Bernie's Tone Deafness

By now, we're all familiar with the racially dismissive connotations of Bernie's claims that he didn't even try to win in the South, and that those states "distorted" the process. We also heard in his statement last night his odd assertion that his campaign has held events in "high crime" areas, which is language we would call dog-whistle if used by a Republican.

I was thinking, though, that we've missed one of the biggest examples of Bernie's dismissal towards voters of color:

He has said all along that he is staying in until the last vote is counted, and talks ad nauseum about California..... except California isn't the last primary. That would be Washington DC, which is not only expected to be terrible terrain for him, but features a tremendously diverse electorate.

I don't know if it's just convenience, but the way Bernie talks as though DC isn't even on the schedule falls right into the narrative of him running a campaign centered on white voters and white concerns.

Why hasn't this been picked up on more?

Newsweek lays the smackdown on Bernie

Bernie's Statement On Nevada

Bernie was asked about the NV hullaballoo

Bernie's plans: It's not that they're liberal, it's that they're bunk

It seems every time I try to question the wisdom of one of Bernie's plans, I get accused of being a Republican who hates progress. That is such a garbage line of thinking that everyone who uses it should be ashamed, but I thought I would one more time lay out why I can't support Bernie's plans. I don't disagree with the goals, but I find his execution embarrassingly ill-thought-out.

Health Care: Bernie wants to create a single-payer system. While I don't think there are anywhere near the votes to pass such a system, I am not against the idea. However, Bernie promises greater coverage than anywhere else on the planet, while using the numbers from less generous systems to prove his will work. That is dishonest. Furthermore, he pays for it not just by raising taxes on the wealthy, but by raising the payroll tax as well. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of the working poor and the middle class is an acceptable answer.

College: Bernie wants to make tuition at state schools free. First, I dislike the lack of any talk on his part about how to control the cost that will be taken on by the taxpayers. He is nearly silent on making tuition bills smaller once the government is paying for them. Second, he has no answers to how to prevent colleges from double-dipping and raising the cost of room, board, and fees to keep attendance levels where they currently are. Third, his plans lacks infrastructure on how to accommodate potentially millions of additional students without sacrificing the quality. Furthermore, he pays for this not just be taxing Wall Street speculation, but by putting a fee on every stock or bond purchase by middle class people trying to invest their money. I'm sorry, but I don't think adding to the tax burden of middle class families trying to get ahead in an acceptable answer.

Energy: Bernie wants to totally ban fracking, and shut down nuclear plants. We do not currently have the capacity to run this country on renewable energy, which means in the meantime we would have to either burn more coal (which is worse for the environment) or send money to terrorist-friendly countries to buy the necessary oil to fuel out needs. I'm sorry, but I don't find putting money in the hands of the people who want to kill us an acceptable answer.

I could go on, but I think that makes the point. These are all policy critiques that show why, even as someone who supports the ultimate goals, I find Bernie's plans to be woefully insufficient for a contender for the Presidency.

Saying "let it get worse" is immoral.

Some here have continued rationalizing their position to 'never' vote for Hillary, even when she alone is running against Trump. They have said "let it get worse".

There is simply no way to justify telling the millions of Americans who would have their lives ruined by a Republican presidency to suck it up and live with the pain and misery, in the faint hope that it will create a 'revolution' down the road. First of all, we're supposed to be working to make things better, which that plan doesn't do. Second, there's no guarantee that letting the world go to rot would result in the kind of change you want, so you're risking everything on an assumption. Sorry, but I can't do that.

What we are seeing here is that the most liberal wing of the party isn't the majority, and they can't handle it. Rather than come up with better ideas that might convince the rest of us to go along, they resort to calling us corporate, corrupt, and in many posts on this site they are now directly taking words from Trump by parroting his "crooked Hillary" garbage. You want to know why we pick the 'corporate' candidate? She's better, and we don't want to associate with people using the tactics the so-called 'progressives' have taken up.

Oregon voting information, as per Benchmark

It's pure ignorance to say Democrats are the same as Republicans

Unlike Republicans, Democrats (yes, this includes Hillary) work for protecting voting rights, protecting civil rights, protecting abortion rights, fighting for equal pay, fighting for family leave...

In addition to wanting to expand health care coverage, reduce the burden of college debt, putting tighter regulations on Wall Street, raising taxes on the highest earners...

In addition to not repealing the social safety net...

In addition to not making racism the law of the land, deporting twelve million people from this country.

Yeah, the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans.

Tell yourself that.

Question: The Political Center

This argument is getting annoying, so I'll put it out as a question.

When we're talking about whether Hillary is left or right of 'center', is that center defined as a particular set of policies and philosophies, or is the center the midpoint of thought between the left and right?

There seems to be a divide here, where the Hillary supporters view the center as the middle of current American political thinking, while the Bernie supporters view the center as having been defined a century ago, and cannot change along with society.

What say you?

Nebraska, Bernie, and moral consistency.

Last night, we got to see a clean and incontrovertible example of how caucuses are voter suppression. Despite losing the Nebraska causes by 14 points, Hillary won the non-binding primary over Bernie, when the turnout jumped. That's right, more people showed up for a vanity vote that was not actually a part of the process, than did for the actual caucus. So many more people showed up that it's hard to deny something is strikingly wrong with caucuses.

It also drives a stake through Bernie's argument that he wins when voter turnout is high, but that is not the point here.

Bernie has been talking for a month now, at every opportunity, about the need to open our process. He called New York's voting laws 'voter suppression', and has been calling for a platform change to make all contests open to Republicans and independents as well.

After last night, I would like to know how Bernie can continue to make those arguments without putting caucuses as the top of the list of needed changes. We have seen before, and now Bernie has seen with his own eyes, that caucuses are the single hardest way to vote, and ensures the lowest turnout. Bernie talks about wanting fairness, but he has yet to speak out about the unfair way that he has won a large number of his delegates.

It's easy to complain about the things that you feel slight you. It's hard to complain about the advantages you have. With the tone Bernie has struck recently, he owes it to us to come out against caucuses. Today.