[quote=“Daedalus, post:51, topic:76899”]
First, to make the assumption that Bernie hasn’t weathered Republican attacks ignores his long political career and minimizes the overwhelming power the Republicans have brought into bear in local elections. Underestimating the Republican party on a local level has been a consistent and marked problem for the Democratic party overall, There’s a reason he’s done things like oppose strict gun controls.
Second, to presume that Bernie is some wingnut lefty is to make the same
mistake with him that the Republicans are making with Trump: critically
underestimating the candidate’s populist appeal. If you’re serious
about winning against Trump, Bernie is your best bet.[/quote]
Obama won Vermont with 67% of the vote, it is not representative of the US as a whole.
Have you heard ads talking about how much Bernie plans to raise your taxes? How much his plans will explode the already massive deficit? How he’ll put a government bureaucracy in charge of deciding whether you get cancer drugs? Because that’s all you’ll see in a general election if Bernie is nominated.
The ACA isn’t unpopular because Obama is uncharismatic, it’s unpopular because Americans are skeptical of the government and Republicans have a frighteningly effective scare machine.
I agree fully though I’d define Obama as more of a liberal pragmatist than a centrist. When it comes to winning Clinton is a slightly below average candidate, but she’s a solidly defined below average candidate and against the terrible candidacies of Trump/Cruz she’s a shoe-in. Sanders is still very weakly defined on the national stage and there’s already a lot of questions surrounding how well organized his senate office is and how realistic his policies are. It won’t take a lot for Republicans to redefine him as a nutty old man with unrealistic ideas and if that happens Trump/Cruz is a real possibility.
Frankly I’m not too surprised. Bernie appeals to idealists who assume sudden big change is both possible and preferable. Hodgeman has always been a bit of a cynic, he probably expects that after the election Bernie’s base will either lose interest or find themselves generally outnumbered which is more or less what happened after Obama won.
I am frustrated that progress is so difficult to come by. I want accountability now. I want people and our planet valued over economics now. I want my country to resolve wars and not make them. I want change, now. Voting for the establishment is another 4 to 8 years of bills and policies that are not aligned with my principals, and drives me further from hope.
On the plus side, if Sanders loses, I’ll be able to complain loudly about whoever becomes President and point out that I didn’t vote for them, so it’s not my fault.
(technically, since I don’t have a vote, I can do that even if he wins)
Not so much- Hillary has proven she favors establishment over change. It’s not so much as I believe change can happen now, it is more of a choice between big aspirations or more of the same old bull.
I simply don’t trust someones judgement if they can rationalize voting for a war profiting corporate puppet. Don’t think I am dismissive though, I literally spend days trying to figure out how they believe the words coming out of their mouths.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive, if you want to actually change the system you need to have a deep understanding of the system to know what to change and how to change it.
And if your goal is to fight the establishment then Sanders is an odd choice. His goal is a huge expansion of the government’s role and there’s nothing more establishment than the federal government.
What if the goal is to BE FOUGHT BY the establishment. Or some other thing that you haven’t conceived of on your own when you tell other people what they must be thinking.
In a room of 10 people who agree, it’s for 10 different reasons. What is your goal? Could you stop assigning motives to others? It’s not helpful.
Both Bernie and Hillary are proceedural insiders, Senate insiders. Of course, Bernie has also been in the house, and was a mayor. And Hillary was Sec of State. They’re both qualified, so follow the money.
The complaint was that she favoured establishment which was compared to “bull”, is it really such a stretch to assume they were against the establishment?
Besides, I was trying hard not to assign negative motivations, but I am searching for motivations because I want to know why they disagree.
What is your definition of establishment that doesn’t include the government?
It’s very hard to fix the system without understanding it, but it’s very easy to break it.
And even if Trump’s powers were completely neutralized he’d still have a huge bully pulpit from which he can spew some really destructive rhetoric.
That which uses the government as it’s tool to retain power and print money. That Establishment.
That’s why the establishment favours Clinton and opposes Sanders. Sure, they can handle Bernie if he gets in, but why should they have to when they have something that’s already broken in ready to go?
If he will support Sanders should he get the nomination, then why doesn’t he help him get the nomination by supporting him in the primaries?
Personally, no matter who is nominated, I’m voting for Bernie. He has integrity, and truly believes in his causes. Hillary has only recently ‘awakened’, and I won’t budge. I’m aware that a Republican President is the likely outcome. I will not change my mind. I hope that I will change the mind of some who plan to vote for Hillary because ‘it’s safe’. If enough do, Bernie will win, and we won’t have to worry.
I’m not threatening to leave the country, but I am certainly keeping my options open, and putting together a couple of game plans. Of course, that’s more for if a Republican takes the White House, particularly Trump, but options are options, no matter who wins.
I think a lot of it comes down to “Hillary is more or less a known quantity whose administration would be likely to enact policies similar to those of her husband’s administration.” So if you were one of the Americans who did OK under the Bill Clinton administration you wouldn’t have to be insane to vote for a continuation of the same policies. (If you weren’t one of those people then it’s a whole different story, of course.)
