street ties, such as they are.

It's a major issue for the Dem base but even that doesn't appear enough to sink her-- she's still the favorite for the nomination.

[TransitJohn]

3. We get it. You think the Democratic Party is conservative.

Thanks!

[TheBlackAdder]

86. Rutgers-Eagleton Poli-Sci folks say this is a never seen before phenomenon--highly unpredictable!

.


Either they are stupid or this post is just more crap!


All of the prognosticators have been wrong this election cycle.


.

[Bonobo]

4. You have no credentials to make such a statement with authority. nt

[DanTex]

7. No, I'm not a political scientist. If you're care what scholars who do this professionally think...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511158154

[Bluenorthwest]

80. 'Scholars' said marriage equality was impossible and seeking it would detroy the Democratic Party.

You can find 'scholars' who will literally say anything for a fee. Even without paying you can always find one 'scholar' to totally contradict another 'scholar'. What is proved by that? That scholars are as easily wrong as fools?

[daleanime]

5. Nice way to keep Democrats motivated.....

You'll never ever get anything, but you need to work hard for Hillary....

[Lucinda]

6. Bernie's foreign policy experience webpage ONLY lists

his negative IWR vote.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-foreign-policy-experience/


Military aspects of foreign policy are important, but are not the larger part of what goes on. To goal is to avoid military intervention by using other tools at the disposal of the POTUS. The wider portion of the goals are often stated to encourage democracy.

[onehandle]

8. Yeah, but it IS the Socialism that will sink him. A keyframe from a GOP ad this Fall --->

[img][/img]

They will talking about unisex bathrooms, and forced shared property, and dictatorship, and the destruction of Christianity, and waiting for weeks to see a doctor, and being assigned homes and jobs and spouses...

And these are the less crazy examples.

[DanTex]

11. The socialism, of course, would be huge. But even beyond that, there's so much material for them.

[TTUBatfan2008]

14. They called Obama every name in the book...

And they will call Hillary every name in the book too. Socialist, Communist, Fascist, blah blah blah blah...it's what they do. At least in Sanders' case he can contrast the fact that the GOP is bought and paid for by corporations whereas he is not.

[onehandle]

28. Neither Hillary nor Obama are on video a thousand times calling themselves a Socialist. nt

[TTUBatfan2008]

31. Just have to see how it plays out...

Majority of people in the country agree with his positions regardless of the label. Could it cost him an election? Perhaps. Could the attacks on Hillary's emails and Benghazi controversy cost her an election? Perhaps as well. Neither are perfect.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. So what? Here is some National Republican rhetoric about Hillary from before Bill got elected:

"And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery–and life on an Indian reservation.

Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America–abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat–that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country."


So this theory that Republican attacks destroy good people is just ignorant and the theory that Hillary would be treated better by them flouts all that history teaches us.

[bowens43]

24. you greatly overestimate the stupidity of the American people

they are not as stupid as you and hillary would have us believe

[blackspade]

113. Just like they have been doing for the last 8 years.....

and will continue to do for the next 8.

So how will it be any different?
Americans like socialism, especially the young. Deal with it.

[frylock]

114. WOLVERINES!!!

[bkkyosemite]

9. Bernie who is the most dangerous country right now.....and the winner is...

N. Korea who just left off a long range ballistic missile yesterday the day after Bernie said it. Spot on Bernie on foreign affairs.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Look at the bright spot. He doesn't have a muslim sounding name.

Now, that would really sink his chances.

[DanTex]

13. Even if he actually were a muslim, it doesn't poll as badly as being a socialist.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. I'm sure that it's not a coincidence that the forces of evil in this country are overrelying on the

red scare.

I am more convinced than ever that this country cannot move forward, progress, without raising the intelligence of the average American voter so they resist being manipulated by these ploys.

If nothing else, Bernie should move forward so we can determine if we have already reached that point.

[DanTex]

30. Are you calling me "the forces of evil"? A little over the top, don't you think?

The fact that socialist polls worse than muslim is a fact -- they did a poll, and that's how the numbers came out. You can blame in the Red Scare or on astrological charts or whatever. But those are the numbers.

And I agree, the intelligence of the average American voter should be raised. But in order to win, you have to get the actual American electorate to vote for you, not some theoretical electorate that already agrees with you about everything.

[Baitball Blogger]

43. Are you really basing your harassment of Bernie Sanders on a poll?

A poll? Really?

I haven't trusted them since the 2000 presidential election.

[cascadiance]

32. Or having Commie Stalin money funding the Koch brothers funding the Republicans and DLC?

They have more *COMMIE* ties to their candidates than DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have been on the side of those over there that 1%er Commie dictator Stalin would have been looking to kill off in the Soviet Union then.

Of course our commie pal Koch invested infrastructure will try to do their best not to have this history available to our citizens.

[leftupnorth]

34. The socialist junk has been worn out by the right.

Has there been one Democratic candidate the right wing flying monkeys haven't called a socialist?

People under 40 haven't been subjected to the red scare propaganda like the 40+ crowd. It just doesn't play anymore. Especially when the people making the charge can't even define socialism.

To their credit, even the 40+ crowd is catching on as well. The government tried to give an entire generation PTSD with the relentless anti social propaganda.

[DanTex]

35. Not what the polls say. And I'm sure that people under 40 think about it differently.

If it was an election of under-40 people, things would be different. But there's only one election that matters.

[leftupnorth]

49. So we need to suffer the ignorance of those who cling desperately to 20th century propaganda?

Instead of trying to change minds, we just play on their fears and manipulate them to vote the way 'they should'?

[DanTex]

53. The problem is, they get to vote too.

I'm all in favor of changing their minds. But minds aren't going to be fundamentally changed about basic political outlook in the next 9 months. That sort of change doesn't happen quickly. It happens slowly, and at some point in the future, attitudes towards socialism might be significantly more favorable. In fact, they almost surely will, because people under 30 or under 40 have a much better view of it than their elders.

But there elders get to vote too.

[leftupnorth]

56. It doesn't seem like it. It seems to me you're perfectly comtent to exploit their fears.

Cynical and completely unprincipled.

[DanTex]

59. How am I exploiting anyone's fears?

[leftupnorth]

62. Seriously?

[DanTex]

63. Yes.

[leftupnorth]

67. It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

To boil down the argument - it's basically 'people are ignorant about socialism so we will reinforce that ignorance, manipulate their fear, in an attempt to gain votes'

It's pretty cynical, but completely pragmatic, if that's what flips your switch.

[Baitball Blogger]

69. Excellent post.

[DanTex]

72. When did I say anything about reinforcing ignorance or manipulating fear? I didn't.

I just pointed out that, in fact, people don't like socialism. Which is true. And it implies that running a self-described socialist is an extremely dubious general election strategy.

How you get from there to "manipulating fear" is beyond me.

[leftupnorth]

75. Except they do like democratic socialism once they figure out what it is.

But hey, let's capitalize on American ignorance because it helps Hillary.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Don't pretend it isn't happening, because we all see it.

[DanTex]

79. That's a prediction with very little factual basis.

But when you accuse me of "capitalizing on ignorance", that's simply wrong. I've asked you before, how exactly am I capitalizing on ignorance and exploiting fear?

I'm simply pointing out that people don't actually like socialism. Whether they are ignorant or not is irrelevant. Hey, maybe they have good reasons for not liking it. But, ignorant or not, they don't like it. They also aren't pacifists, by and large. They actually want more aggressive military policy, not less aggressive.

This is the reality. I find it unfortunate we've reached the point that simply pointing to verifiable facts results in me being accused of "capitalizing on ignorance"
and "manipulating fears." If you want to see what fear manipulation looks like, just listen to Bernie talk about Goldman Sachs for a while, and try to tie it to Clinton.

[leftupnorth]

88. Yes, becaus hilldawg's bros on Wall Street never hurt anyone, right?

People DO like socialism when it isn't called socialism.

The socialist refrain is threadbare. Y'all need to come up with something better.

Let's try and make the next one a less pale imitation of right wing flying monkeyism.

[mythology]

78. He's not saying to reinforce their ignorance

He's saying that their ignorance is something to be aware of as the ignorant get to vote like everybody else.

It's kind of like me dealing with my parents' beliefs about eating habits. They believe certain things that aren't supported by facts like it's hard for me to be a vegetarian because my blood type is type O-. There is no evidence to support that conclusion, and it's clearly more related to me being an incredibly finicky eater. But I'm not going to argue with them on the subject, because I'm not going to change their mind. I just keep myself aware of it when I'm around them.

[leftupnorth]

91. And that's fine in personal relationships. But it is defeatism in politics.

[blackspade]

116. People over 40 as well....if they have a lick of sense.

[leftupnorth]

12. I think your analysis of the American electorate is completely tone deaf.

You underestimate the anti interventionist sentiment coming from all non establishmentarian corners.

You also underestimate the dissatisfaction of the population over the Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act, also known as the ACA.

I mean, really what this OP boils down to, is an argument to elect another Republican.

[DanTex]

15. It's mostly based on polls, and also on what has actually happened in the recent past.

I'm sure that there are some corners with anti-interventionist sentiment, but polls quite clearly show that the public wants more, not less aggressive policy in the Middle East.

Some people on the left can't grasp that many Americans simply see the world differently than them.

[leftupnorth]

18. Pretty sure the Iraq war had wide public support.

How'd that work out for those hawkish Hawky Maums and their gold star soldier sons and daughters?

[redstateblues]

27. Some of these folks should try living in a red state

For a while. You get a better picture of the reality of the American electorate outside of the bubble

[ShrimpPoboy]

121. +1

[avaistheone1]

112. The game changer is that Bernie has helped people to see the world differently. Look at all

the pundits who brushed him off. Then look at Bernie's results in Iowa, how he is showing in the polls, and how he can fill auditoriums when he speaks. Bernie is bringing people together from many different political orientations to vote for him, people who never before thought they would vote for a democratic socialist.

Bernie is not playing the same old political game. So a word to the wise - adjust your expectations, Bernie is going to win the presidency.

[DanTex]

122. Only among the most liberal group. And even that is only because none of ideas

have really been challenged. Wait until people figure out that not only will their taxes will be higher, but on top of that they won't get to keep their current healthcare coverage, which the majority of Americans like. He's getting a free pass for now, because Hillary doesn't want to alienate his voters who she will need for the general, but the honeymoon wouldn't go on through the GE.

Here's my word to the wise. If your arguments rely on some magic "game change" to ignore all the data and history, then you might want to take a second look at them, along with a healthy dose of reality.

[CentralMass]

74. Well said.

[amborin]

16. Wrong with all of your arguments; actually, Americans are ready & eager for Bernie's platform;

stop distorting his tax plan. it's virtually identical to hillary's until incomes are over 250K....that's where any appreciable tax hike kicks in

[DanTex]

17. His tax plan calls for a 2% raise in the payroll tax, and 6% to employers. If you think that the

public is not going to notice that he will increase their taxes, you are wrong. Regardless of whether he's actually right about ultimately saving people most people money (doubtful), people take notice when their taxes are increased.

[leftupnorth]

20. Is this deliberately an out of context charge

Or did you accidentally omit what people WON'T have to pay for in exchange for this tax increase?

[DanTex]

26. I covered that.

Regardless of whether he's actually right about ultimately saving people most people money (doubtful), people take notice when their taxes are increased.

You understand that voters aren't just going to believe a politician telling them that their plan will save them money, right? Even liberal economist and health policy researchers don't think Bernie's numbers add up.

[cascadiance]

38. Seems like you take a lot of pages out of the Republican campaign playbook... HMMM.... n/t

[DanTex]

41. Paul Krugman is now the Republican campaign playbook? Is that really how far-gone we're becoming?

[leftupnorth]

42. They certainly won't believe a typical duplicitous, backstabbing politician.

You're right about that. Good thing Sanders isn't one of them.

The thing is, we already pay more than enough to cover single payer, except that we still have 29 million people without health insurance.

Even if it doesn't save us ONE DIME, the moral argument is unassailable.

Some things are much more important than what they cost.

Just think of it like war, except no one dies.

[wilsonbooks]

37. A 2 % higher payroll tax in exchange for Medicare for all? Sign me up.

I pay a much higher rate than that for less coverage and my employer pays more too. Do you think Americans are stupid?

[DanTex]

39. Good for you. The problem is selling it to the American people.

You don't think there are a lot of people who would rather keep their current healthcare plan than be forced into Medicare?

[cascadiance]

40. He just has to be made sure that we don't hurt his insurance company exec friends...

... who will stand to lose big if they are removed the way doctors SHOULD remove parasitic infections!

[amborin]

44. i posted a detailed comparative analysis last week of both tax plans.....

[redstateblues]

19. It's amazing how blind BSS

Are to his vulnerabilities. He would be toast in the GE if he won the nomination

[DanTex]

22. Completely blind. I can see how 20-year-olds might think that way, having never really seen what

goes on in elections before, and also probably not having enough life experience to understand that, yes, Virginia, there are right-wingers in America.

But a lot of people in the Bernie camp should know better.

[Stuckinthebush]

29. It is amazing

He has little chance to win the Dem primary. What makes people think he could appeal to the populace at large? Extremism on either side isn't a winning ticket.

[sammythecat]

100. I think Hillary would disagree with you.

Bernie has a very real chance to win the Dem primary, which is why, if you'll notice, she will be working hard, all day, 7 days a week, to prevent that from happening. She's concerned even if you're not. And, "What makes people think he could appeal to the populace at large?". Well, if he was to win the primary that would mean he went from 7% support to over 50% support at the convention. Such accelerating momentum would be an obvious indicator that his message is appealing to more and more people every day. And that would be a very, very good place to be at the start of the general election campaign.

To you're last point: Working to turn a de facto, bona fide, genuine, oligarchy back into a true democracy is hardly an example of extremism.

[Stuckinthebush]

119. What is that path to victory for Bernie?

Seriously? Which large states does he win? Hell, which super tuesday states does he win? How does he move a super majority of super delegates over to him?

He lost Iowa. He was supposed to kill it in Iowa. He is way behind in SC and all the southern states. He would have to flip the script in just about all of the states for him to win. Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? No way in hell.

It can't be done. But...hope floats.

[bowens43]

21. more hill people bullshit, Bernie is easily more electable then hillary

but if it makes you feel better keep spreading nonsense.

[Stuckinthebush]

33. Poll: Most Americans unwilling to vote for a socialist

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273

Americans say they are more likely to support an atheist than a socialist for president next year, according to the latest Gallup survey, released Monday.
Just 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist if their party nominated one, while 50 percent said they would not, while 58 percent said they would have no problem voting for an atheist in their party.

[cascadiance]

46. And you think independents would flock over to a corporatist pushing more TPP and more H-1B visas...

stealing American jobs. If you look at what's happening over there, that's as much a part of the revolt in the Republican primary that has many people there supporting Trump and Cruz who are going against the corporatist establishment when they are working more against H-1B quota expansion as well as against these free trade agreements.

It will make many voters feel like the populist candidate they want will be Trump or Cruz if they have to choose between one of them versus Hillary who is so corporatist on these views and has avoided talking about these issues so much, because she KNOWS that her real agenda is NOT what the 99% of American people want!

Bernie on the other hand, will have those populist views, and will be able to say that you don't have to hate foreigners and minorities to be a part of those populist changes that they want to restore the wealth imbalance this country and the rest of the world has too.

[Stuckinthebush]

54. You forgot baby killing, elitist, meany

Your rant aside, yes, I do think more people would vote for Hillary the Democrat over Bernie the Socialist. Yes.

[cascadiance]

120. Sorry, you're not addressing the points here. You like losing your jobs with such programs?...

Sorry, but I don't. Now if you're one of those sitting in an elite box, you might not care, but most Americans aren't in that position and won't vote for politicians that put ahead rewarding their corporate buddies over keeping their jobs! It's really pretty simple.

Bernie gets us the best chance to elect someone like that, and not one that's trying to appeal to us in that fashion and appeal at the same to others in bigoted terms.

Most people I think would like someone who likes socialist programs like social security, medicare, and a slew of other things that this party when it served the people rather than someone that supports the move towards the corporatist crap that it has been in recent years that the Koch Brothers help fund in the DLC along with the Clintons to put in place!

[Stuckinthebush]

123. It's really pretty simple

Hillary isn't taking your jobs. The American people know this.

But more to the point - I don't care. I'm not debating issues I'm talking about the reality of the American electorate. Bernie's anti-corporate bullhorn goes only so far. The math doesn't hold for him. I don't care if you or I think he is the next coming of Jesus. He's not going to win. He doesn't have the long range support of the party nor the people.

It just isn't going to happen. You can mark this and come back if I'm wrong but I'm not. It's math.

[cascadiance]

128. If she wants to stop H-1B program expansion from taking our jobs then why doesn't she SAY SO!!!

She wants this program, even if she hasn't said anything about it since she SUPPORTED its expansion STRONGLY (in HER words!) 8 years ago, because it lets her wealthy friends reward themselves and their company ownership more by paying their employees less and employing foreign labor instead of Americans with indentured servant conditions!

Yes, and Obama told us that he'd "renegotiate NAFTA", and said far more against it when campaigning than Hillary has said even lightly against the TPP. In my book, and many people who've learned how Obama has shown his corporatist colors in pushing the TPP a lot more than any other legislation that he passed with his Republican supporters... Since Hillary was talking about this with other countries while SOS, I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that she "didn't know enough about it" to speak against it earlier when she might have helped stopped the Fast Track bill from passing earlier if she's actually chosen then to speak against it. That tells me that if and when she gets elected, like her corporatist colleague Obama who "trusted her" to put her in as SOS, she will turn her back on the American people and sign more of these "free trade" bills in to law that will TAKE OUR JOB!!! The American people know THIS, even if the corporate serving MSM tries to avoid talking about these trade bills. When they avoid talking about it, that is what fuels the voters in both parties to supporting candidates like Bernie, Cruz and Trump who speak out against them.

You can just continue to watch your corporate media in your little shell and believe that the populist movements don't exist, but come election time, you'll discover that you've been living in the bubble, not the rest of us.

[Stuckinthebush]

129. Oh, populist movements exist

But they don't have the punch that their members think they do.

March is coming.

[cascadiance]

130. Mubarek isn't exactly laughing at that "theory"...

... along with many other middle eastern "leaders" that were taken down by that *populist* Arab Spring movement.

Populist movements may seem underground to you, if you only pay attention to corporate media, but that fuels the bubble feeling that so many like you feel that they want to nurture.

[DrFunkenstein]

47. And Yet Only a Few Months Later...

43% of Iowans thought that not only would they vote for a "socialist," but the term actually described themselves - more than the 38% who described themselves as "capitalist."

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

[Stuckinthebush]

52. Yes, those Iowans are the spitting image of America!

Lord.

[Roy Ellefson]

77. umm....no less than South Carolina or any other southern state.

umm....no less than South Carolina or any other southern state.

[stonecutter357]

25. K&R!

[DrFunkenstein]

36. What Are The Policy Positions of His Opponents In The GE?

There hasn't even been an adult conversation between the GOP candidates. Do you think that escalating Tea Party insanity will survive a GE? Sure, it fires up the base, but no one would support the idea of a President Trump when things get realisitic, and Ted Cruz...c'mon, it's Ted Cruz.

[DanTex]

48. That doesn't get discussed much in GDP. But basically, they all want

huge tax cuts for the rich. They all want much more war in the Middle East. They all want to criminalize abortion, to varying degrees. They want to overturn ACA, and they want to stop doing anything about climate change. That's basically the starting point "moderate" Rubio plan -- in fact, Rubio wants to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

The real crazies are Trump and Cruz. Cruz wants a theocracy, more or less, and he wants to get rid of the IRS and some other federal agencies that he can't name. Trump's big thing is deporting 10 million people and building a huge wall. And also bombing the middle east into dust and taking their oil. And I'm not exaggerating.

[JPnoodleman]

45. Then why vote?

If you can't cast your vote for what you want enacted, why bother?

[DanTex]

50. It's politics, you never get everything you want. Even with Sanders.

[restorefreedom]

51. no one with hillarys low favorability numbers

has ever won.


?1438108367


and anyone taken in by the socialist bogeyman will not vote for either of them.

[winterwar]

110. Thanks for posting this

It says a lot. Just look at those numbers. Wow.

[restorefreedom]

127. there is a great graphic on one of these threads

i couldn't find it...it has all the recent pres candidates from both parties and their fav rating and showed who won and who lost. then it showed bernie and hillarys numbers. it couldnt be more clear. maybe someone can post it if they know what i am talking about. it was excellent.

[Fearless]

55. Absolutely false. Absolutely biased op.

[Gothmog]

57. Why single payer died in Vermont

If single payer can not work in Vermont, then there is no chance that it will be adopted in the entire country http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xciq2Nj5

So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor.

Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.

“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”

Vermont’s outcome is a “small speed bump,” said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, who’s been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says it’s the end of the road.

“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other state will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.

“There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious,” Mozloom added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xdKH1mGn

Sanders is proposing a skeleton of a plan (not a real plan at all) that has no chance of passage. The refusal of Sanders to answer the question was an admission that even Sanders knows that this plan is not real.

[DanTex]

61. And the remarkable thing was that in VT, it had already passed.

The people running the state were on board with single payer, and there weren't any political obstacles left. It's not a case of some single payer skeptics dismissing it as a socialist dream, these were single payer enthusiasts. And even they gave up when they realized what the actual numbers would be.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Vermont has 650,000 people and that's not a very large pool for a system of any sort.

The Los Angeles metroplex has 18.5 million people. Portland Oregon, with just over 600,000 has nearly the population of Vermont inside the city limits and I think of Portland as a small city. It's not even a million.

[DanTex]

81. So you think administering what would be the largest single payer system in the world

would be an easier task than administering one in a state with the population of Luxembourg (btw, you should probably email Luxembourg and tell them that they are too small to efficiently run a healthcare system). That makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, it would be easier to start with a small system as a proof of concept.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Luxembourg, where I have been, has a per capita GDP of $116,000 compared to the US at $53,000

Vermont's own is lower than the US, by about 9K.
Do you think that might have something to do with it? I do. Highest per capita GDP on Earth. You think things are harder if you have more money? That makes no sense.

"The state provides free basic health cover to all citizens and the Caisse de Maladie collects healthcare contributions. All employed citizens and employees contribute to this system, which means that the healthcare taxes are taken out of your pay. There is a cap of EUR 6,625. Employees and employers pay half each."

That's Luxembourg, where you pay up front and get reimbursed for most of what you paid, this is not at all like the UK where you do not pay at all. Most people also keep private supplements there because not all things are fully covered.

Anything else you need to be informed about?

[DanTex]

89. Aha, dodging the question. Figures. I'll repeat it.

Do you really think that administering the biggest single payer system in the world would be easier than administering one in a small state?

[Bluenorthwest]

92. In what way was Bernie administrator of Vermont health care? In what way does a President administer

a national health plan? Do you really think that the Prime Minister is personally running the National Health in the UK?

Do you really not think that a nation with more than twice the median income can afford to do things a mere State with half that income can not do?

Your chosen example to compare to Vermont has the highest per capita GDP on the planet and this discussion is about affording a system while being of a certain size. You claim a very rich group of 600,000 has no advantage over a relatively poor group of 600,000. That is absolutely insane.

You thought Lux because it is similar size, but you forgot about how rich they are. It's like a very large Bank with a monarch.

[thesquanderer]

107. Yes, it would absolutely be easier to administer it nation wide than on one small state.

The more people in the pool, the easier it is to make it work. The fewer people in the pool, the harder it is to make it work.

[DanTex]

115. This is truly absurd. The lengths people will go...

The only reason the pool size matters is so that it's big enough to average out the costs of individuals. So a pool with, say, 50 people wouldn't work because if one or two of them get severely ill then the whole system will go broke. But 500K people is easily enough to distribute the risks.

On the other hand, obviously, the administration of a system with 300M is more complicated than a smaller one. Particularly since Vermont is relatively homogeneous and rural. There are only so many hospitals in Vermont, etc. And also you don't have to try and merge together what is currently 50 different healthcare systems into one.

To cover the entire country, you have some big cities, where things will be entirely different than in very rural areas. You have rich areas, where costs will be higher, and you have poorer areas. You have some states with older populations and some with younger. You have all sorts of variability. And if any one little region ends up, for example, having hospitals close because they can't stay viable with the new pricing structures, it would be a disaster.

The complexity of setting up a national single payer would make doing it in Vermont a high school project by comparison.

[thesquanderer]

134. Reasonable point. Perhaps the biggest obstacle was the limitations in how they could fund it.

Vermont tried to fund it strictly though income tax (personal rates increased by 9.5) and employer-based payroll tax (increased by 11.5)... states don't have as much flexibility as the federal government. By comparison, if you look at Sanders' proposal, yes, he raises income tax rates for everyone, but by a much smaller amount... because he also establishes higher incremental rates for the wealthy, taxes capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income, eliminates some tax deductions, changes the tax on inherited wealth... an individual state, realistically, doesn't have that kind of flexibility. State income taxes are based off federal income taxes. No state is going to have a completely different set of income tax rules than the federal government does, which would require everyone to file two completely different tax returns with different sets of rules.

As an aside, it may be worth noting how much of Sanders' plan funding comes from the "top 1%" (or some fraction thereof)... i.e. the higher tax rates in incomes over 2 million, on estates over $3.5 million, etc. So getting back to the point about it possibly being easier to cover the whole country than an individual state, it's not just a matter of the number of people in the pool, but also where the money is. If you can factor into the pool some highly populated states that also have generally wealthier populations (NY, CA, CT, NJ, etc.), you take some of the burden off states where there is simply less wealth to tax, i.e. because the "millionaires and billionaires" are disproportionately elsewhere. That is, assuming your goal is not just to create revenue to cover health care, but to minimize the impact of that tax on people who would find it harder to afford.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. I also wanted to add that a US Senator from a State does not administer their health plan just as

the President of the US is not the administrator of ACA, just as Mr Treudeau does not administrate the health plan in Canada nor does the PM in the UK personally run the National Health.

Your comments are just so off base.

[Persondem]

58. Exactly right. GOP is just waiting to unload on Bernie if he's our nominee. K & R nt

[Bluenorthwest]

68. The GOP has and will 'unload' on any Democratic nominee, the question is how will that Democrat

respond? In the Bill Era, the GOP unloaded on Bill and Hillary and on LGBT and African Americans and what happened? Clinton protected himself, not the people, he found common ground with the GOP and did 'welfare reform' and 'the crime bill' and DOMA and DADT. He used us as a shield for him. We got DOMA, he got a few hundred million bucks, status, power and a personal chef.

When minorities are attacked along with Bernie, Bernie defends the people, not himself and his own status. It is well established what the Clinton method is when the GOP unloads, they make human shields out of less powerful Democratic voter blocks and hide behind us as we take the fire.

[Persondem]

73. The GOP will have very precise sound bites to use against Bernie that they didn't have with any

other Dem candidate. Socialist (aka commie), conscientious objector (aka draft dodger), tax & spend socialist (worse than tax and spend liberal) "absolutely we will raise taxes" ....

Clinton has been taking their crap for decades and still does well against them. Bernie is maxed out. If his honeymoon with the GOP ever ends his numbers will drop like an aerodynamic brick.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Sorry, they hurl whatever turd is at hand at whatever Democrat we run, I just watched them insist

Obama is a Kenyan for the love of God. I watched Barack Obama give the eulogy in Charleston with all the grace and verbiage of the finest Christian ministers, this President took a long pause and sang Amazing Grace and the Republicans responded by calling him a Muslim. He's so Christian he could easily be a minister and a most excellent one. They say Muslim anyway.

So if you really want to plan your life around trying to avoid insults from people who will insult anyone in anyway they wish no matter how bogus the jibes, do so. I'm not that privileged nor that easily duped.

[Persondem]

124. Bernie's past actions and speeches allow for some big turds to be hurled his way.

Oh and he is " ... not a follower of any established religion" which equals Jesus hating atheist in GOP speak. Yup big turds.

The difference is the Obama nonsense was indeed bogus while the Sanders smears will be based in truth and his own words. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[SamKnause]

66. The Republican Party and the Tea Party hate the Clinton's.

They hate Bill.

They despise Hillary.

If she wins the nomination, how many times do you think

Benghazi and the e-mail scandals will be brought up ???

How about the current FBI investigation ???

How many times do you think Bill's impeachment and sex

scandals will be brought up ???

Clinton will not have smooth sailing into the White House if

she is the nomination.

Bernie has just as much chance as Hillary does.

[navarth]

131. +1. You cut through the bullshit very nicely.

[HooptieWagon]

70. Bernies positions are immensely popular.

across the board, people think a redistribution of wealth is needed, even if it requires a 'revolution'. A huge majority of voters realize the economic and political systems are badly broken, and the establishment candidates are part of the problem not part of the solution.

[Gothmog]

98. But could not be adopted even when the Democrats had control of house and 60 votes in Senate

These plans can not be adopted in the real world.

[HooptieWagon]

104. So your answer is to give up?

Not me. It will take a couple election cycles to get more progressives in Congress, but that will be facilitated by Sanders tossing DWS out the door on day one. Even if the only thing a Pres. Sanders gets done is taking over the DNC from the corporatists, it would be a huge step towards putting things back on track.

[ElliotCarver]

82. I gave this a Rec because you gotta hand it to DanTex...

He is not throwing in the towel. Keep up the...er,... good? fight!

[Bluenorthwest]

93. But he needs more towels, he throws it into the ring runs after to fetch it back, throws that same

stinking towel back into the ring, over and over again.

[ElliotCarver]

95. somebody get this man MORE TOWELS!!!!!

[Logical]

84. Do you ever get tired of your own propaganda? Nt

[HooptieWagon]

106. Apparently not. It is pretty comical though.

It's like watching Fox News, and rotfl that they actually believe the bullshit they're spouting.

[HassleCat]

85. Maybe you're right

Perhaps the voters are not ready for a progressive president. I do want to say one thing. I don't think most people see Iraq the way you lay it out here. I get your point that most people would prefer a Clinton style foreign policy, where we intervene in many situations, remain belligerent toward Iran, and so on. That would be the initial reaction, the emotional response. But Iraq has changed many minds, and people are very skeptical about calls to invade Syria, for example. They see Sanders as non-interventionist, not pacifist, and that is a more accurate description, more accurate than your label of pacifist. So I don't think the voters are buying what you're selling, at least not when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe not when it comes to health care, either. Or taking money from big banks.

[DanTex]

96. Fortunately they have polls about foreign policy, so we don't have to speculate.

Here are some recent ones.

Do you favor or oppose the United States sending ground troops into combat operations against ISIS forces in Iraq or Syria?
Favor 49
Oppose 49

Do you think that combating ISIS with overwhelming military force will be more likely to help end the terrorist threat, or do you think that combating ISIS with overwhelming military force will be more likely to create additional terrorist threats in the future?
Help end 52
Create additional 35
Unsure 13

Overall, do you think the U.S. military response to ISIS has been too aggressive, not aggressive enough, or about right?"
Too aggressive 4
Not aggressive enough 68
About right 26

Edited for formatting, but the numbers are right, and more results are here.

http://www.pollingreport.com/isis.htm

[HassleCat]

125. I guess that settles that

We will elect Hillary Clinton, and we will support her invasion of Syria.

[Gothmog]

94. Bernie Sanders’s single-payer plan isn’t a plan at all

Ezra Klein is not impressed http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care

On Sunday night, mere hours before the fourth Democratic debate, Sanders tried to head off Clinton's attacks by releasing his plan. Only what he released isn't a plan. It is, to be generous, a gesture towards a future plan.

To be less generous — but perhaps more accurate — this is a document that lets Sanders say he has a plan, but doesn't answer the most important questions about how his plan would work, or what it would mean for most Americans. Sanders is detailed and specific in response to the three main attacks Clinton has launched, but is vague or unrealistic on virtually every other issue. The result is that he answers Clinton's criticisms while raising much more profound questions about his own ideas.

Sanders promises his health care system will cover pretty much everything while costing the average American almost nothing, and he relies mainly on vague "administrative" savings and massive taxes on the rich to make up the difference. It's everything critics fear a single payer plan would be, and it lacks the kind of engagement with the problems of single-payer health systems necessary to win over skeptics.....

In the absence of these kinds of specifics, Sanders has offered a puppies-and-rainbows approach to single-payer — he promises his plan will cover everything while costing the average family almost nothing. This is what Republicans fear liberals truly believe: that they can deliver expansive, unlimited benefits to the vast majority of Americans by stacking increasingly implausible, and economically harmful, taxes on the rich. Sanders is proving them right.

A few days ago, I criticized Hillary Clinton for not leveling with the American people. She seemed, I wrote, "scared to tell voters what she really thinks for fear they'll disagree." Here, Sanders shows he doesn't trust voters either. Rather than making the trade-offs of a single-payer plan clear, he's obscured them further. In answering Clinton's criticisms, he's raised real concerns about the plausibility of his own ideas.

This is Ezra's area and he is not impressed

[NurseJackie]

97. I have absolutely NO CONFIDENCE in Bernie's foreign policy abilities.

Then there's foreign policy. Bernie hasn't actually given his long-promised foreign policy speech, but we all know what his foreign policy is. Essentially, he's a pacifist, and certainly a non-interventionist.

And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's paying attention to what he's (not) saying.

Go, Hillary!

[avaistheone1]

117. Yes, I remember people having NO CONFIDENCE in Barack Obama's foreign policy abilities when he ran

for president.

Eight years of bloodshed in the Middle East and more chaos spread across a number of those countries than when he started office proves what?

[Gothmog]

99. Krugman- Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan

The cost savings are speculative at best and are on the same level as the GOP's claims of increased income due to tax cuts. I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0

On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.

To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.

[djean111]

101. Looks like today is Authoritarians Ordering Bernie's Supporters to Stop Supporting Him Day!

Nope. Not going to support a candidate who espouses war, fracking, the TPP, increased H-1B visas, and cluster bombs. And the governance and leeching of the US by Wall Street.

Nope, no, not gonna happen.
Have a nice day.

[DesertRat]

102. k&r

[asuhornets]

103. Excellent...

[jalan48]

105. Yes, this is exactly why he's polling better than Clinton against the Republicans.

[thesquanderer]

108. Single payer is a big example?

Most people support it.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

[blackspade]

109. Um....

This is the same collection of bullshit that you have been peddling for months now.
No sale.

But enjoy your candidate of "nope"

[Odin2005]

126. Hillary's baggage will sink her in the GE.

[Warren Stupidity]

132. Even without the red baiting, horseshit.

[Iggy Knorr]

133. I so want to call a TIME-OUT

on all this red baiting!

[NurseJackie]

135. Kick.

[Nanjeanne]

136. Right - because people don't want healthcare, expanded SS, tuition free public colleges, an end to

endless wars, money out of politics, a reversal of Citizens United, a stop to corporate welfare, no fracking, etc.

[DesertRat]

137. k&r

[rusty fender]

138. In 2012, something like 42% of the population believed Obama

was a Muslim socialist and he still won, big time

So, looks like the polls will be roughly the same now as then...