Thank you for posting this and does bring out another point about the double standard that Sanders supporters have been applying to Clinton. I've seen on social media, including here, all sort of incredibly negative things attributed to Clinton with such tropes as Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders being recycled along with other stuff such as that Clinton was defending child abusers. The Clinton campaign and supporters have largely treated Sanders with kid gloves as compared to what the GOP would probably do.
The 60's anti-war movement lost most of it's steam when the draft was abolished around '72. People, even people who mean well, depend mainly on their own self-interest.
To address your general election concerns: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11447542/bernie-sanders-electable according to this article, 40-50% of the eventual results are able to be predicted by polls taken 180-200 days before the general election (185 days to go, as of now). So those polls do hold some degree of weight and may not be entirely meaningless. That being said, Bernie is an unconventional candidate to say the least and maybe he has vulnerabilities that have yet to be exposed. That being said, it's Clinton who currently has the 55% unfavorables and 12 FBI agents investigating her. The head of the FBI is a republican, it wouldn't surprise me if he busted out with his findings after the democratic convention and screwed Hillary and the whole party. So ya, maybe conventional american political wisdom is correct in assuming a self-described socialist cannot win the general, but this is not a conventional election season. And as much as there are existential hypotheticals that could derail his general election campaign, there are very real, existing issues that could derail Hillary's. And lastly, the opponent is Trump, and pitting the ultra-establishment candidate against the anti-establishment candidate in an election season that has been dominated by anti-establishment sentiment may not be the best idea. To address your "outrage" over the alleged maligning of Hillary Clinton: Here's some actual data: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/online-incivility-study-bernie-bro/ More people (30% of those surveyed) found Clinton supporters were more aggressive than Sanders supporters (16% surveyed, lowest, remarkably) i understand it's just one survey, but find me some others with contrary evidence and try not to argue in generalities. As to my personal opinion, it was conducted online, and thus the risk of a pro-Sanders bias is huge and I find the the results more than a little suspect. That being said, stop going online and reading about Hillary, you're not stupid, it's well known that Bernie owns the internet. It's flooded with his best demographic (18-29 yr olds) Hell, even a Clinton super-pac spent $1 million to fight pro-Sanders supporters online. You complaining about double-standards against Clinton on the internet is like me going to a Hillary Rally and b****ing about anti-Sanders bias. I mean, really, wth do you expect? And this is the internet, older people (like you, I'm assuming) complain about the savagery of the internet and still get outraged, get over it. In addition, the more I read your posts it's evident that your perception of these so-called "double-standards" is extremely one-sided. There are double-standards coming from both sides but it seems the political interactions that frame your opinion are largely shaped from the internet. Swimming in Bernieland may leave a sour taste in your Hillary mouth, just sayin. I would recommend not marginalizing every pro-Bernie argument as some misguided "Bernie Bro" (myth created by the Clinton campaign btw, just like "Obama Boys") If only the internet voted, Bernie would've won a long time ago, keep that in mind.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/patfrederickson">@patfrederickson</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/tomwatson">@tomwatson</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/theonlyadult">@theonlyadult</a> Yeah, we kinda do: <a href="https://t.co/r4ZglRxX1F">pic.twitter.com/r4ZglRxX1F</a></p>— Lee in Iowa (@Lee_in_Iowa) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lee_in_Iowa/status/728756063789424640">May 7, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> When asked about it on by Rachel Maddow, Bernie responds that it is "totally appropriate". Of course. The Grifter-In-Chief can't afford to offend the hordes of deluded millenials sending him their lunch money so he can junket to Rome and stalk the pope while nibbling on lobster sliders. Does the Bernie Sanders campaign disgust me? Yes it does. I saw through the BS a long time ago.
poor jeoparde. thinks his interests are the same as the .1 percent. talking about being taken by grifters
They are not completely meaningless but as the original article pointed out there have been historical examples of changes in perception from primary to general. Further a max 50% reliability while better than less than half still shows how unreliable polling well before the election is. Comey is a Republican but he hasn't shown that he is partisan. so far very little that we've seen coming out points to malfeasance. It's possible but I think very unlikely that Comey will do that sort of power play against a party that the administration he serves is part of. For that matter given the state of the Republican party doubt Comey want's to do Trump a favor. Hillary Clinton has been one of the most vetted politicians with attacks against her from a determined opposition for 25 years on the national stage. She certainly has issues but she's survived those. Further the idea that you just pit one anti-establishment candidate against another makes sense but you have to consider that these are real candidates not just generics. The GOP and Trump in particular have shown no qualms about going extremely negative and personal. They're doing that to Clinton already where as they barely mention Sanders. So basically the point of your post is that yes Sanders supporters are very biased and take that out on the internet. Further you're saying we shouldn't pay attention to what is said on the internet while on the internet. That said. I agree with that. I don't actually take most of this seriously but since we're having a discussion about this on an internet forum it is substantive to it. I will agree that the internet is skewed but just pointing out as an example of the type of rhetoric that has been thrown out in this debate. For that matter you're saying that I should just expect the internet should be loaded with angry Sanders supporters yet when someone responds to them those responses are considered marginalizing them? Have you considered that rhetoric that Sanders supporters such as yourself put out that Clinton supporters are duped and tools of establishment are marginalizing them? If we talk double standards your argument is that the internet is Sanders territory and that people shouldn't take on Sanders supporters there.
How Bernie supporters are feeling right about now: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IC9CZyHLn3M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I understand your response. But it plays to my point, and kind of to Bernie's point. Even with middle of the road small increment changes, Obama had a tough time getting things passed by congress because by their own admission their top priority was stopping Obama. So how far reaching or not far reaching the proposals were, they were going to be tough to get passed. So in that way, unless there is the huge revolutionary turnover in congress that Bernie is talking about, not much will get passed either way. Both candidate will have a tough time getting stuff through.
This is a pretty long piece but reflects some of my thinking regarding Sanders. I'm critical of him but don't think I'm anti-Sanders overall. He does bring a well needed voice to the political debate but I agree with the author that his proposals and how he has gone about it has been unrealistic. Further as I've stated above I think there has been double standards applied to Sanders vs Clinton in regarding some issues. Because of the length not going to post the whole thing but some highlights. https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.y7rr7a6ma On Becoming Anti-Bernie I started out liking Bernie Sanders, though I leaned slightly toward Hillary Clinton. Yet I’ve come to the point where I can barely stand his face, and I just want him to stop jabbing his finger as he brays the same slogans in every single venue, over and over. How did I get to this point, especially as someone who had reservations about Clinton and who is thrilled that Sanders has been able to unlock a thirst for liberal policy within the electorate, in a way that I haven’t seen in my adult life, and in a way that I hope may change the landscape of what is possible? ... First, I researched. I went to his website, I went to Govtrack.us, I went to other sites examining his record to see how it squared up with his rhetoric. I tried to find unbiased articles assessing his tax policy, looking at how he would fund single payer (and what he meant by that) as well as “free college” and other promises he made. I looked at analyses on left-leaning blogs that have long advocated for universal health care to see what they thought, sites I respect and whose authors I have relied on for years for their basic objectivity within their admitted points of view. And I saw none who believed Sanders’ numbers added up. When I saw that the estimates were based on the assumption that the U.S. economy would have an average growth at a 5% rate over his term, that was it for me. And the reason is this: when Jeb! announced he was running for President, he declared that his plan would result in a 4% economic growth rate — and the other GOP presidential contenders quickly followed suit. The Republican candidates’ claims that they “would” do this had been derided on all the same left-leaning blog sites I was now looking at to help assess Sanders. The 4% assertion had been dismissed as magical thinking — or in more straightforward terms, pulled out of Bush’s ass. There was no precedent for a sustained growth rate that high within the last 60 years; commentators pointed out that Reagan had achieved 4% twice in eight years, and Bill Clinton, five times, but 4% growth four years running? Never happened in recent memory — and that was in better economic environments. Sanders’ 5% number was even more magical than Jeb!’s. And so the entire basis of Sanders’ promises for (promises I wanted to believe) was an assumption unprecedented in the last half-century. You can’t base a radical re-imagination of the U.S. economy and the imposition of the largest tax increases in U.S. history on made-up numbers. Economist Gerald Friedman weighed in positively on his plan, but that analysis was ripped to shreds by many others, who showed that Sanders’ plan doesn’t add up on its own terms (estimates are something like a $1–2 trillion shortfall even at the 5% growth assumption). So I concluded that the backbone of Sanders’ plan is founded on, functionally, a lie. ... I concluded that Sanders was less interested in actually accomplishing anything than he was in staging protests where he could claim some kind of moral high ground, not interested in getting in the weeds and doing anything to actually achieve his goals within the Congress he worked in. This research put Sanders’ supposedly pristine progressive agenda in perspective: it is very easy to maintain that agenda if you never make the hard choices necessary to get things done. Classic protester — yet handily collecting his $200,000 pay check and his lifetime of benefits while doing little to enact actual progressive policies to improve people’s lives. ... In rejecting compromise as a mark of lack of integrity, or worse, corruption, Sanders accomplishes two deeply disingenuous goals: (i) he sets himself apart from his colleagues in Congress as the only one who is allegedly “true” to his “values,” thereby creating the myth that he is morally superior and incorruptible; and (ii) he turns the necessity of compromise — without which literally nothing can get done in Congress — into a negative, very similar to the Tea Party and hardliners on the far right in Congress, thereby allowing him to transform his failure to compromise and thus his failure to have achieved any workable progressive legislation in 25 years into a “virtue” — a testament to his supposed integrity. ... And when confronted about his dishonest and hypocritical approach to discussing the crime bill and his own support for it, he lied. He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed. ... So this is not an issue he “owns” or brought to light despite claiming — falsely — that he does not accept money from PACs. Sanders has called Clinton and other Democrats corrupt as he runs on the Democratic platform, undermining the very party he claims to want to lead and, again, suggesting that only he can be trusted because their fundraising is suspect, while his is not, because he does not “take” money from corporations. This argument is dishonest, sanctimonious, and misleading, and has allowed Sanders to set him himself on a pedestal while fomenting unfair negative impressions about Clinton and others. Here is why: ... Sanders accepted $10,000 from a Hillary PAC in 2006 when he was running for re-election. Apparently PAC money is only bad when Hillary is his opponent; otherwise, he’s okay with it. · Sanders accepts money from other PACs. The PAC money he has accepted has typically been from unions, lobbying groups, single-issue groups, and other special interest groups, but these are still PACs — they just happen to be for groups in industries that he does not revile. The fact that they are left-leaning does not mean they are not PACs ... There is no space for considering that Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorsed Clinton because she has been a champion for reproductive rights, not simply a supporter. There is no space for considering that Sanders’ paucity of endorsements from other politicians and organizations could possibly be based on the view that Clinton is more qualified, more experienced, has a better platform, is a better leader, is more likable, is more likely to achieve progressive goals, has done more to advance equality, has a better record, or any other metric. Hillary’s disagreement with aspects of Sanders’s proposals (disagreements which are relatively minor in any event) couldn’t possibly be based on her conclusion that his ideas are not well thought out, or have potentially offsetting negative consequences, or are unworkable; no, her disagreement must be a function of her corruption or her political calculation. ... Sanders claims he wants a political revolution to achieve progressive goals. But he has not supported the election of other candidates who will be necessary to pass progressive legislation through Congress. Until a few days ago, Sanders had raised $1,000 for candidates besides himself — compared to over $20 million Clinton has raised. Now he is supporting three candidates. And in speeches and debates, Sanders now draws no distinction between Hillary and the GOP, contributing to the Nader-esque view prevalent among a subset of his supporters that there is no difference between the parties and that Clinton is a closet Republican. ... If he would have just stuck to the issues and spread his message in a positive way, we would not have this bitter, festering hatred of Hillary that he is stoking and exploiting, which could really have negative consequences in the general, both at the presidential level and downticket. ... At every single turn of the campaign, when something hasn’t gone Sanders’ way, the campaign has attacked whatever rule is inconvenient for Sanders as unfair. If that rule can later be twisted or broken to his advantage, then they argue for that. This has been covered a great deal on various blogs and news programs, so I won’t belabor it — my only point is that his arguments have been rankly hypocritical. There is literally no principle behind them other than the principle of whatever works to help Sanders, then that should be the rule. And the campaign is threatening a contested convention, egged on by Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver. His supporters have also been targeting delegates and super delegates to pressure and threaten them into changing their support for Hillary (regardless of how far ahead she ends up in votes and pledged delegate counts by the convention). Sanders is not only comfortable subverting, he is arguing for, for the subversion of the will of the voters if it will get him the nomination. ... Really? The first woman who might win the presidency is “unqualified” because she participates, perforce, like President Obama and everyone else, even Sanders himself (admittedly to a lesser degree), in the broken system? (Never mind that her campaign addresses the same issues and never mind that Sanders’ plan is not viable.) It is amazing that this simple diagnosis makes Sanders a truth-teller whose nomination is groundbreaking, while electing a woman for the first time in history is somehow not. ... In short, in addition to hope and idealism and thirst for progressive change (which I support and share), the Sanders campaign has also awakened a dormant left-wing Tea Party that I didn’t believe existed, but that lives in a fever swamp of conspiracy-thinking and epistemic closure and rejection of fact and binary, “us v. them” thinking. And that terrifies me. The mere fact that the left’s goals are goals I largely share doesn’t make their behavior or refusal to deal in reality any more appealing than the hard right’s similar behavior. I don’t want a leftwing analogue to the extreme right’s lunacy. But that is what Sanders has unleashed among some of his supporters. In fact he’s stoking and exploiting it, and it’s dangerous. And so, although I will vote for Sanders in a heartbeat over anyone in the GOP (whose candidates and platform are awful in every respect), because of his words, deeds, and temperament, Bernard Sanders is not worthy of the Democratic nomination.
Unrealistic? People here seem to think Trump is crazy because he wants yuge tariffs. No one bats an eyelash when Bernie proposes that we rescind every major trade agreement. Not only does that dissolve the current tariff regime it will also likely affect the legal working status on hundreds of thousands of not millions here in the US. All Bernie supporters hear is the free stuff he is going to give them. That's the definition of illiberal. These people have bastardized the term liberal the same way racist Southern GOPers have tarnished the term conservative
Nothing will get done in a state of gridlock either way. But philosophical direction is still important in influence over time, especially in helping voters realize the extent to which corporate lobbyist influence their lives. Bernie is having a bigger impact on the national narrative than most think. And he will be a trusted public critic going forward.
Sanders is to the left as Ted Cruz is to the right. I like Sanders a lot more because I agree with his priorities more, but I think both would be equally ineffective because they are seem so unwilling to compromise.
I voted for Sanders not because I thought what he wanted to do was realistic from a policy or gov't standpoint - but because of the people he represented. Whatever people want to claim about him, he represented the interests of most common Americans who are at this point highly under-represented. It was about giving middle America a voice, not so much about him being able to have great policy. I knew Hillary would win the nomination, but that doesn't mean he can't have impact.
Well I guess it is good to correct the record even if belatedly wrt to whether most Americans benefit from Sanders tax and social benefit plans. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals All but the wealthiest households would see net income gains under Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s proposals, according to a report released Monday. “For most households, additional government benefits would more than offset the tax increases,” the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) said in the report. Sanders has released a number of proposals to expand and create new social-insurance programs. These include single-payer healthcare, comprehensive coverage for long-term services and supports, expanding Social Security benefits, free college tuition at public universities and paid family leave. The candidate has proposed paying for these programs through tax changes for individuals and businesses. TPC in March estimated that Sanders’s tax plan would raise $15.3 trillion over 10 years. Everyone would pay more taxes under his plan, and most of the new revenue would come from the wealthy. The Sanders campaign complained that TPC’s tax analysis was “inaccurate and one-sided” because it did not look at the benefits people would receive from the candidate’s spending proposals. TPC Director Len Burman told reporters that the center “thought the Sanders campaign had a point.”
Conservatives and many Hillary supporters won't like this LA Times article, but this s another good example of why it is good for Bernie to stay in the campaign to try to shake up the status quo policies of both parties that have led to such inequality and lack of social mobility. Capitol Journal Bernie Sanders' idea for free tuition at public colleges deserves an A George Skelton George SkeltonContact Reporter Capitol Journal Bernie Sanders wants everyone to be offered a tuition-free college education and he’s called crazy. America can’t afford it, naysayers scoff. He’s just pandering to young voters. But too many of us in California forget: This state did provide tuition-free college for generations. That helped California achieve greatness by broadening the middle class and providing opportunities for upward mobility not available in other states. It was an economic engine. In return for investing in higher education, California gained a widening pool of professionals, entrepreneurs and innovators who repaid the state many times over with tax payments, consumer buying and product creation. It set California apart.
This article judoka? Really? Of all the articles that are substantive and make some real, important criticisms of Bernie's policies you end up picking this subjective, biased piece of crap written by a corporate lawyer who defends hedge funds for a living? An article that calls the most liberal senator in recent history a sexist? An article that frequently uses MSNBC as a source? I mean, good grief man, whatever "process" you have to evaluate sources needs to be re-thought out, cuz this article was more or less garbage and if you couldn't have seen that after two or three paragraphs you're blind.
Wow that is ridiculous - I didn't see all that about him being sexist. It's a stretch to say the least. He does appear to be a very slanted piece against him by a pro-Hillary.
I won't deny that this piece is anti-Sanders, it says it right at the beginning. Further I didn't put much stock in what Sanders might have written or said when he was in his early 30's 40 years ago, which is why I didn't reference those parts. That said though while you've attacked the writer you haven't responded to the substance of this piece? I read through it before I posted it and I wouldn't have posted it if I felt it was a substanceless hatchet job. The writer does hit upon several facts that many like myself have brought up such as that even though Sanders and his supporters have hammered Clinton the 1994 Crime Bill he voted for that very bill. Many, including people who have said they voted for Sanders in the primaries, are criticizing him for his lack of support for the Democratic party. The Sanders' campaign has shown lack of knowledge of primary rules and also shifts positions regarding things like Super Delegates (Sanders and his campaign have spent months bashing them and now want them to save his candidacy.) There are two other issues that this piece brings up that have been brought up before in this debate. The first is that Sanders supporters have shown no qualms personally attacking Hillary Clinton including buying into much of the attacks that have been put out by Conservatives. For the most part Clinton and her supporters haven't done the same to Sanders. This is one of the few pieces that does really hit Sanders personally. You yourself have made arguments that we shouldn't get worked up about the attacks on Clinton for reasons such as that it's the internet yet are not applying the same rational to an attack on Sanders. The second more important point though is that the attacks leveled in this piece are pale in comparison to what a Trump campaign and the GOP in general will do to Sanders. Consider the type of attacks that Trump has leveled against his primary opponents, the Birther movement against Obama that Trump was a big part of, and Swiftboating against Jon Kerry. If Sanders miraculously wins the nomination, and / or if the GOP feels that he is a threat. They won't hesitate to make for greater attacks on Sanders.
