The case against Bernie Sanders

[Shryke]

12 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

As to what Nestor is talking about, it does SEEM like Clinton is tacitly counting on black voters to be easily swayed, ignorant, or disinterested.

Clinton is counting on her and her husband's longtime efforts to build ties with the black community to continue to bear fruit. This ain't new ground for the two of them.

Sanders meanwhile, well, he represents Vermont. Regardless of his stance on the issues (which are good), he lacks the history of building political alliance and support with the black voter base. Cause Vermont just doesn't have them.

[Bonesy]

Kal brought up and I responded to 2012. Not sure how you missed that.

Clinton IS counting on old ties with the black community. That is the problem. She needs to solidify the old ties and gain new ties.

She's abandoned NH to struggle in IA, while Sanders was touring in SC and the ground forces for Sanders in Ohio, have already started campaigning without campaign money or campaign exhortation.

Bernie Sanders supporters are campaigning in Ohio without him trying to do so.

In Ohio.

[Kalbear]

That stat covers general election candidates Kal. Just looking at it makes that obvious.

2008 is there.

If it included every primary candidate it would includes scores of irrelevance.

Since all numbers show that it's statistically Clinton vs. Sanders both defeating the GOP (except Clinton vs. Rubio) by this metric, that is relevant.

Clinton and Sanders are thrown in for a relative comparison.

And no, I'm not worried about B. Clinton vs. Bush1 meaning much.

I understand all that. That's why it's irrelevant. Comparing favorability numbers at the primary instead of the general is apples and oranges. People do shift once candidates coalesce.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, the argument was that Clinton will be willing to exercise her power to do things that Sanders won't do. Because things like Libyan air strikes are something Clinton will be able to do as an executive order - but coalition building is not. It isn't that Sanders and Clinton won't have the same set of powers - they will. It's not even whether or not you believe Clinton can get more politicians on board with her - though I think her endorsement list shows this, it's just an opinion. It's that Clinton's stated policy goals can be accomplished (at least many of them) without congressional approval. Almost none of Sanders' can.

Citing Libya isn't a wise move my friend. But I agree with your last point.

[Kalbear]

For you, perhaps. I think Libya was a good move.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Okay, but isn't Libya as much a failed State today as Iraq?  Doesn't that suggest the intervention in Libya has made things worse, not better?

[Bonesy]

You understand all that. Then why did you ask?

If you just want to say "nuh uh" all the time, then just fucking do it.

[Kalbear]

I don't think Libya is as much a failed state as Iraq.

If the way you measure success is in stable government Libya was a failure. If it is by preventing hundreds of thousands of people being bombed to death, it's a success.

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

Clinton is counting on her and her husband's longtime efforts to build ties with the black community to continue to bear fruit. This ain't new ground for the two of them.

Exactly, and that is not the same as counting on black voters to be ignorant. Quite the reverse; Clinton is counting on them to decide she's better for them than the others, and to vote accordingly.

[Kalbear]

You understand all that. Then why did you ask?

If you just want to say "nuh uh" all the time, then just fucking do it.

To point out the failure of the stat, which is what you asked people to do.

Comparing primary favorability numbers to general ones is not a good use of data.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

Okay, but isn't Libya as much a failed State today as Iraq?  Doesn't that suggest the intervention in Libya has made things worse, not better?

IMO yes.

Again, Clinton has more experience than Sanders with regards to foreign affairs, but is it good experience?

[Bonesy]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/iran-hillary-clinton-hostages

Good experience, mos def.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Exactly, and that is not the same as counting on black voters to be ignorant. Quite the reverse; Clinton is counting on them to decide she's better for them than the others, and to vote accordingly.

It's just strange, IMO, that the AA community prefers Clinton when her husband did a lot of things that unquestionably hurt their community rather than Sanders who has been a life long advocate for them.

And the same is true of the LGBT community. BC signed DOMA into law and HRC was a late supporter of marriage equality meanwhile Sanders was a supporter as far back as the 70s.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's just strange, IMO, that the AA community prefers Clinton when her husband did a lot of things that unquestionably hurt their community rather than Sanders who has been a life long advocate for them.

And the same is true of the LGBT community. BC signed DOMA into law and HRC was a late supporter of marriage equality meanwhile Sanders was a supporter as far back as the 70s.

Maybe you should talk to them too? 

[Marcus Agrippa]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Maybe you should talk to them too? 

I firmly believe it's money, there is a strategy here. Use the enemies resources for your own benefit, and by the enemy, I mean the banks. Wallstreet isn't anti-gay but there are a lot rich investors who are conservative, if I am right that they are getting a pay check out of this, then they are doing what they percieve is best for there leadership. Do I agree with it? Not really, but they will do what they do. Besides LBGTQI aren't just progressives, they're libertairians, conservatives, liberals, moderates, and ect.

[Paladin of Ice]

The best case I've seen against Sanders so far is the issue of implementation, and how he will make his ideas work. Free state colleges would be paid for by a small fee attached to every Wall St. trade. Great, sounds like a fabulous idea. But what if the state schools that are now tuition free (and are already often taught by underpaid, adjunct, or part-time professors) become massively overcrowded and don't have the teachers, the space, or the facilities to teach all the new incoming students? What if states pull the same sort of BS they did with Medicaid expansion and refuse to meet their obligations or continue doing what so many states have done in recent years and slash funding for higher education? If the whole thing is paid for by surcharges on Wall St. trades, what if the cost of schools for equipment or expanding due to incoming students goes up faster than the amount of Wall St. trades? What if the new taxes and fees get neutered as the bill goes through Congress? 

Similarly, with healthcare, part of healthcare in at least some single payer systems is a central authority that sets the wages of all doctors, techs, and other practitioners. Is Bernie going to be able to get something like that through Congress? Is his proposed "Medicare for all" (which isn't really Medicare and goes beyond what Medicare currently does, since he claims it will eliminate copays and deductibles, which Medicare does not) going to cover abortion costs, and how likely do you think that is to get approved? What about controversial and potential quacky alternative medicines that people swear by and conjure up conspiracy theories to defend every time someone criticizes them like acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, herbal supplements, etc.? Supplements like weight loss pills/diet pills are one of the biggest scams out there in the US at the moment, frequently either not containing what they claim to or containing things like anabolic steroids or potentially harmful ingredients, (a case happening right now involves a bunch of servicemen and women in Hawaii who started experiencing liver failure after taking certain supplements in order to help meet their fitness tests) which is all but uncovered by the FDA. Is Bernie going to remake the regulations/regulators to be able to deal with these issues, with Congress and the lobby fighting it? How much is the country willing to spend on research to not only weed out the quackery from the real thing, but also to challenge conventional wisdom? (For example, recent studies are hinting that the glycemic index, which has been the Bible for managing diabetes reactions, may be inaccurate and the reaction to eating different foods is far more individual than previously thought.) What's going to be the role of all the non-profits, not-for-profits, and for profit institutions that already exist and all have very different views of how healthcare should go? Bernie's proposals doesn't address a lot of this, and thus isn't very enlightening.

A lot of his plans aren't plans at all, they're rough ideas or goals without proper details on how he's going to accomplish it and seemingly the idea that existing obstacles can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen, and that when copying systems from other countries, (such as single payer) you can ignore the experiences and growing pains they've had with these systems and assuming that everything is going to be hunky dory once we switch over.

I'm certainly more enthusiastic about Sanders than Clinton, and I want to see the country pushed more towards the direction of Sanders, but I don't honestly think he can do his list of reforms and changes, or that he understands everything that is going to go into accomplishing them. Nor do I think he's spent enough time with the people who could clue him in. And as leery as I am about Clinton on certain issues, particularly a hawkish foreign policy, I'm also worried about what happens if Bernie does get elected, and does a shoddy job of trying to get the changes he's campaigning on, and it all backfiring in the faces of liberals.

[sologdin]

regarding the implementation problem, hasn't berns written about this?
 

Quote

 

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

I thought this seemed more appropriate to the US Politics thread, but this is the thread where there's been discussion of the loyalty of black voters to the Clintons, so here's an analysis by Jamelle Bouie at Slate:

 

Quote

This, in itself, raises a question. Why are black Americans loyal to Hillary Clinton? What has she, or her husband, done to earn support from black voters? After all, this is the era of Clinton critique, especially on questions of racial and economic justice. The Crime Bill of 1994 supercharged mass incarceration; the great economic boom of the 1990s didn’t reach millions of poor and working-class black men; and welfare reform couldn’t protect poor women in the recession that followed. And the lax regulation of the Clinton years helped fill a financial bubble that tanked the global economy and destroyed black wealth.

At the same time, it is important to view the relationship between black voters and the Clintons in the context of the times when it was forged. During the Republican presidencies of the 1980s, black voters felt alienated and ignored by mainstream politics. Even Democrats seemed to keep their distance, a sense that helped fuel Jesse Jackson’s bids for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988.

From the beginning of his campaign, Bill Clinton did the opposite. Neither he nor his wife took blacks for granted, assiduously campaigning for the black vote in every possible venue. He emphasized his childhood in the segregated South and pledged to appoint blacks to high-ranking positions. In an approach that Barack Obama would mimic 16 years later, Clinton focused his efforts on black civic and community organizations, from church networks to civil rights groups. It paid off. Black voters carried Clinton through the Southern primaries and gave him the margins he needed to win the nomination.

To a large degree, Clinton’s black outreach—premised on his background and hiscultural familiarity—was symbolic. Put frankly, Clinton felt comfortable around black people and never tried to hide it. On the other hand, however, he never promised to directly address black interests and he—after winning the nomination—tried to distance himself from black activists (e.g. the “Sistah Souljah moment”). But symbolic politics is potent, and black voters stuck with Clinton through the general election.

This established a pattern, of sorts. Clinton would always rely on black voters as a base, cultivating their support and appealing to them throughout his presidency. When it suited the circumstances, however, he would distance himself. He wasn’t a fair-weather friend, but he wasn’t a reliable ally either. But what was true was the extent to which he treated black Americans as equal partners in national life. He addressed black concerns in national addresses like the State of the Union andworked with black leaders on priorities like the Crime Bill. Both Clintons made active efforts to appeal to and respect black voters, which was not the norm for American politics (although, with George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservativism,” it became the norm, at least for a moment).

All of this left a lasting impression. Black voters didn’t always agree with Clinton, but they liked and—to an extent—trusted him. When Hillary ran for Senate, she took a similar approach, working hard to build ties to New York state’s—and New York City’s—black community. And this outreach informed Bill Clinton’s (highly symbolic) decision to base his post-presidency in Harlem.

For more than 20 years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have engaged with black voters, black leaders, and black communities. They’re familiar. And when coupled with the role blacks play in the Democratic primary—stalwart voters who tend to support the safest choice—this adds up to a powerful advantage for Hillary. So much so that the only candidate to breach it—Barack Obama—had to run an almost flawless campaign, in addition to being black himself. Had Obama failed to build ties to the black political establishment—and had he failed to show his viability with wins among white Democrats—it’s not clear he would have overcome and reversed Clinton’s advantage with blacks.

In the eight years since that fight, Hillary Clinton has worked to mend her rifts with black leaders and black voters. She joined the Obama administration and served with enthusiasm, she—and Bill—continued their retail outreach, speaking to black voters in black spaces. There’s still work to do—the 2008 primary was ugly—but the Clintons are doing it.

With expansive policies for economic equality, Sanders might have real appeal for black Americans. But it takes more than good policies to forge a political connection. It takes hard, dedicated work. And to overcome a decades-long relationship between black voters and the Clintons, it will take harder work still.

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think Libya is as much a failed state as Iraq.

If the way you measure success is in stable government Libya was a failure. If it is by preventing hundreds of thousands of people being bombed to death, it's a success.

Just because the Western media doesn't say anything about it doesn't mean there are no people dying there. Libya has been and still is in a state of civil war with no end in sight.

[Kalbear]

And they were dying more before.