Why do some Democrats not want Bernie as their nominee?

[Good4Nothin]

The #1 reason IMO is ignorance. But Bernie has always increased his support the more people that get to know him.

So if we knew more about him, we would ALL love Bernie? Even if we disagree with most of his ideas?

 

[Felis Leo]

No he didn't.
Better go check, because there is a very good chance YOUR electric utility is publicly owned right now.
There are thousands of municipal and publicly owned electric utilities and there always have been.

The opposite is a firm like PG&E, which doesn't give a damn about the safety of their infrastructure, thus when it gets dry and windy, PG&E's poorly maintained lines snap and start massive fires which they will never be adequately held responsible for.

Well let us pretend that California took over the power companies entirely, and PG&E, Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy were all turned into the "California Power Company." Okay, what happens when there is a gigantic fire that kills dozens and burns down hundreds of homes and scorches tens of thousands of acres? Will the California government taking control of power make the power companies run better and prevent this magically? Because I am not under the impression that PG&E does not try to prevent these fires (especially since I know people who work in that company).

What does the California government run directly that you interact with daily that makes you think "Oh wow, this works so well! I am so glad the state runs this and it is not in private hands."?

A publicly owned or municipal utility cannot get away with that nonsense.
Bernie did not suggest "nationalizing" anything.

And the Democratic Party got taken over by wealthy Wall Streeters and corporate CEO's a long time ago, before you were even born. That's why they keep "punching Left while moving Right".
Why not just have GOP I and GOP II?

That's where we're headed.

Yes, yes he has. The man is and was a radical democratic socialist and has never renounced his beliefs.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Well, no. Sanders is, and has been for quite some time, a democratic socialist, which is not an old school socialist.

From wikipedia:

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside a socially owned economy, with an emphasis on workers' self-management and democratic control of economic institutions within a market or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy."

They don't advocate violent revolutions, but the ideas are just as wacko as old school socialism.

Workers' self management???? Have you, or any socialist, ever thought about that?? It is the stupidest nonsense ever dreamed up.

Democratic control of economic institutions? Do you realize that means the government plans and controls the economy? Are you aware of how many times that has been tried?

 

[Felis Leo]

Well, no. Sanders is, and has been for quite some time, a democratic socialist, which is not an old school socialist.

Well, Democratic Socialists (not social democrats) are not much better. They believe in the nationalization and government control of all major industries and the elimination of private property, but want to use already existing democratic institutions to achieve this gradual control rather than violent revolution. But the end result would be the same: The abolition of the private means of production. Now, if one's foundational belief is that capitalism equals oppression, wage slavery and exploitation, nationalization of industries is of course nothing but a good thing.

 

[Craig234]

Well let us pretend that California took over the power companies entirely, and PG&E, Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy were all turned into the "California Power Company." Okay, what happens when there is a gigantic fire that kills dozens and burns down hundreds of homes and scorches tens of thousands of acres? Will the California government taking control of power make the power companies run better and prevent this magically? Because I am not under the impression that PG&E does not try to prevent these fires (especially since I know people who work in that company).

There is a movement for the state to take over PG&E. PG&E ran into financial problems, and was bought by investors who cared mainly about profit. They did take shortcuts; a whole neigborhood was blown up as a result, killing people. They've increased an interest in safety now, after seeing huge accountability for their actions. But there's a real argument for state takeover.

Yes, yes he has. The man is and was a radical democratic socialist and has never renounced his beliefs.

IMO that is a lie. He supports very traditional American values, he has an FDR agenda - he's for all Americans doing well, healthcare being affordable and available to everyone, education, fighting climate change. His policies don't even match "Democratic Socialism", and the RADICAL are the radical right-wing plutocrats who run the country.

 

[Craig234]

Well, Democratic Socialists (not social democrats) are not much better. They believe in the nationalization and government control of all major industries and the elimination of private property

Show ANY evidence that Bernie's policies fit that description. He's for fighting plutocracy, education, healthcare, protecting the environment, social justice. NONE of which fits that.

 

[btthegreat]

Another question I don't know the answer to. Does Sanders have the political skills and acumen, to actually accomplish goals? Can he build a coalition, negotiate in good faith and to fruition, can he sell ideas, and policies inside the beltway as well as outside. Is he personally a good manager, and can he recruit and keep good talent around him? Does he know when to hold ground and when to give ground. Does he feel comfortable surrounding himself with people who passionately disagree and are vocal? Is he too stubborn to admit his own mistakes, or more than willing to do so. Does he give credit to others? accept blame both privately and publicly?


I don't know. But we should be asking.

 

[OscarLevant]

An open discussion on the reasons why some Democrats don't want Bernie as the nominee. What does he stand for that you don't? What will the future of the Democratic Party look like if he wins the nomination? Why do you not want him as your nominee? Please discuss.

I'm fine with Bernie. His "socialism" is not ideological. If you look at all of his videos, and there are many going back decades, one thing that becomes radiantly clear, he's not an ideologue. So, this idea is a socialist goose-stepping to the Soviet National Anthem comrades-in-arms is just right wing propaganda. I don't know why he calls himself a socialist, I guess, to his ears, it sounds good. But, if you ask a real socialist, he's nothing of the sort. Nothing in Bernie's rhetoric and speeches suggests he is out to have the state take over all businesses, which is what real socialists want to do. Real socialists are driven by an ideological frame work, 'to each according to need' framework.

I realize Trump is going to hammer Bernie with the socialist moniker, and not just hammer, he will hammer and sickle him.

But, if not that, it would be something else, so Bernie has a point. I think he'll do fine against Trump, I'm not afraid.

But, many dems are afraid Trump will pound him down with the socialist thing. I don't think so, personally

ONe thing Bernie will do, is get many younger people who would sit out the vote, and vote. I think that number will outweigh the independents who sit it out because of Bernie. I think his nomination will result in a greater turn out, and much bigger crowds at rallies, than anyone else, and that will annoy the **** out of Trump.

 

[OscarLevant]

It's really not that hard. Bernie appeals to people who want free stuff and ignore how it is going to be paid for and the other negative side effects. There are a lot of democrats who like the idea of what he is saying, but understand the practical limitations and destruction his ideas would reap.

You're looking at it wrong.


By UHC and free college that frees up incomes so that young people can go into the market place with more disposable income to buy more stuff, which increases demand, which improves the economy.

the money for those programs will come from the rich, who park the money not creating much in the way of jobs.

UHC will raise taxes on everyone, but no more premiums to pay, so there will be a net gain in disposable incomes for the middle class.

The purchasing power of the middle class is the key to job growth and a healthy economy.

Also, the gap between the rich and the poor will shrink more. At worst, it will put a stop to the gradual increase.

The result, a net gain for society.

 

[jnug]

Everyone is a socialist to some extent. America has many policies and programs which can be classified as socialist. What you are doing is taking a label, pinning it to him, and then arguing against anything the label might mean. It is a piss poor method of debate, more dishonest than anything. As a proud member of #NeverSanders, I am not a fan of his, but stupid arguments against him ar4e, more than anything, stupid.

Its Bernie that self-avowed as a Democratic Socialist. Bernie himself does not scare me. I have little empathy for either Trump or Bernie but in my view Bernie is less of a threat in the short run than Trump. IMO, four more years of Trump will be a disaster for this country. He literally represents an existential threat to the Republic. What comes after Trump, Don Jr taking the throne in royal succession or Queen Ivanka?

The Bernies see Capitalism as their big bogeyman. Its not but that is what they believe. Blaming "Capitalism" is a massive oversimplification of what ails us.The Trumpettes whether they are willing to admit it or not see the Republic as their big bogeyman because they blame the Republic for the things they don't like. They are wrong as well. However they represent a far greater threat to this country than Bernie the Democratic Socialist represents. The Trumpettes are led by power lust and fear, a really nasty combination. The Bernies are led by frustration. That is not a good way to go to the polls either. It is simply far less dangerous than power lust and fear.

That does not mean I WANT a Democratic Socialist in the WH. Both Trump and Bernie represent threats to this country and to the things that have made it great. Bernie is simply less of a threat. Threatening our economic and financial structure does not represent the same level of threat as threatening the Republic itself and we are far more along on the path of destroying the Republic than we are flipping our economic and financial structure on its ear. Its not more complicated than that.

Its what Trump and the GOP will do with that label that worries me. I don't see the means to get that label, Democratic Socialist past a run at the Presidency that goes through the EC. That IMO is a political reality. But I have said in these pages that I will vote for a dump truck with a D on the door panel in order to get Trump out of the Oval. That means I will hold my nose and vote for Bernie if its Trump v Bernie.

 

[bave]

As I've said, people who use the propaganda phrase above, mainly a Hillary attack invention, aren't worth talking to IMO.

Do you have anything to rebut that, or no? The people who are rabid supporters of Bernie are by and large those who aren't paying much if any taxes and are demanding much more and demanding someone else paying for it.

You're looking at it wrong.

By UHC and free college that frees up incomes so that young people can go into the market place with more disposable income to buy more stuff, which increases demand, which improves the economy.

the money for those programs will come from the rich, who park the money not creating much in the way of jobs.

UHC will raise taxes on everyone, but no more premiums to pay, so there will be a net gain in disposable incomes for the middle class.

The purchasing power of the middle class is the key to job growth and a healthy economy.

Also, the gap between the rich and the poor will shrink more. At worst, it will put a stop to the gradual increase.

The result, a net gain for society.

You aren't freeing up money, you are moving it from one person to another. There is no creation of wealth going on here at all.

You say the money will come from the rich, you realize that the rich are paying effective tax rates at just shy of the EU average, right? You realize that EU capital gains rates are lower, dramatically, right? Why would the rich play along with this? They won't, they will pull their capital out of the tax jurisdiction and move it elsewhere.

The problem is you are missing the negatives in this and assuming everything you think is going to happen will.

Let me explain a few things.

First, programs even *fractionally* aggressive at Sanders have been shown to be significant drags on GDP growth, job growth, average hourly earnings, and tax revenue over 20, 30, 40, and 50 year time windows. When they are implemented it doesn't seem that painful until those .2 and .4% start compounding over decades.

Second, you assume you can tax this money, which you can't. A huge amount of this capital will flee the country, as it has in France, Denmark, and Sweden which is why all of those nations reversed their "soak the rich" taxes.

Third, the reality is that the bulk of this new revenue would land on the middle and working class, as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the programs you imagine (free education and UHC) are not what you imagine. You want free university like Germany? Ok, you realize that is for the top 10% of students going into *real* majors, right? Everyone else can either pay or hit a trade school. You want free healthcare? Sure, you realize most of these places still have private insurance, for a very good reason, and that the usage of private insurance has been skyrocketing of late, right?

 

[bave]

Bernie is simply less of a threat. Threatening our economic and financial structure does not represent the same level of threat as threatening the Republic itself and we are far more along on the path of destroying the Republic than we are flipping our economic and financial structure on its ear. Its not more complicated than that.

The above is arguably the dumbest comment I have ever read. Look through history, what has toppled more nations than anything else? Financial and economic instability.

 

[jnug]

The above is arguably the dumbest comment I have ever read. Look through history, what has toppled more nations than anything else? Financial and economic instability.

We have been leaning to a Social Democratic mix overlaid on a Capitalist base for decades. Are we still here? How much more can Bernie do even as an avowed Democratic Socialist in 4 years?

DonDon is directly attacking the Constitution and the Republic. You can deny that all you want. It does not make it less true. As such DonDon represents a much greater threat to the country at this point than Bernie does. Its not even close. This is particularly true considering how much damage DonDon has done in just three years.

What do you think happens to the Imperial Trumpian Presidency if DonDon gets another 4 years? What, you don't think a royal ascendancy to DonDon Jr is not likely or to Queen Ivanka? In fact, a number of Trumpettes are likely drooling for that outcome.

You boys need to figure out that your pants are down around your ankles at this point. You're not fooling anybody.

 

[OscarLevant]

[...]

You aren't freeing up money, you are moving it from one person to another.
There is no creation of wealth going on here at all.

I beg to differ.

The "move" is FROM the sector who can easily shoulder the burden and not feel the pain, TO those who feel the pain tremendously who can hardly afford the debt equivalent of a mortgage on a house. That will free up that person's disposable income to the value of what was freed, most certainly.

they will pull their capital out of the tax jurisdiction and move it elsewhere.
[...]
The problem is you are missing the negatives in this and assuming everything you think is going to happen will.

[...]
A huge amount of this capital will flee the country, as it has in France, Denmark, and Sweden which is why all of those nations reversed their "soak the rich" taxes

I would favor a constitutional amendment to revoke the citizenship of individuals to engage in massive capital flight to oversees accounts. Of course, there are ramifications, dealt with case by case.

Third, the reality is that the bulk of this new revenue would land on the middle and working class, as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the programs you imagine (free education and UHC) are not what you imagine

Would i rather pay a tax that is "x" to remove a premium that is "Y" if that premium is larger than the tax?

I definitely would, and I would even do it if the premium were the same, or slightly less, of the outcome is that everyone has health care. That is the more moral path to take, for a society, that's what liberals believe.

Just as a rich person can send their child to a private school, I'm not saying to kill private insurance.

The fact that health care is going up ( sabotaging ACA isn't helping in that regard, I'd say it's contributing to it ) is more reason to implement UHC. Also, regardless of the ACA, health care costs were going up. Moreover, during the ACA Obama years after the ACA, the rate of increase was slower than that during the Bush years.

I'm in the hospitality biz, and when I meet someone from a foreign country, (those from netherlands, France, Canada etc) I make it a point to ask the following question:

"Would you trade your country's health care system for that of the USA ? "

I'd say I've put that question to at least 100 people, and only one person out of that number said they preferred America's.

So, I don't know what republicans seem to object to, but apparently it's part of some alternate reality. The simple fact is that in the some 50 western developed nations, the per capita cost of health care in those countries is roughly half of what it is here.

I hear "we don't want a gov run hospital" argument. no, "med for all" is not a gov run hospital. It's a consortium of private clinics that will still be competing against each other and will still accept private insurance.

The difference is only that the gov foots the bill, and thereby eliminates a big cost layer, the insurers. What is being done is merely redirecting funds that are already being spent, into a more cost efficient system, which is one of the reasons the health care costs per capita on those countries is a lot less than that of the USA.

And, the benefit is that EVERYONE will have health care. That means those that do not have it now will have it, and the the aggregate level of stress in th nation will go down, and will have residual positive benefits that are hard to calculate. As a civic policy, it seems to me that is, by far, the more moral path to take.

Why is it, that year after year, The World Happiness Survey lists the netherland countries ( last year it was Norway, this year it was Finland ) as the happiest place in the world? Maybe it's because they don't have to worry about filing bankruptcy if there is a catastrophic illness? How about things like paid leave for mom's and dads just after a kid was born? Ya think that will make for better children ( given the love they receive during those important early months) ?

You do realize that private insurers have claims departments, who have a tremendous incentive to deny claims?

What was the world like before the ACA? Listen to these 60 minutes segments:

YouTube

YouTube

It wasn't until the ACA that that kind of thing is illegal. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that insurers are still doing it.

Now, Trump is trying to KILL the ACA, while he claims that He, not dems, want to protect preexisting conditions.

And, Republicans SUPPORT what he is doing. I'm not hearing any criticism from them on this.

I'm sorry UHC has broad public support, and republicans are on the wrong side of this issue.

No solution is perfect, but a nation who gives access to affordable care to all of it's citizens, is a more moral nation than one which does not.

Cya in November.

 

[Fishking]

No, it is a combination of things, including his politics(he suggested nationalizing electrical production recently as an example), the fact he is far less likely to win in November, the fact he is not, by his own admission, a democrat except when he wants something, and that he is trying to change the party into something it is not. I do not want my party taken over like Trump did with the republicans.

Do you blame him for that? I see that more of a dynamic that the two party system has created. It's what the Democrats and Republicans have created that makes these things happen if someone wants to be competitive and gives a chance for a large group of people who are part of one party or another but not because they want to (also independents).

So far as nationalizing things, you don't see that as where the Dem party is moving? Isn't that why he's doing well in the Dem primaries?

 

[bave]

We have been leaning to a Social Democratic mix overlaid on a Capitalist base for decades. Are we still here? How much more can Bernie do even as an avowed Democratic Socialist in 4 years?

DonDon is directly attacking the Constitution and the Republic. You can deny that all you want. It does not make it less true. As such DonDon represents a much greater threat to the country at this point than Bernie does. Its not even close. This is particularly true considering how much damage DonDon has done in just three years.

What do you think happens to the Imperial Trumpian Presidency if DonDon gets another 4 years? What, you don't think a royal ascendancy to DonDon Jr is not likely or to Queen Ivanka? In fact, a number of Trumpettes are likely drooling for that outcome.

You boys need to figure out that your pants are down around your ankles at this point. You're not fooling anybody.

What has Trump actually done that is the end of the world? I must have missed it.

He used leverage to push an ally to resume an investigation into corruption where the former VP's son was given multiple lucrative employment deals he was grossly unqualified for. Either way, he is done in another 4 years max. Odds of his kids getting elected aren't great to say the least. The impact Bernie could have even without congressional majorities is enormous and much longer lasting.

 

[Redress]

Do you blame him for that? I see that more of a dynamic that the two party system has created. It's what the Democrats and Republicans have created that makes these things happen if someone wants to be competitive and gives a chance for a large group of people who are part of one party or another but not because they want to (also independents).

So far as nationalizing things, you don't see that as where the Dem party is moving? Isn't that why he's doing well in the Dem primaries?

I do not have a problem with him not being a democrat. I do have a problem with his not being a democrat, but claiming to be one when he wants something.

 

[jnug]

What has Trump actually done that is the end of the world? I must have missed it.

He used leverage to push an ally to resume an investigation into corruption where the former VP's son was given multiple lucrative employment deals he was grossly unqualified for. Either way, he is done in another 4 years max. Odds of his kids getting elected aren't great to say the least. The impact Bernie could have even without congressional majorities is enormous and much longer lasting.

Not honestly. But that is the point now isn't it.

There was no widespread investigations into corruption by Americans in Ukraine. There was a very focused and specific effort to get Ukraine to "announce" not even to actually investigate but announce investigations into a domestic political rival of Trump and the laughably absurd Crowdstrike CT.

Beyond that Trump has run roughshod over the Congress and its Article 1 authorities including the power of the purse and he spends his days threatening those he sees as his adversaries when they are simply political rivals. He makes El Duce look like a saint.

What qualified Kushner for the lofty perch he now occupies? Oh I know....he married Ivanka.

Trump is a blustering autocratic bully and there is really no place for him or his idiot brood in the US Government.

 

[Luther]

Define "socialist" and then name three Bernie policies you claim are "socialist" and bad for the country.



What is wrong with you? Bernie DOMINATES young voter support. "Nationally, 52% of voters under age 35 said they were supporting Sanders"

Bernie DOMINATES young voter support.

Hint......

 

[Fishking]

I do not have a problem with him not being a democrat. I do have a problem with his not being a democrat, but claiming to be one when he wants something.

If he's leading in the Democrat primaries doesn't that mean he's being a Democrat? I mean...who is voting for him?

 

[jnug]

If he's leading in the Democrat primaries doesn't that mean he's being a Democrat? I mean...who is voting for him?

Iowa was a caucus. If the result can be believed Mayor Pete won the Iowa Caucus. There is no such thing as the first allocation of a caucus meaning anything no matter how much Bernie wants to blather about it. That entire mess was the result of the DNC knuckling under to Bernie's boys and creating the laughable rules that lead to the destruction of the Iowa Dem caucus. Just because they reported the first allocation or attempted to under orders from the DNC does not make it suddenly mean anything within the context of a caucus.

This focus on the Mobile App is a dodge designed to let the DNC squirm out of its responsibility for that mess so they could lay it all at the feet of the Iowa Dem Party.

 

[Cardinal]

If he's leading in the Democrat primaries doesn't that mean he's being a Democrat? I mean...who is voting for him?

That has a simple, irrefutable logic to it. If he didn’t embody Democratic principles to a large extent, he would be further behind in the polls than Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Perotista]

An open discussion on the reasons why some Democrats don't want Bernie as the nominee. What does he stand for that you don't? What will the future of the Democratic Party look like if he wins the nomination? Why do you not want him as your nominee? Please discuss.

I have a couple of Democratic friends who view Sanders as an interloper, an independent running for the Democratic nomination. They feel he doesn't belong. They point out Sanders only became a Democrat just before the New Hampshire primary and immediately went back to being an independent after the general election of 2016. He's still registered as an independent as far as they know.

I think their view is a very small minority of how Democrats view Sanders. At least I think so. To make sure I went to YouGov to see how those who affiliated or call themselves Democrats view the Candidates. Question 38. Democrats line up as this, Biden 29%, Warren 22% Sanders 15%. for the rest look at Question 38. Then independents who are planning on voting in the Democratic Primaries in open state primaries. Independents view the candidates differently. Sanders 28%, Biden 12%, Warren 12%.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/73jqd6u5mv/econTabReport.pdf

So maybe my two Democratic friends have a point. Of course both are Biden supporters, so that may have biased how they view Sanders. But perhaps not. The numbers show Sanders fairly weak among rank and file Democrats, extremely strong among independents who will be voting in the democratic primaries.

I think we need to remember than in 2016 Sanders won 59% of the independent vote who voted in the Democratic Primaries vs Hillary winning 65% of those rank and file Democrats, who make up the Democratic base. So are my two friends right? I'm still not sure, but the numbers tend to say yes.

 

[hermit]

Bernie is a cult, just like Trump. We don't need another cult running the show.

Plus, Bernie is an elderly, health-challenged idealist. I think he's an idealist who speaks to other idealists, and there is nothing wrong with that...but...

He does not appeal to the general body of voters will all their colors and differences.

The general body of voters are more inclined to vote for someone who walks and talks like Amy Klobuchar, except that because she is female and not as charismatic as our Entertainer-in-Chief President, she is not doing as well as she could be if people would open their eyes to see how qualified she is.

Bernie has said all he has to say. He stands there waving his arms, pointing fingers, ranting about the rich and this and that--always the same speech. All Trump has to do is POUND the "socialist" angle and Bernie is toast.

Trump has nothing on Amy Klobuchar.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Speaking only for myself and not for Josie, I am worried because we right-wingers would be stuck in a country run by an idiot democratic socialist just like you are stuck in a country presently run by an idiot nationalist. I would prefer our country be run by people who do not cleave to idiotic failed ideas that have ruined and impoverished entire nations.

In the thirty-odd years Sanders has been in the House AND then the Senate, he has had to reach across the aisle on almost everything he has ever worked on. So you can probably feel safe in putting away your fears of socialism overturning any apple carts.
I've asked this before...what exactly do you think the scenario would look like, a sudden high pitched tone on the TV sets of America with a test pattern, followed by the Soviet National Anthem and an announcement directing everyone to report to their local politburo and surrender their homes and savings?

Exactly what idiotic and failed ideas are we talking about, affordable healthcare and higher education for everyone?
Yes, Bernie...like every other candidate, does have a few stupid ideas, like offering healthcare to illegals and granting violent incarcerated felons the right to vote from prison.
And those ideas don't have a fart's chance in a cyclotron of ever even getting a hearing in Congress, even with Dem supermajorities in both chambers.

And ponder this: Perhaps Sanders' increasing popularity is an appropriate backlash TO the last four years of creeping ultra-nationalism and oligarchy we've been subjected to under Trump.
We are so far to the ultra-Right now that Sanders will be lucky if he manages to pull us back to the center.