2016 elections - because it's never too early

[alfred russel]

I dont think sanders has much hope of beating hillary without the email thing blowing up. If he seriously begins to threaten for the nomination, people will take a harder look at his electibility and it isnt good as ovb says. Also, hillary has basically the whole democratic party behind her, and unlike the republican party, i think that means something to voters. I would think that before sanders gets the nomination, obama will endorse hillary and maybe even campaign for her.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Obama was too left-wing to win too, except that he did. It's the New Economy. The rising tide lifting boats in China and the Philippines while those in middle America remain beached. America is probably more receptive to a message like Bernie's now than any time since the '30s.

Obama is a moderate--he was never too left wing to win and I don't know anyone who really said that. I know people who said he wouldn't win as a black, first term Senator from Illinois, I knew people who said he didn't have any firm policy positions and wasn't ready etc. But too left wing? I never remember hearing that. It'd be weird too, since he's not left wing and never has been. Obama is progressive on some issues of social justice, but is a moderate economically and always has been. He was against gay marriage and pro capital punishment as a 2008 candidate. People have forgotten how good the "ringmaster" was if they think he was left wing in 2008, he said things to get the Bernie type voters but without ever actually signing on with far left policies that would hurt him in the general.

About the only real left wing "marks against him" in the general was his association with a controversial black pastor (which had no real impact) and his early writings and such as a young man when he went through an "angry anti-establishment black man period", but all that was 20 years in his past by the time he ran for President.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not as die hard Republican as I once was, and I do appreciate some of the dialogue Bernie is opening, but all of his policies just strike me as "there's no way to get there from here." I don't think people understand just how hard it'd be to implement a full dissolution of all insurance companies and implement single payer. I'm not familiar with any country that has ever done this. Most of the rest of the OECD instituted their various national schemes between like 1915-1940s, that's before there was really much of anything else (other than paying out of pocket, which left poor people dependent on charity hospitals.) We came close to passing something in the 40s under Truman, but the doctor's lobby shut it down and Blue Cross Blue Shield arose, that's our history, it isn't easy to erase it. A system like they use in Germany is one that we can get to from where we are today, and one that would be good to get to, but Bernie's system even if he had a compliant congress would likely be impossible to implement successfully.

It also really worries me that Bernie answers questions on things like racial inequality and foreign policy by muttering for a little bit then going back into an anti-Wall Street screed. That just isn't someone I think should be President--a Presidency is about dealing with a wide range of issues and day to day management tasks. What does Bernie do after day one when he realizes 95% of his rhetoric requires legislation, which he will be unable to get? What kind of administrator will he be? What actions will he take in running the executive branch? What about foreign policy? The military? Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist--and if you read our history and our constitution, that's actually the type of leader our system is designed for--Bernie is running as though America has a different type of political system from what it actually has, and I suspect a lot of voters don't even understand the different powers of Congress versus the Presidency and are supporting Bernie because they think the President is all powerful and can just wave a wand and do all the things he's talking about.

[Phillip V]

I'm not as die hard Republican as I once was, and I do appreciate some of the dialogue Bernie is opening, but all of his policies just strike me as "there's no way to get there from here." I don't think people understand just how hard it'd be to implement a full dissolution of all insurance companies and implement single payer. I'm not familiar with any country that has ever done this. Most of the rest of the OECD instituted their various national schemes between like 1915-1940s, that's before there was really much of anything else (other than paying out of pocket, which left poor people dependent on charity hospitals.) We came close to passing something in the 40s under Truman, but the doctor's lobby shut it down and Blue Cross Blue Shield arose, that's our history, it isn't easy to erase it. A system like they use in Germany is one that we can get to from where we are today, and one that would be good to get to, but Bernie's system even if he had a compliant congress would likely be impossible to implement successfully.

It also really worries me that Bernie answers questions on things like racial inequality and foreign policy by muttering for a little bit then going back into an anti-Wall Street screed. That just isn't someone I think should be President--a Presidency is about dealing with a wide range of issues and day to day management tasks. What does Bernie do after day one when he realizes 95% of his rhetoric requires legislation, which he will be unable to get? What kind of administrator will he be? What actions will he take in running the executive branch? What about foreign policy? The military? Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist--and if you read our history and our constitution, that's actually the type of leader our system is designed for--Bernie is running as though America has a different type of political system from what it actually has, and I suspect a lot of voters don't even understand the different powers of Congress versus the Presidency and are supporting Bernie because they think the President is all powerful and can just wave a wand and do all the things he's talking about.

What are your thoughts on when Sanders was Mayor of Burlington, Vt.

[Razgovory]

I'm not as die hard Republican as I once was, and I do appreciate some of the dialogue Bernie is opening, but all of his policies just strike me as "there's no way to get there from here." I don't think people understand just how hard it'd be to implement a full dissolution of all insurance companies and implement single payer. I'm not familiar with any country that has ever done this. Most of the rest of the OECD instituted their various national schemes between like 1915-1940s, that's before there was really much of anything else (other than paying out of pocket, which left poor people dependent on charity hospitals.) We came close to passing something in the 40s under Truman, but the doctor's lobby shut it down and Blue Cross Blue Shield arose, that's our history, it isn't easy to erase it. A system like they use in Germany is one that we can get to from where we are today, and one that would be good to get to, but Bernie's system even if he had a compliant congress would likely be impossible to implement successfully.

It also really worries me that Bernie answers questions on things like racial inequality and foreign policy by muttering for a little bit then going back into an anti-Wall Street screed. That just isn't someone I think should be President--a Presidency is about dealing with a wide range of issues and day to day management tasks. What does Bernie do after day one when he realizes 95% of his rhetoric requires legislation, which he will be unable to get? What kind of administrator will he be? What actions will he take in running the executive branch? What about foreign policy? The military? Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist--and if you read our history and our constitution, that's actually the type of leader our system is designed for--Bernie is running as though America has a different type of political system from what it actually has, and I suspect a lot of voters don't even understand the different powers of Congress versus the Presidency and are supporting Bernie because they think the President is all powerful and can just wave a wand and do all the things he's talking about.

Sander's solution to everything is "revolution".  I have no idea what the hell that is suppose to mean.  I don't think he does.  His supporters sure as hell don't.  On facebook Ank keeps posting all kinds of crazy Bernie bullshit.  How everything is corrupt and corporations rule everything and there is money in politics and corruption, corruption, corruption!  I tried to pin him down on what this corruption is, and most of the things that are corruption are in fact perfectly legal, and can't be outlawed without violating the US constitution.  He talks about how corporations have the power to change and write laws but can provide no examples of this power.  He also had a backwards notion of how lobbying worked.  I strongly suspect that most of Bernie's supporters are like-minded individuals.

[Berkut]

I'm not as die hard Republican as I once was, and I do appreciate some of the dialogue Bernie is opening, but all of his policies just strike me as "there's no way to get there from here." I don't think people understand just how hard it'd be to implement a full dissolution of all insurance companies and implement single payer. I'm not familiar with any country that has ever done this. Most of the rest of the OECD instituted their various national schemes between like 1915-1940s, that's before there was really much of anything else (other than paying out of pocket, which left poor people dependent on charity hospitals.) We came close to passing something in the 40s under Truman, but the doctor's lobby shut it down and Blue Cross Blue Shield arose, that's our history, it isn't easy to erase it. A system like they use in Germany is one that we can get to from where we are today, and one that would be good to get to, but Bernie's system even if he had a compliant congress would likely be impossible to implement successfully.

It also really worries me that Bernie answers questions on things like racial inequality and foreign policy by muttering for a little bit then going back into an anti-Wall Street screed. That just isn't someone I think should be President--a Presidency is about dealing with a wide range of issues and day to day management tasks. What does Bernie do after day one when he realizes 95% of his rhetoric requires legislation, which he will be unable to get? What kind of administrator will he be? What actions will he take in running the executive branch? What about foreign policy? The military? Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist--and if you read our history and our constitution, that's actually the type of leader our system is designed for--Bernie is running as though America has a different type of political system from what it actually has, and I suspect a lot of voters don't even understand the different powers of Congress versus the Presidency and are supporting Bernie because they think the President is all powerful and can just wave a wand and do all the things he's talking about.

I think you can pretty easily go back to his terms as mayor and see that rhetoric aside, he is kind of a guy who gets things done, while at the same time having some core values that shape how he goes about trying to get those things done.

I think the idea that he will be paralyzed because he cannot actually implement SOCIALISM is pretty silly.

[LaCroix]

he was mayor of a 40,000 pop. town for eight years. I thought phil's comment was a joke

[Berkut]

he was mayor of a 40,000 pop. town for eight years. I thought phil's comment was a joke

That isn't the point. The point is that as mayor, he didn't sit around going "ZOMG MUST HAVE SOCIALISM!" and was paralyzed if he could not turn Burlington into mini-North Korea. Instead he identified problems, and went about solving them within the framework of his political ideology.

Now, if you want to argue that it is not likely to scale, then fine - that is a good argument.

But the idea that, for example, his only possible idea about health care is to go from here to single payer, and if that isn't possible he will just be intellectually paralyzed, isn't really supported by his history.

[Razgovory]

I don't think being mayor of a town a few decades ago is really comparable to being President of the US.  Small towns tend be more ideological homogeneous then say a nation of 310 million people and rarely need to fight wars, negotiate treaties, or maintain a nuclear arsenal.

[Eddie Teach]

McCain and Palin spent the 2008 campaign attacking Obama's "socialism". The voters didn't care. It's not the toxic word it once was.

[11B4V]

I don't think being mayor of a town a few decades ago is really comparable to being President of the US.  Small towns tend be more ideological homogeneous then say a nation of 310 million people and rarely need to fight wars, negotiate treaties, or maintain a nuclear arsenal.

[LaCroix]

he wouldn't be in politics if he sat around his whole career going "ZOMG MUST HAVE SOCIALISM" and was paralyzed. nobody is saying sanders would do this if he were elected. I think the main argument is that he's out of his depth.

also, I googled sanders's activies, and at first glance it looks like he had to "get things done" to even survive as a politician. he wanted to break into politics, had extreme views, and burlington was the only place that accepted him after he failed in every other attempt to become a politician. he was fighting with his back to the wall his entire time as mayor, so naturally he's placed in a position where he has to do something. compare this to someone who wins by a landslide every time -- it's not that the latter is any less skilled because he doesn't do as many crazy things, he just isn't in the position where he has to do those things.

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
(seems like a very pro sanders article)

it has always had a large working-class population

Each time he ran for mayor, Sanders attracted increasing support from the city's blue-collar precincts.

In 1981, Sanders ran for mayor of Burlington as an Independent and defeated six-term Democratic Party incumbent Gordon Paquette by ten votes in a four-way contest.

re-elected Sanders three times by increasingly wider margins: 52 percent in 1983, 55 percent in 1985, and 56 percent in 1987.

[Berkut]

It is bizarre how one can say something incredibly specific, to include explicitly stating that the point is not about the relative size...and the response is "WELL YEAH BUT A SMALL TOWN AINT THE SAMENESS!!!"

Never mind, go on with your insistence that Sanders will not be able to operate because SOCIALISM, despite the evidence to the contrary.

[alfred russel]

Bernie also isn't a quarter the skilled campaigner that Obama was, and that will hurt in the general.

Obama was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, and Hillary was competitive against Obama even if she eventually lost. I think that is a good benchmark to show she isn't going to lose this time, unless there is a major event.

[alfred russel]

McCain and Palin spent the 2008 campaign attacking Obama's "socialism". The voters didn't care. It's not the toxic word it once was.

But in 2008 McCain and Palin were ridiculed for not knowing the meaning of the word socialist as Obama was not a socialist. Sanders has embraced the term socialist, and it won't be hard to associate him with some of the really unfortunate cold war era left wing movements (see the Sandinistas).