A thread for fellow Bernie supporters: a weakness in his campaign

[Checkerboard Strangler]

A lot of people had such false hopes about Stalin. It is a lot like the trump voters - except Stalin's generally saw they'd been wrong, while trump's became a cult. "Stalingrad" was renamed to repudiate him - I suspect most of our country feels the same about trump.



I wouldn't say "even" - remember why they were communists, because they wanted good things for their fellow Americans. I'd say they're MORE patriotic than people like the trump cult, which is cheering as we speak trump abusing power corruptly firing anyone who upholds the law.

Listen, I know you already KNOW this but it bears "repeating for all needing" anyway:
The Great Depression was the almost complete and total FAILURE of capitalism.
It was...almost a third of the country lost everything, almost a third of the country was broke and out of work.
If EVER there was a time when America was going to go socialist or communist, it was THEN, RIGHT THEN.
So naturally a lot of people became curious about this "new flavor" called socialism and the other new flavor called communism.
They were interested in finding out if it worked better than the old system which had just flopped onto the dock and breathed what they surely thought was its last breath.

I hope Trump tries to question Bernie's patriotism and love of country, it will be very entertaining to watch.

Hopefully, Bernie would tear him a new one.

Unfortunately, Bernie isn't so much a name-calling type who really attacks people a lot to counter that.

Remember how he debated Hillary, saying he was sick of hearing [attacks on her] about her damn e-mails. It's sort of the 'don't get in the mud with the pig or you get dirty' situation, where Bernie will be dealing with the mud from trump. But that could work as Bernie looks more decent and presidential. Didn't help Jeb Bush, though, who looked like a deer in the headlights while trump attacked.

Sanders wasn't up against Trump, he was up against a fellow Democrat. He was up against Hillary.

Take a look at this "now famous" internet meme...a lot of Sanders supporters think it's one of the funniest things he ever did, and it's not even certain he even SAID "SOCIALISM!!" to the Bloomberg guy, but the meme makes it like he DID blurt out that word, to scare the crap out of the reporter.

The point is, Sanders voters are totally in on the joke, and they know why it's funny.
Bernie Sanders is not a wuss, he's not a milquetoast and he's not even remotely an old doddering fuddy duddy who is too snooty to dirty his hands.
I GUARANTEE you he can get down in the mud and beat the hell out of his opponents.
He has been "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy".

The narrator declines to state an obvious moral but intimates from what he has read in the paper that his nation itself is being led into similar peril by authoritarian fools.

Bernie Sanders' entire campaign is about the fact that the United States of America IS waist deep in the Big Muddy, with Donald Trump as the authoritarian "big fool".

Sanders was fighting authoritarians when Donald Trump was still a spoiled little brat in short pants.

I am certain Bernie Sanders will use a combination of facts and humor to poke a thousand holes in the vile orange pig bladder until it implodes.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

See I would not be surprised if we can often agree on what is and is not 'extreme', and I certainly am not worried that these ideas will be soaring through Congress whether we have a democratic congress or a republican congress. His ideas do not scare me because the legislative process will dilute them. That is why I have always said this progressive/moderate debate is not as important to me as political skills and electability are in the president.

Most of us on DF are pretty politically savvy and we understand that all Dems are not created equal, and Dems from purple territory who would not vote for single payer for Obama, will not be doing it for Sanders! If the Dem is not progressive, they are not likely to vote for far left legislation. But the voters are not so savvy, especially in these hyper-partisan times when votes to impeach and remove in both bodies get passed and defeated with virtual partisan unity. The biggest problem is perception. If the markets get a little skittish around November, we know that the GOP will blame the Sanders campaign. We know they will stoke the fears of socialism and economic turmoil and run ads on those quotes and a couple with the Dem candidate endorsing Sanders for President, and the solution at the end of the ad will be, 'Vote for Collins, she won't rubberstamp the Sanders far left agenda!"

That same line will exist I suppose if its Buttigieg, or Klobuchar but it just will not fly because they do not advertise themselves as a socialist, and their policy agenda is not as radical in scope.

Do you get this joke?

 

[Craig234]

Sanders wasn't up against Trump, he was up against a fellow Democrat. He was up against Hillary.

And it could be argued he was way too soft on her for the country's good. This isn't about his being strong, but about his effectively countering the attacks. Again look at how trump was effective against 15 Republicans. It's not a flaw in Bernie so much, but a flaw in the voters trump's garbage works on.

I am certain Bernie Sanders will use a combination of facts and humor to poke a thousand holes in the vile orange pig bladder until it implodes.

We're hoping his approach, which is mostly to say the same few things on policy, works.

 

[marke]

I was a strong Bernie supporter in 2015 before Hillary won the party's nomination. I could still vote for Bernie if he's the candidate chosen at the DNC convention. I'd be okay with any one of them because they're all people that I would trust.

There's only been four incumbent presidents in 120 years in the US that haven't won their second term. Three of them were in periods when the US was in economic distress. Obviously the economy has played a major faction in whether or not an incumbent is reelected or not. If the economy doesn't down-slide and remains as strong as it is right now, Trump will most probably win a second term. If the economy tanks, he's finished, period.

The majority of people in this country, those that don't follow politics as closely as we do, don't want a revolution. They just want someone to take them home, they just want somebody sober to get us all 'home'. People want stability and they want someone they can trust for 4 years.

I agree. An economic collapse before the Nov. election might well sink Trump's boat because ignorant people are quick to jump to wrong conclusions and make some very bad decisions from flawed judgments when their money is involved.

 

[Craig234]

Take it up with Sanders. If he says he's a socialist and he has, I intend to believe him. I don't argue with you when you self identify as a progressive either. I pick my label, you pick yours, Sanders picks his. Matter of fact, he's got several he chooses depending upon his circumstances.

Reporter to Bernie: "You say you're a socialist..."
Bernie, interrupting and correcting: "Democratic Socialist".

Bernie Derangement Syndrome victim says falsely: "he says he's a socialist"

BDSV continues: "Matter of fact, he's got several he chooses depending upon his circumstances."

 

[HumblePi]

I agree. An economic collapse before the Nov. election might well sink Trump's boat because ignorant people are quick to jump to wrong conclusions and make some very bad decisions from flawed judgments when their money is involved.

Of course! Like those that vote for Trump only in good economic times, for no other reason than their money is involved.

 

[marke]

Of course! Like those that vote for Trump only in good economic times, for no other reason than their money is involved.

Good times or not, I prefer American freedom to slavery to government socialism and communism.

 

[HumblePi]

Good times or not, I prefer American freedom to slavery to government socialism and communism.

We all have our own personal preferences, mine is democracy versus a fascist government.

 

[marke]

We all have our own personal preferences, mine is democracy versus a fascist government.

The Russian Socialist Democrat Party was formed to overthrow the czar and bring in communism. Before Lenin, the democrat party of Russia split and the communist party branch ended up bringing Russia into the modern age of Marxist socialist communism. We don't need that socialist communist Marxism junk here in America.

 

[HumblePi]

The Russian Socialist Democrat Party was formed to overthrow the czar and bring in communism. Before Lenin, the democrat party of Russia split and the communist party branch ended up bringing Russia into the modern age of Marxist socialist communism. We don't need that socialist communist Marxism junk here in America.

You're living under fascism, Marxism sounds better than that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And it could be argued he was way too soft on her for the country's good. This isn't about his being strong, but about his effectively countering the attacks. Again look at how trump was effective against 15 Republicans. It's not a flaw in Bernie so much, but a flaw in the voters trump's garbage works on.



We're hoping his approach, which is mostly to say the same few things on policy, works.

If there is one thing to learn from Bernie...never underestimate him.

 

[Craig234]

If there is one thing to learn from Bernie...never underestimate him.

There are various things to learn from Bernie, that hasn't been one, but it is for some of his opponents. I've learned that repeating a few things for years can do far better than I thought it could, and that he was able to raise far more in small donations than I expected, for a couple things. What's important though especially is his ability to popularize progressive policies. Incredible.

 

[btthegreat]

Reporter to Bernie: "You say you're a socialist..."
Bernie, interrupting and correcting: "Democratic Socialist".

Bernie Derangement Syndrome victim says falsely: "he says he's a socialist"

BDSV continues: "Matter of fact, he's got several he chooses depending upon his circumstances."

Sometimes he corrects, and at others he does not. He's a socialist, an independent, a Democrat, democratic socialist . There are those folks that want to transpose and call him a Social Democrat. Point is he wanted to reclaim 'socialist ' from its negative connotation in this country and resurrect it as a positive descriptor of policy. I like that and endorse the effort. Its one of the real positives to having him run. So I will let him.

 

[Craig234]

Sometimes he corrects, and at others he does not. He's a socialist, an independent, a Democrat, democratic socialist . There are those folks that want to transpose and call him a Social Democrat. Point is he wanted to reclaim 'socialist ' from its negative connotation in this country and resurrect it as a positive descriptor of policy. I like that and endorse the effort.

1. I'd like you to link to the last time he said simply 'I am a socialist'. 2. Terms like 'Democratic Socialist' and 'Democrat' are not 'changes'; one is a political party, the other is an economic viewpoint. 3. How about you be more honest by discussing his actual policies instead of trying find 'gotcha' label moments. 4. Yes, by claiming 'Democratic Socialist', he's done more than anyone in 75 years to de-demonize the term.

 

[marke]

You're living under fascism, Marxism sounds better than that.

Marxism utopia always sounds good to those who are promised by devils a Utopian Marxist paradise to seditious rebels who burn the legitimate government to the ground in order to pave the way for the Marxists to move in and take control of the ashes.

 

[HumblePi]

Marxism utopia always sounds good to those who are promised by devils a Utopian Marxist paradise to seditious rebels who burn the legitimate government to the ground in order to pave the way for the Marxists to move in and take control of the ashes.

Oh, fascists just love minds such as yours.

 

[btthegreat]

1. I'd like you to link to the last time he said simply 'I am a socialist'. 2. Terms like 'Democratic Socialist' and 'Democrat' are not 'changes'; one is a political party, the other is an economic viewpoint. 3. How about you be more honest by discussing his actual policies instead of trying find 'gotcha' label moments. 4. Yes, by claiming 'Democratic Socialist', he's done more than anyone in 75 years to de-demonize the term.

Craig234, I looked back in a quick search. The last time on tape he referred to himself as a 'socialist' without a modifier, that I can find was about sometime in 2017.

So all I am doing to do here is say you are 100% on every word here except when you say I was 'looking for a gotcha moment' If that were true this post would not read this way. I truly thought that he used them interchangeably in describing himself. I was wrong. He talks about socialism itself without the modifier, but in the last few years, he does not miss an opportunity to be more specific when referring to himself. From here on out, I will refer to him only as a Democratic Socialist to describe his political views.

Honest mistake .I truly try to be fair to this man.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234, I looked back in a quick search. The last time on tape he referred to himself as a 'socialist' without a modifier, that I can find was about sometime in 2017.

So all I am doing to do here is say you are 100% on every word here except when you say I was 'looking for a gotcha moment' If that were true this post would not read this way. I truly thought that he used them interchangeably in describing himself. I was wrong. He talks about socialism itself without the modifier, but in the last few years, he does not miss an opportunity to be more specific when referring to himself. From here on out, I will refer to him only as a Democratic Socialist to describe his political views.

Honest mistake .I truly try to be fair to this man.

Thanks for the post. I accept your comments. When I referred to 'gotcha', what I meant was, fixating only on the label and completely ignoring what's more important, his actual policies, which are basically FDR principles - traditional American values and goals now becoming more possible. Perhaps you'd like to comment on his policies as well. Glad you considered the topic.

 

[btthegreat]

Thanks for the post. I accept your comments. When I referred to 'gotcha', what I meant was, fixating only on the label and completely ignoring what's more important, his actual policies, which are basically FDR principles - traditional American values and goals now becoming more possible. Perhaps you'd like to comment on his policies as well. Glad you considered the topic.

Let me be clear here. When candidates or campaign discuss their policies I pretty much ignore most of it. I am focused on some patterns of how they think, a sense of their values, and priorities etc and tune out on details. They are so close to meaningless in a candidate. They don't even know the make-up of the Congress they need to sell this to, they have no imput from their cabinet choices, no sense of how the agencies feel about those policies and the practical implementation or implications. They are spouting of some ideals rather naïve notions outside of a pollical world of voters and interest groups.

I think it is probably better if I tell you what I think about Sanders in that broader context. He is not a policy wonk/detail man. He paints with broad strokes on his canvas. So did Obama and Reagan and Bushbaby. Clinton, Carter and Buttigieg are more detail oriented they like to dig into the nuts and bolts of legislation. Both sorts of leaders can be effective. In 2016 I checked into Sanders record on National defense/ foreign policy. I wanted to see when he supported the use of military power and when he did not. He is not a pacifist, but the case has to be extraordinarily compelling before he supports authorization. He voted in favor of giving Bushbaby some latitude in Afghanistan. I was satisfied that if pressed by circumstances, he would be willing to give the pentagon a go-a-head. The guy will focus on redistribution, health care reform, climate change and the regulation of corporate power and profit and strengthening unions. Social issues like abortion, affirmative action, reparations, gay rights, ERA, Gun reform, will take a second billing. He will address them in executive orders, but he will see major initiatives as distractions to his higher priorities. Obama was much the same way. He did not use much of his political capital on that stuff until his second term. Probably smart.


My concerns are that he will see EVERYTHING in terms of his economic justice viewpoint and forget to see the social , religious and cultural dynamics as providing real important context as well. Everything that happens, is not actually driven by money. Matter of fact, a lot that happens is not primarily driven by money and while that is counter-intuitive to someone like Sanders he has learn to broaden how he sees issues if he intends to be effective. I am not sure that he has the political skills to move his agenda. Not sure if he will go out of his way to include more conservative voices in his white house staff and cabinet, and he needs some strong advocates further to his right to balance not only his natural inclinations, but who can stand up in a room full of progressive and be the only one to boldly articulate a lonely vision. I don't know if Bernie can distinguish a good deal, from a perfect deal. I don't know how good a manager/boss he is.

 

[Craig234]

My concerns are that he will see EVERYTHING in terms of his economic justice viewpoint and forget to see the social , religious and cultural dynamics as providing real important context as well. Everything that happens, is not actually driven by money. Matter of fact, a lot that happens is not primarily driven by money and while that is counter-intuitive to someone like Sanders he has learn to broaden how he sees issues if he intends to be effective. I am not sure that he has the political skills to move his agenda. Not sure if he will go out of his way to include more conservative voices in his white house staff and cabinet, and he needs some strong advocates further to his right to balance not only his natural inclinations, but who can stand up in a room full of progressive and be the only one to boldly articulate a lonely vision. I don't know if Bernie can distinguish a good deal, from a perfect deal. I don't know how good a manager/boss he is.

I think you have both a bias against Bernie, and a tendency to make a fantasy version of him that reflects that. He can't win with you, unless he became a corporatist/centrist it seems. I think that plutocracy, and the majority of the American people not getting a fair share of the country's wealth and power, estroying democracy, is our country's biggest issue. You aren't at all specific about the actual 'dynamics' concerns you have. How does that affect his desire to see healthcare and education expanded? You aren't sure if he has the political skills? He does better than any other Democrat running. I don't want him to include 'more conservative voices' - how have trump and Bush 'included more progressive voices'? But he has a long track record of being among the best at making deals and working with Republicans to pass what's possible.

 

[btthegreat]

I think you have both a bias against Bernie, and a tendency to make a fantasy version of him that reflects that. He can't win with you, unless he became a corporatist/centrist it seems. I think that plutocracy, and the majority of the American people not getting a fair share of the country's wealth and power, estroying democracy, is our country's biggest issue. You aren't at all specific about the actual 'dynamics' concerns you have. How does that affect his desire to see healthcare and education expanded? You aren't sure if he has the political skills? He does better than any other Democrat running. I don't want him to include 'more conservative voices' - how have trump and Bush 'included more progressive voices'? But he has a long track record of being among the best at making deals and working with Republicans to pass what's possible.

It saddens me that you only quoted the last paragraph with the concerns. I might as well not have written the first two without concerns. Please don't tell me what I think, ask me, because you aren't getting much of it right. Before you can know how strong an anti-Bernie bias I have, you would have to read a paragraph on my concerns with other candidates and compare those paragraphs, but those paragraphs would sit on a context of which concerns I do not have, just like his did. You completely misconstrued my 'more conservative voices' statement, and you sure as hell did nothing to suggest some advantage to an administration without some ideological diversity in opinion! The goal is to do things better than Bush and Trump did, not duplicate their flawed approach. I was not asking for Ted Cruz and Newt Gingrich. I was asking that the man go out of his way to get non-progressives involved, so that he can better anticipate their concerns and give them a voice and a stake in his legislative agenda. Ideological purity through his administration must be very tempting, its not going to do him any favors to hold court in a progressive echo chamber. The fact this whole notion triggered you, means that you probably ought not be an advisor to this guy.

 

[Craig234]

It saddens me that you only quoted the last paragraph with the concerns. I might as well not have written the first two without concerns. Please don't tell me what I think, ask me, because you aren't getting much of it right. Before you can know how strong an anti-Bernie bias I have, you would have to read a paragraph on my concerns with other candidates and compare those paragraphs, but those paragraphs would sit on a context of which concerns I do not have, just like his did. You completely misconstrued my 'more conservative voices' statement, and you sure as hell did nothing to suggest some advantage to an administration without some ideological diversity in opinion! The goal is to do things better than Bush and Trump did, not duplicate their flawed approach. I was not asking for Ted Cruz and Newt Gingrich. I was asking that the man go out of his way to get non-progressives involved, so that he can better anticipate their concerns and give them a voice and a stake in his legislative agenda. Ideological purity through his administration must be very tempting, its not going to do him any favors to hold court in a progressive echo chamber. The fact this whole notion triggered you, means that you probably ought not be an advisor to this guy.

I'm happy for you to clarify your views. As for a boundary on what 'ideological diversity' is helpful, I think the biggest threat to our country is plutocracy, and we have an army in terms of the dominant power, wealth and people promoting that. It's fine to consider various views, but the voices of the selfish interests don't need to be given positions in the administration, the way Bush and trump appointed lobbyists and industry executives to the regulatory positions overseeing those industries, betraying the people. We need a war against the plutocrats and an administration who is on the people's side. Appointing people who represent the public interest instead of the selfish industries to regulate them is not copying Bush and trump. Centrist Democrats should be given respect and heard. Your 'triggered' attack sounds like it might fit you?

 

[btthegreat]

I'm happy for you to clarify your views. As for a boundary on what 'ideological diversity' is helpful, I think the biggest threat to our country is plutocracy, and we have an army in terms of the dominant power, wealth and people promoting that. It's fine to consider various views, but the voices of the selfish interests don't need to be given positions in the administration, the way Bush and trump appointed lobbyists and industry executives to the regulatory positions overseeing those industries, betraying the people. We need a war against the plutocrats and an administration who is on the people's side. Appointing people who represent the public interest instead of the selfish industries to regulate them is not copying Bush and trump. Centrist Democrats should be given respect and heard. Your 'triggered' attack sounds like it might fit you?

You keep dividing the world into the evil nefarious 'plutocrats' and the people in an 'us vs them' binary, and then you insist on having that war of yours. You can't see its an entirely binary view of politics based on a simplistic two dimensional focus on wealth and its power . The world is far more complex than that, people are far more complex than that and their motives are complicated by other cultural, religious considerations'

Your post represents all my concerns about Sanders in a gift wrapped box. I don't want Sanders to think like you do. Its too much like a self perpetuating internalized movie reel of 1950's socialist propaganda. I keep telling myself that I need to separate who Sanders is, from who his more strident supporters are, that just because you craig, insist on ideological purity in the White House decision-making team , does not mean he will.

 

[Craig234]

You can't see its an entirely binary view of politics based on a simplistic two dimensional focus on wealth and its power . The world is far more complex than that, people are far more complex than that and their motives are complicated by other cultural, religious considerations'...

You don't understand my position, nor the political problems that exist and how plutocracy is in fact the dominant fact, problem, threat in our country to the public interest and to democracy, and so there's not anything to talk about. You have a misguided view IMO leaving you rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic instead of avoiding the iceberg, even with all those diverse passengers you think you appreciate.