Support NeoGAF

[Foffy]

If that's over 10 years, no biggie. Hundreds of thousands to millions of job losses from former employees of private insurance companies, though.

This is a non-issue, really. At least in this context.

We got other potential losses to consider in the arena or labor, anyway.

 

[Makai]

This is a non-issue, really. At least in this context.

We got other potential losses to consider in the arena or labor, anyway.

Jeb staffers

 

[Foffy]

Jeb staffers

He has staffers? I would imagine he had bad automated services.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In reality, it's more like 50D-45R-5I or around there.

Most people who self-identify as independent are not at all. They're partisan and reliable votes one way or another.

The moderate vote is more crucial these days. And the reality is that only 5-10% of voters can be swung. The rest are locked in and it is about turnout.

I think call the group that can be swung "moderate" is far from the truth. They're not. Usually, they have extreme view, but in opposite directions. Again, HUELEN, not middle-of-the-road. And iirc they're about 7% of the electorate in America, or were in 2012, going down every election. But yes, you're right turnout is critical, which is why Sanders is so important; you'll find it very difficult to deny at this point his base is far more enthused than Clinton's.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

None.

After the Obama hangover, how do you get blacks excited about Hillary or Sanders? Neither has his appeal, not just his skin color but his charisma and likability. Who walks around and believes that either will serve their issues when Obama and "Change" did not in 2008?

The Left is hoping, begging, that Trump will say something to entice large amount of minorities to go against him. That is the reason why liberals early on thought Trump would be a easy win. And why they constantly try, ever so hard, to bring a new quote from him to the forefront: "Ooooh look what this nazi said now! WOW HE IS SO DONE!"

I said it months ago, but i think especially black voters will feel left out this GE. The focus will be on the economy, terror and immigration. Without blacks turning up to vote in large numbers, dems will lose

Black turnout has been steadily increasing for two decades now. It's a long trend of upwards civic participation that has been somewhat accelerated by Obama so it might drop a little but probably not below 2004 levels at 60%.

 

[Iolo]

The rumours are a universal 9% payroll tax, which on average produces net savings for households earning up to ~$175,000 a year; but I hear there's some reluctance in the campaign to let the figures release yet because they don't think $175,000 is a good enough break even point and want to find funding from other sources to get a $250,000 break even point; to avoid the "taxing middle class families" headlines.

EDIT: And yes, that's 15t over 10 years, or 1.5t a year.

Where's the net savings coming from? I am spending nowhere near 10% of my income in health care premiums. Maybe in a bad year where I max out my copays, but on average this would be a huge hit for me. It's a complete nonstarter.

 

[ivysaur12]

None.

This is actually the answer since no one has run since 2008 but Obama, but on your other point...

After the Obama hangover, how do you get blacks excited about Hillary or Sanders? Neither has his appeal, not just his skin color but his charisma and likability. Who walks around and believes that either will serve their issues when Obama and "Change" did not in 2008?

The Left is hoping, begging, that Trump will say something to entice large amount of minorities to go against him. That is the reason why liberals early on thought Trump would be a easy win. And why they constantly try, ever so hard, to bring a new quote from him to the forefront: "Ooooh look what this nazi said now! WOW HE IS SO DONE!"

I said it months ago, but i think especially black voters will feel left out this GE. The focus will be on the economy, terror and immigration. Without blacks turning up to vote in large numbers, dems will lose

I don't think this is the case. I wouldn't deny that it's likely that there will be a dip in black participation in 2016, but I don't think at the level that would lead to a sure fire Clinton/Sanders loss. It would take a very depressed minority turnout that would be worse than 2004 Kerry.

Black turnout has been steadily increasing for two decades now. It's a long trend of upwards civic participation that has been somewhat accelerated by Obama so it might drop a little but probably not below pre-2004 levels at 60%.

Thank you for that, interesting.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Where's the net savings coming from? I am spending nowhere near 10% of my income in health care premiums. Maybe in a bad year where I max out my copays, but on average this would be a huge hit for me. It's a complete nonstarter.

Is Bernie Sanders using Scott Steiner to run the numbers?

 

[Iolo]

I think call the group that can be swung "moderate" is far from the truth. They're not. Usually, they have extreme view, but in opposite directions. Again, HUELEN, not middle-of-the-road. And iirc they're about 7% of the electorate in America, or were in 2012, going down every election. But yes, you're right turnout is critical, which is why Sanders is so important; you'll find it very difficult to deny at this point his base is far more enthused than Clinton's.

This is essentially the same argument that Cruz is making: energize your base and win on turnout. Do you think this will work for Cruz?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is essentially the same argument that Cruz is making: energize your base and win on turnout. Do you think this will work for Cruz?

I've found that you can't really have a good faith discussion with Crab these days. He's too enshrined in his "Bernie is the answer" dogma to consider anything that defies that notion.

Sure he has an answer to every point brought up, but it's not having the answers that wins elections. It's convincing all those people in the middle of those things.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Where's the net savings coming from? I am spending nowhere near 10% of my income in health care premiums. Maybe in a bad year where I max out my copays, but on average this would be a huge hit for me. It's a complete nonstarter.

Then you're fortunate by the standard of most Americans.

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2014-section-one-cost-of-health-insurance/

The average annual premiums in 2014 are $6,025 for single coverage and $16,834 for family coverage. The average family premium increased 3% in the last year; the average single premium, however, is similar to the value reported in 2013 ($5,884). Family premiums have increased 69% since 2004 and have more than doubled since 2002. However, the average family premium has grown less quickly over the last five years than it did between 2004 and 2009 or between 1999 and 2004. Average family premiums for workers in small firms (3-199 workers) ($15,849) are significantly lower than average family premiums for workers in larger firms (200 or more workers) ($17,265).

I think the 9% is across the household, not individuals. Hence $16,834 / 0.09 = ~$175,000 for the break even. I assume for individuals, it would be lower than 9%, but I don't know because as you say, the Sanders campaign hasn't put forward firm figures - this is just stuff that people have heard secondhand so far.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is essentially the same argument that Cruz is making: energize your base and win on turnout. Do you think this will work for Cruz?

Eh? I was literally just agreeing with Black Republican? And no, I'm not saying just energize your base. I'm saying energize your base *and* win independent voters using the candidate that has more enthusiasm *and* appeals more to swing voters. It's a win/win!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I've found that you can't really have a good faith discussion with Crab these days. He's too enshrined in his "Bernie is the answer" dogma to consider anything that defies that notion.

Sure he has an answer to every point brought up, but it's not having the answers that wins elections. It's convincing all those people in the middle of those things.

The irony here is palpable.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The irony here is palpable.

Because I have reasonable concerns over his chances in 2016 I'm wrapped up in dogma? Really? That's your response?

Every valid issue people raise with Bernie you just handwave away. Socialism label is no big deal. His inability to address foreign policy effectively is no big deal. Let's get real here. This goes back to the issue I was talking about earlier of just how out of touch people are with the actual electorate.

 

[Makai]

He has staffers? I would imagine he had bad automated services.

I was talking to my friend the other day about how slowly automation is happening. Even if Intel triumps over Moore's Law, there's still the people don't give a shit problem. Where's the website that every business and government uses to notify you when you owe them? Where's vote.gov? Any beginning web programmer could build this stuff but Americans won't get on board. Half of the businesses near me accept cash only. I know someone in their mid thirties who has never had a bank account. My last job was making software to replace engineering teams. Never worked out because the client companies were too disorganized to give us a workable spec. Most of them didn't even use spreadsheets.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because I have reasonable concerns over his chances in 2016 I'm wrapped up in dogma? Really? That's your response?

Every valid issue people raise with Bernie you just handwave away. Socialism label is no big deal. His inability to address foreign policy effectively is no big deal. Let's get real here. This goes back to the issue I was talking about earlier of just how out of touch people are with the actual electorate.

What, and you don't do the same about Clinton? Pull the other one.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

What, and you don't do the same about Clinton? Pull the other one.

Clinton has plenty of faults but unless Biden or O'Malley somehow become frontrunners she's the only other option people who don't believe in Bernie as the answer have.

I only care about winning in 2016 and Sanders is weaker than Clinton in my opinion. Despite all her baggage, so that's really saying something about Sanders.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Clinton has plenty of faults but unless Biden or O'Malley somehow become frontrunners she's the only other option people who don't believe in Bernie as the answer have.

Yes, and the inverse applies re: Bernie for people who don't believe Clinton is the answer, obviously.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yes, and the inverse applies re: Bernie for people who don't believe Clinton is the answer, obviously.

Clinton won't be outspent by large margins though will she?
Clinton won't be relentless defending herself for being a socialist though will she?
Clinton can at least talk about foreign policy, Sanders seems uncomfortable just doing that.

The list could go on but I've made it clear in other threads where you also just handwaved it all away. Which goes back to my first point of good faith discussion being impossible with people who are wrapped up in their dogma.

 

[ivysaur12]

@crampell
Nikki Haley: "We’ve never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion" http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ley-hits-rubio-on-amnesty-bush-on-common-core …

I can think of a few things.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

I just read that Bernie's medicare for all has a price tag of $15t. That is an unimaginable amount of money and really curious how you can achieve that. Anyone have a link to that flash game on NYT during 2012 where you fiñagled with the budget to close the deficit? Or something to that effect.

Military budget in total is like $600 billion by comparison and this comes out to about $1.5-1.8 trillion per year. It's an absurdly large number and impossible to accomplish without major new taxes, not just on the 1% (who made a grand TOTAL of about $2 trillion last year) but on everybody.

 

[Black Mamba]

I think call the group that can be swung "moderate" is far from the truth. They're not. Usually, they have extreme view, but in opposite directions. Again, HUELEN, not middle-of-the-road. And iirc they're about 7% of the electorate in America, or were in 2012, going down every election. But yes, you're right turnout is critical, which is why Sanders is so important; you'll find it very difficult to deny at this point his base is far more enthused than Clinton's.

FWIW, I'm not calling all swing voters moderate. I am merely arguing the "moderate" vote (and by this, I mean true moderate, not self described moderate) is more important. Turnout among them also matters.

Swing voters are a mix of moderates, extremists, & morons.

I don't know if that's true about Sanders. They're more vocal like the Ron Paulites were but I don't know if that makes them more enthused. Crankier, perhaps.

 

[User 463088]

I can think of a few things.

Sometimes I think the GOP just wants to see how many idiotic and non-factual things they can say with a straight face.

 

[East Lake]

Clinton won't be outspent by large margins though will she?
Clinton won't be relentless defending herself for being a socialist though will she?
Clinton can at least talk about foreign policy, Sanders seems uncomfortable just doing that.

The list could go on but I've made it clear in other threads where you also just handwaved it all away. Which goes back to my first point of good faith discussion being impossible with people who are wrapped up in their dogma.

These concerns are pretty vague and don't really illustrate what the dogma is you're concerned with. If Bernie is going to be outspent, by how much. If Clinton isn't going to be threatened by socialism, explain how. I think that's debatable and not at all clear. Foreign policy is also a grey area.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Thank you for that, interesting.

No problem. I should note that turnout levels in the NYT article differs from the levels provided by the U.S. Census Bureau(where I got the 60% number from), but they both show the same thing.

 

[User 463088]

Jeb Ain't Got No Height Problem

Bush took the opportunity to knock Rubio's boots himself in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

“Yeah, but Jeb, do you own any platform boots that make you taller?" "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough asked Bush.

"I got my cowboy boots on, big Joe," Bush replied.

Scarborough asked Bush to clarify if they were "just normal cowboy boots" or boots that made him "three inches taller."

“I don’t have a height issue," Bush said, knocking his shorter Sunshine State rival.

I knew Bush was a size queen.

 

[PBY]

Jeb Ain't Got No Height Problem



I knew Bush was a size queen.

People call him "big joe"?

 

[Iolo]

Then you're fortunate by the standard of most Americans.

http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2014-section-one-cost-of-health-insurance/



I think the 9% is across the household, not individuals. Hence $16,834 / 0.09 = ~$175,000 for the break even. I assume for individuals, it would be lower than 9%, but I don't know because as you say, the Sanders campaign hasn't put forward firm figures - this is just stuff that people have heard secondhand so far.

There are 2 problems, in my opinion.

First, it would be difficult or probably impossible to sell this idea to the public, because it requires complex reasoning (yes, 2 steps---subtract here, add here, evens out---is complex reasoning). What it looks like is a 9% tax increase on those making $175,000 (or $250,000) or less and will be demagogued as a middle-class tax increase. I fully expect this to be a tack that Hillary Clinton takes should the plan turn out to be along these lines, or the GOP if Sanders becomes the nominee. The Republicans after all came up with the idea of death panels, and now, deporting all immigrants; truth or feasibility is not really relevant in their arguments.

Second, to make this politically palatable, you're going to have to provide a tax credit to anyone whose taxes will functionally go up due to a difference between premiums and the payroll tax levy. For example, this may hit a two-person household with no kids, where both work (say each is making a salary of $80k), extremely hard. This group is already adversely affected by the marriage tax. Now, if their premiums total $9,500 per year, but they are being charged $14,400 in payroll tax, that's a $5,000 effective tax levied. Now, you can argue the percentage is pre-tax, and that adding typical yearly copays in, you might come out ahead. I am sympathetic to this argument, in fact I would ultimately prefer single-payer, but because the numbers are so easily fungible and the concept is so complicated, you cannot prove to the average person they will be saving money.

This is not even mentioning the near impossibility of getting even the ACA, a Republican idea originated by Republican think tanks, passed in the first place, and somehow surviving 50+ repeal attempts and multiple court cases.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Clinton won't be outspent by large margins though will she?
Clinton won't be relentless defending herself for being a socialist though will she?
Clinton can at least talk about foreign policy, Sanders seems uncomfortable just doing that.

The list could go on but I've made it clear in other threads where you also just handwaved it all away. Which goes back to my first point of good faith discussion being impossible with people who are wrapped up in their dogma.

This is just boring tit for tat nonsense. You handwave away Clinton's inability to enthuse her support, her terrible polling numbers among independents, her terrible polling numbers in GE matchups, her consistently downwards trending favorability, you name it.

For what it's worth, I doubt Sanders will be outspent by large margins. Without going to PACs, he's keeping level with Clinton. He's raised twice as much as Jeb! so far. He'd have the Democratic party at his back, Obama and (possibly) Bill doing the meet 'n greets. He doesn't have SuperPAC access, but then... literally name a single effective thing a SuperPAC has done this campaign. They've crashed and burned.

The socialist thing is a non-starter. Everyone knows about it already, nobody cares (except you).

Sanders is just fine on foreign policy. He doesn't want to run on it, but he can talk about it. This is not a guy who struggles on foreign policy issues.

 

[User 463088]

People call him "big joe"?

I call him a big asshole, so maybe?

Actually "Big Asshole" is a name that works for several people involved in that article.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

FWIW, I'm not calling all swing voters moderate. I am merely arguing the "moderate" vote (and by this, I mean true moderate, not self described moderate) is more important. Turnout among them also matters.

Swing voters are a mix of moderates, extremists, & morons.

I don't know if that's true about Sanders. They're more vocal like the Ron Paulites were but I don't know if that makes them more enthused. Crankier, perhaps.

They're not like Paulites. Well, okay, 1% of them are like Paulites, but 99% of Sanders are not like Paulites. They've raised more money from small donations than any campaign ever, had more individual contributions than any campaign ever, had more volunteers sign up than any campaign ever - you name it, Sanders fans are doing it. They're not keyboard bashers, and you misunderstand things gravely if you think it is that way.

 

[Black Mamba]

This is just boring tit for tat nonsense. You handwave away Clinton's inability to enthuse her support, her terrible polling numbers among independents, her terrible polling numbers in GE matchups, her consistently downwards trending favorability, you name it.

You could have said all these things about Obama in January 2012.

The socialist thing is a non-starter. Everyone knows about it already, nobody cares (except you).

I think you're being naive on this one. You can argue that it won't matter enough but to pretend it's not an issue and that most people know about it is nuts.

I'm telling you, 80% of voters don't know anything about Bernie other than he's running. Most of them couldn't pick him in a lineup.

They're not like Paulites. Well, okay, 1% of them are like Paulites, but 99% of Sanders are not like Paulites. They've raised more money from small donations than any campaign ever, had more individual contributions than any campaign ever, had more volunteers sign up than any campaign ever - you name it, Sanders fans are doing it. They're not keyboard bashers, and you misunderstand things gravely if you think it is that way.

These exact things were claimed by Paulites too...

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Anecdotally, I find that my black friends on fb are more engaged in political issues than my white friends. I think the #blm movement and issues of police brutality are giving black people more reason to be engaged in the process than white people. You could even argue that the national attention those issues have gotten are evidence of this heightened engagement compared to years prior. I don't foresee the black vote declining just because Obama isn't on the ballot, especially since he'll be voicing his support of whoever the nominee is.

 

[Black Mamba]

Anecdotally, I find that my black friends on fb are more engaged in political issues than my white friends. I think the #blm movement and issues of police brutality are giving black people more reason to be engaged in the process than white people. You could even argue that the national attention those issues have gotten are evidence of this heightened engagement compared to years prior. I don't foresee the black vote declining just because Obama isn't on the ballot, especially since he'll be voicing his support of whoever the nominee is.

I agree. In fact, I think the black vote is more reliable, in terms of turnout, in 2016 that the white democrat vote.

And I think in the GE the topic of BLM and police and criminal justice will be brought up.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is just boring tit for tat nonsense. You handwave away Clinton's inability to enthuse her support, her terrible polling numbers among independents, her terrible polling numbers in GE matchups, her consistently downwards trending favorability, you name it.

For what it's worth, I doubt Sanders will be outspent by large margins. Without going to PACs, he's keeping level with Clinton. He's raised twice as much as Jeb! so far. He'd have the Democratic party at his back, Obama and (possibly) Bill doing the meet 'n greets. He doesn't have SuperPAC access, but then... literally name a single effective thing a SuperPAC has done this campaign. They've crashed and burned.

The socialist thing is a non-starter. Everyone knows about it already, nobody cares (except you).

Sanders is just fine on foreign policy. He doesn't want to run on it, but he can talk about it. This is not a guy who struggles on foreign policy issues.

I'm not handwaving them away though, that's the difference between me and you. I accept her baggage but still think she's the better option. You have yet to concede even one fault that Sanders has. Nobody cares he's a socialist? Do we even live in the same country and talk to the same people? The polling on socialism is clear itself.

He's great at foreign policy, he's great at enthusing the base, he's great at winning over independents and GOP, he's got no flaws at all. That's how you present your argument and that's why I think you are caught up in dogma. Frankly, it's a joke.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm not handwaving them away though, that's the difference between me and you. I accept her baggage but still think she's the better option. You have yet to concede even one fault that Sanders has. Nobody cares he's a socialist? Do we even live in the same country and talk to the same people? The polling on socialism is clear itself.

He's great at foreign policy, he's great at enthusing the base, he's great at winning over independents and GOP, he's got no flaws at all. That's how you present your argument and that's why I think you are caught up in dogma. Frankly, it's a joke.

No. Crab lives in the U.K

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You could have said all these things about Obama in January 2012.

No, you couldn't. You really, really could not. Obama led among self-identified independents, had good match-ups against GOP candidates (in fact his polling against Romney was accurate from a year out), and his favorability was negative but still higher than Clinton's now.

These exact things were claimed by Paulites too...

No. Just, no. Step back, just stop for a moment, and examine the situation. Look at the polling figures, look at the financial figures, look at the metrics and ask yourself: does the Paul campaign and the Sanders campaign really look that alike? If you still think the answer is yes, you have problems.

 

[ivysaur12]

With Cruz attacking Trump over "New York values", let's take some time to look at a political attack ad that actually made that point in 2008 with San Fransisco values with a much better effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROhNSsi79E

Like, if you're going to be obnoxiously homophobic, go for broke.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not handwaving them away though, that's the difference between me and you. I accept her baggage but still think she's the better option. You have yet to concede even one fault that Sanders has. Nobody cares he's a socialist? Do we even live in the same country and talk to the same people? The polling on socialism is clear itself.

He's great at foreign policy, he's great at enthusing the base, he's great at winning over independents and GOP, he's got no flaws at all. That's how you present your argument and that's why I think you are caught up in dogma. Frankly, it's a joke.

I've conceded what I find his faults before, I've talked about them with pigeon. I don't like his long-run stance on globalization and I think it's pretty harmful; plus I hate his stance on guns. I didn't like his answer about handling rape on campus, either, that was a recent one that put me off.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

No. Crab lives in the U.K

Well that sure as hell explain a lot. I've been out there volunteering before, I've seen what people are like and the socialism label was a big issue in 2008 with a lot of people. Had Lehman not crashed or Bush not been a total disaster who knows what would have happened.

When Obama was running he couldn't even say he supported gay marriage for fear of losing votes. Now socialism isn't a big deal? Americans still despise the thought of taxes and still despise the government. It's not exactly a non-issue to be advocating for both.

I've conceded what I find his faults before, I've talked about them with pigeon. I don't like his long-run stance on globalization and I think it's pretty harmful; plus I hate his stance on guns. I didn't like his answer about handling rape on campus, either, that was a recent one that put me off.

Those are disagreements you have with him, not necessarily flaws. Flaws are things that can/will hurt you in an election because voters are not level headed political experts. A 30 second attack ad is all it takes to swing an election.

 

[East Lake]

I'm not handwaving them away though, that's the difference between me and you. I accept her baggage but still think she's the better option. You have yet to concede even one fault that Sanders has. Nobody cares he's a socialist? Do we even live in the same country and talk to the same people? The polling on socialism is clear itself.

He's great at foreign policy, he's great at enthusing the base, he's great at winning over independents and GOP, he's got no flaws at all. That's how you present your argument and that's why I think you are caught up in dogma. Frankly, it's a joke.

You've made two claims here about socialism and supported neither.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You've made two claims here about socialism and supported neither.

The socialism views polling images and numbers has been done to death. I can't be bothered to pull it up 20 times a day.

 

[User 463088]

The socialist thing is a non-starter. Everyone knows about it already, nobody cares (except you).

Complete and total bull. Bernie hasn't been remotely hit with the socialist hammer yet. Hillary sure as hell hasn't, and very recently refused to do so on Chris Matthews. Should he get the nomination, there will be a million ads showing him, proudly, saying he's a socialist. They'll have an ad tying him to his honeymoon in the USSR. They'll run the ad where he says he's not a capitalist. His huge policy speech on "Rah, rah, rah Socialism!" was scheduled and done during the middle of the Paris attacks coverage. 50% of Americans say they would not vote for a socialist. This is not something that can just be waived away. It is a problem for him, should he get to the General.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that the American populace is a logical, well informed mobilized group for Democracy. We're not. There is a huge disconnect between the things we say we want and the things we're willing to accept to get those things. Regardless of how much better of we'd be if we were more like Scandinavia, the average American simply does not want that. 44% of people on Social Security say they've never taken a government benefit. 40% on Medicare say the same thing. We're a country in which 75% of us say we don't trust the government, and yet you think a winning strategy is to come out and say you want bigger government? That you want to give the government more control over American's lives? It might work in a partisan primary, it will not work in the General.

 

[PBY]

Complete and total bull. Bernie hasn't been remotely hit with the socialist hammer yet. Hillary sure as hell hasn't, and very recently refused to do so on Chris Matthews. Should he get the nomination, there will be a million ads showing him, proudly, saying he's a socialist. They'll have an ad tying him to his honeymoon in the USSR. They'll run the ad where he says he's not a capitalist. His huge policy speech on "Rah, rah, rah Socialism!" was scheduled and done during the middle of the Paris attacks coverage. 50% of Americans say they would not vote for a socialist. This is not something that can just be waived away. It is a problem for him, should he get to the General.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that the American populace is a logical, well informed mobilized group for Democracy. We're not. There is a huge disconnect between the things we say we want and the things we're willing to accept to get those things. Regardless of how much better of we'd be if we were more like Scandinavia, the average American simply does not want that. 44% of people on Social Security say they've never taken a government benefit. 40% on Medicare say the same thing. We're a country in which 75% of us say we don't trust the government, and yet you think a winning strategy is to come out and say you want bigger government? That you want to give the government more control over American's lives? It might work in a partisan primary, it will not work in the General.

Agree with all of this.

 

[ivysaur12]

You've made two claims here about socialism and supported neither.

Well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Those are disagreements you have with him, not necessarily flaws. Flaws are things that can/will hurt you in an election because voters are not level headed political experts. A 30 second attack ad is all it takes to swing an election.

Okay, but I genuinely think he has comparatively less flaws than Clinton. I think socialism might hurt him with a small minority of voters, I just think we have sufficient evidence to believe it isn't many. I think his age might hurt him if he stumbles or coughs or in some way subtly reminds people he is actually 74 despite the energy he puts out. I worry that bitter Clinton supporters wouldn't engage with his campaign. I worry that senior Democrats wouldn't engage with his campaign. I worry that his singleplayer healthcare plan could be badly misportrayed if not handled carefully, although given the need for singleplayer in general, that's a risk I have to be willing to accept.

That's more or less it. I mean, if I thought it was more than that, I wouldn't be supporting him.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If Bernie fans truly believe this Dem primary is the ugliest politics can get then there's no hope. These little feuds between Clinton and Sanders are a joke compared to what happens in a general election. Look at how the GOP is attacking each other for a preview.

 

[PBY]

Okay, but I genuinely think he has comparatively less flaws than Clinton. I think socialism might hurt him with a small minority of voters, I just think we have sufficient evidence to believe it isn't many. I think his age might hurt him if he stumbles or coughs or in some way subtly reminds people he is actually 74 despite the energy he puts out. I worry that bitter Clinton supporters wouldn't engage with his campaign. I worry that senior Democrats wouldn't engage with his campaign. I worry that his singleplayer healthcare plan could be badly misportrayed if not handled carefully, although given the need for singleplayer in general, that's a risk I have to be willing to accept.

That's more or less it. I mean, if I thought it was more than that, I wouldn't be supporting him.

Receipts for bolded?

 

[User 406]

I said it months ago, but i think especially black voters will feel left out this GE. The focus will be on the economy, terror and immigration. Without blacks turning up to vote in large numbers, dems will lose

Black turnout has been steadily increasing for two decades now. It's a long trend of upwards civic participation that has been somewhat accelerated by Obama so it might drop a little but probably not below 2004 levels at 60%.

One thing's for damn sure, talking about how the Democratic party needs to "move away from identity politics" to do the Racist Whisperer thing won't help with this at all. I'd say the most likely scenario for low black turnout will be if the party fucks up and rejects BLM. There's already enough legitimate criticism of the party merely paying lip service to minority issues that persisting in focusing solely on white liberalism could end up pissing off the new generation of activist minority youth. I'd be far more worried about that than whether a noisy sliver of Bernie supporters throw a tantrum.

 

[Iolo]

If Bernie fans truly believe this Dem primary is the ugliest politics can get then there's no hope. These little feuds between Clinton and Sanders are a joke compared to what happens in a general election. Look at how the GOP is attacking each other for a preview.

It's civil even compared to 2008 Obama-Clinton. Where by the way Obama argued against implementing single-payer, which Hillary supported.