I don't have a problem voting for Sanders, but some of his proposals are way to the left. Your post gives me some comfort because that's exactly what I told the wife today.
I don't know what's to be feared by someone trying to implement a social democracy. He wants big money out of politics He wants strong plans for renewable energy and climate change action He wants everyone to have comprehensive healthcare free at service (M4A) He wants a peaceful foreign policy, to cut the military budget He wants to legalize mar1juana He wants everyone to have access to college / Pre-K free at service (just like k-12) He wants to forgive student loan / medical debt, as a principle he believes these things (healthcare/education) should be human rights. He wants a living wage He wants to keep jobs in America, he opposes the trade deals that outsource American jobs. These seem like very basic common sense things that people are enjoying in many other highly developed countries, I don't see where the danger or impending doom would come from. From my view, he's a guy trying to do his best to tackle corruption, he's a guy who's trying to improve the quality of life for the poor / working class / middle class - which is something I think this country desperately needs.
The biggest issue for Bernie is the lack of legislation and governing education from the American people, and I certainly do not blame them. American politics has, by design, been made as toxic as possible from the right in order to get people to tune out. And in 2020 we live busy lives, and you are probably healthier and happier if you do tune it out. However for Bernie and Warren especially, they need people to understand how the legislative process works more than anyone. When Bernie becomes president, his proposals have to go through both chambers of Congress. Moderate Republican and Democrat votes will be needed. What is the reality that will change even with the most liberal President imaginable: -One big piece of legislation (usually takes first 100 to 200 days)... maybe a tax law... gonna guess a wealth tax will be it. -ACA support from executive branch. Fund marketing, do away with risk corridors, get AG to drop lawsuits trying to gut it, extend deadlines etc. -Re-institute Obama environmental regulations -AG investigate voter fraud and illegal suppression on the right -replace RBG with younger SCOTUS nominee - Pull out of Afghanistan -Reinstate SNAP program and expand -Lift travel ban -Stop separating children from parents at the border. Direct to increase sponsorships during waiting period for asylum cases. Basically what your likely to see with a Bernie or Warren presidency is what you’ll probably see with a Biden or Pete or Bloomberg presidency in the end as it impacts the end result. What is different about Bernie though is how he’ll fight for theses things and more vs the other guys. Look at how he has moved the party since 2016. He can actually enact some real change in shaping the national narrative and I think that’s a really good thing. But if people don’t understand the legislative process Bernie is a highly risky candidate to nominate and could very well lose if Trump is able to fund an effective fear and disinformation campaign.
You think Joe Manchin is going to vote to implement a wealth tax on his drug company CEO daughter raking in tens of millions a year price gouging people on epipens? Sure.....
I think a wealth tax would be really popular in poor states like WV but yeah I get that there will be plenty like Manchin that have their donors freak out over it. Im just saying... the point is typically new presidents get one major piece of legislation done in their term. Obama only really got the ACA done. Trump only got a tax cut done. No reason to believe Bernie could get 3 or 4 major bills through when it has been so difficult in the past few decades. Most of what Bernie would do is by executive order and as we see with Trump, those are reversible with a new president. The point is about the ignorance of the American voter as to how drastic your life would change if Bernie would win. I obviously think he would help and he’s 100000 better for the country than Trump, but he won’t be able to socialize that much of the government. Maybe one or hopefully two good bills.
Either he has great success in implementing his policies or he doesn’t. Even if he only achieves a few of his goal, they would be major improvements to the quality of life for the American people. Either way we’d have a very stable minded president, who won’t be a clown, who will go a long with with rebuilding international trust, who is pushing for a non interventionist and peaceful foreign policy, who won’t gut the EPA / ignore climate change, who won’t give tax breaks to the rich, and who is very likely the least corrupt candidate we’ve seen in many years.
Just like the Dems only need to appeal to the say 20% of GOP voters who voted once or twice for Obama or in the 2016 primary to win, the GOP as Trump did in 2016 only need to appeal the minority of Dem voters at times vote GOP.
One thing is for sure if you don't actually advocate any of those things in a direct and clear way you will get none of them.
WaPo doing their part to turn women against Bernie https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/14/sanders-warren-debate/ A woman can’t win? Alleged comment reopens feminist grievances against Bernie Sanders By Allyson Chiu and Katie Shepherd Jan. 14, 2020 at 7:23 a.m. EST Ever since Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) began his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign, there have been conflicting views about his attitude toward women in politics. His backers have held him up as a standard-bearer for progressive ideals, including gender equality and an end to the political glass ceiling, going so far as to crown him “the most feminist 2020 candidate.” Others, have eyed him warily, accusing him and some of his backers, “Bernie Bros,” of having a “sexism problem." Some continue to blame him in part for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the presidential contest to Donald Trump, inflicting a wound that may never heal among some Democratic women. On Monday, Sanders’s presidential ambitions and the aspirations for that elusive “first woman president” clashed yet again. A CNN report detailed a private conversation Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had with Sanders in 2018, in which they allegedly disagreed about a woman’s chances to win the White House in the upcoming election. Sanders disputed the report, slamming it as “ludicrous.” His campaign called the account, initially attributed to four anonymous sources, “a lie.” But then Warren confirmed it, albeit not in so many words, suggesting that Sanders was untruthful or at best remembered the conversation very differently. Whatever was or wasn’t said, the fallout was swift. Politicians, journalists and politicos heralded the news as an “explosive account” and “a helluva leak.” On social media, progressive debated progressive, ultimately perhaps to the benefit of their more moderate opponents, particularly former vice president Joe Biden. One powerful fact, in particular, gave the argument its legs: Women, especially younger women, are not flocking to Warren as her supporters had hoped. Indeed, in the most recent polls, Sanders is doing better than Warren among women. Sanders was polling ahead of Warren with women in both Iowa and New Hampshire, according to a Jan. 3 CBS-YouGov poll. In Iowa, 23 percent of women said they would vote for Sanders if the caucus was held today, compared to 19 percent who said they’d support Warren. In New Hampshire, the gulf was wider, with 26 percent saying they’d support Sanders in the primary and 19 percent backing Warren. The margin of error in the New Hampshire poll was plus or minus 5.3 percent; in Iowa 3.8 percent. Early reactions to the controversy varied starkly. “If Bernie Sanders said anything remotely close to ‘a woman can’t beat Donald Trump in 2020’ in a conversation with Elizabeth Warren, he’s the dumbest person on the face of the earth,” tweeted Christopher J. Hale, a former Obama staffer. “I just struggle to believe that’s the case.” People backing Warren, on the other hand, said their candidate had nothing to gain from complaining about sexism and found it hard not to believe her. “The idea that Warren trotted this out to damage Sanders seems very unlikely,” tweeted feminist writer Jessica Valenti. “She knows that women who complain about sexism are seen as whiners, not winners.” A third camp dismissed the controversy as a media-generated distraction. Those critics accused CNN of stirring up drama on the eve of a Democratic debate the network happens to be co-hosting Tuesday night, less than three weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. “It’s almost a certainty cnn will open the debate tomorrow by asking sanders about the warren/sanders meeting,” tweeted political consultant Jordan Uhl. “The story has no real impact on voters’ lives but there are few things cnn loves more than drumming up their own yellow journalism.” But there was a larger history at play. Sanders’s first attempt to run for president was marred by his aggressive supporters, dubbed the “Bernie Bros,” who harassed his political opponents and journalists online. Their actions spurred allegations of sexism that have never abated and deepened resentment about Sanders’s challenge to Clinton, the former First Lady and Secretary of State who supporters described as the most qualified candidate in history. It was also later alleged that his 2016 campaign fostered a hostile work environment for women, with several coming forward to allege that they were paid less than their male counterparts and subjected to sexual harassment and poor treatment, the New York Times reported last year. Sanders apologized to the women, promising to “do better.” But when asked if he knew about the complaints, he responded: “I was a little bit busy running around the country.” The senator again faced backlash in 2016, shortly after Clinton lost, when he offered advice to a woman who asked him for tips on running a political campaign. “It is not good enough for someone to say, 'I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” Sanders said. “No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies.” Many critics would argue Warren is that kind of woman. The two political rivals have been longtime allies and friends, who started their campaigns for the 2020 Democratic nomination with a pact to remain civil. That truce began to fray this weekend, when Politico revealed Sanders’s campaign had given volunteer canvassers a script portraying Warren as appealing only to “highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what.” The tensions between Sanders and Warren only intensified Monday when CNN aired its report. Although many did not see what Warren’s campaign had to gain by leaking details of the conversation to the press, polling numbers suggest she could benefit from pulling women voters away from Sanders. Another criticism Monday’s spat drew was from people who would support either Sanders or Warren over their more moderate opponents. They argued that a feud between the two candidates could split voters on the left flank of the party, boosting the chances that either former vice president Joe Biden or South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg could gain momentum and end up facing off against President Trump in November. “Whether you support Sanders or Warren or anyone else in this race, I can’t imagine that a fight between supporters of these candidates is helping anyone,” tweeted Charlotte Clymer, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign. “There’s way too much at stake for this toxicity.”
A third camp dismissed the controversy as a media-generated distraction. Those critics accused CNN of stirring up drama on the eve of a Democratic debate the network happens to be co-hosting Tuesday night, less than three weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. “It’s almost a certainty cnn will open the debate tomorrow by asking sanders about the warren/sanders meeting,” tweeted political consultant Jordan Uhl. “The story has no real impact on voters’ lives but there are few things cnn loves more than drumming up their own yellow journalism.” Bingo. Going to say I’m part of this camp.
Those are all popular positions, the bigger unknowns are his ideas on worker ownership and dividends. Can it work at the scale he's proposing or will it have unintended consequences (More overseas headquartering/manufacturing, hiring contractors instead of employees, high reinvestment to avoid profits and dividends, etc)? Seems radical, I'm unaware of such a model doing well elsewhere. Makes warren look moderate.
The folks who buy elections fear the **** out of him. That's why all the "hit" pieces are flying in like guided missiles. Orders have been given.
Correct, I mean would an independent 13 colonies of ~2 million people work?!?! Too risky, shouldn't try it.
I think Nook for instance claims to be a moderate or even a "progressive" Democrat at times. A fair number of Hillary voters did not vote for Obama.
