The case against Bernie Sanders

[Martell Spy]

 

I will also say that it's a bemusing sort of self-delusion to think that Trump is not beholden to the interests of the corporate donors on account of him possibly not needing/taking their support as much as Clinton would, while ignoring at the same time that Trump is a member of the coporate conglomerate elite that is fleecing America. That's like saying I will not vote for Joe because Joe takes money from Laura and Tim, but I will vote for Laura because she's not taking money from Tim.

 

Yep. Trump has vowed to lower taxes on the rich, just like every GOP candidate. Meanwhile he has NOT said anything about appointing justices of the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United. Which tells you he will be appointing justices which will join in the John Roberts jihad of throwing more and more cash into our elections. There is no populism with Trump. Unless you mean by populism hating on minorities. That's his specialty.

Trump has said he won't go after Social Security, Medicare, and the progressive tax system. So I guess you could call that populist, but it's pretty thin gruel. So where is the Trump populism? He's basically promising racism and lower taxes on the rich. He also came out against a higher minimum wage.

Oh, he spoke out against the lower tax on capital gains at one point. However, his tax plan promises to lower taxes on the rich overall.

[peterbound]

 

 

Yep. Trump has vowed to lower taxes on the rich, just like every GOP candidate. Meanwhile he has NOT said anything about appointing justices of the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United. Which tells you he will be appointing justices which will join in the John Roberts jihad of throwing more and more cash into our elections. There is no populism with Trump. Unless you mean by populism hating on minorities. That's his specialty.

Trump has said he won't go after Social Security, Medicare, and the progressive tax system. So I guess you could call that populist, but it's pretty thin gruel. So where is the Trump populism? He's basically promising racism and lower taxes on the rich. He also came out against a higher minimum wage.

Oh, he spoke out against the lower tax on capital gains at one point. However, his tax plan promises to lower taxes on the rich overall.

Am I the only one with google fu?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-04/trump-the-developer-loves-low-interest-rates-trump-the-candidate-sees-a-bubble-

 

You wan't him to lay out each decision he wants the justices to make?   Do we expect that from the other candidates?

[peterbound]

Is it a reasonable belief to hold that if Trump wins the primary, he'll finance his POTUS election campaigning entirely out of his own pockets? According to this article, Romney's campaign cost 86 million dollars and Obama's campaign cost over 1 billion. The net worth of Trump is estimated to be about 4.6 billion, although Trump himself said it's closer to 6 billion. Can we reasonably expect Trump to spend 1/6 to 1/4 of his total wealth, which includes a large amount of real estate values, to finance the campaign?

The more reasonable expectation is that Trump will raise money to finance his campaign every way he can, and then fill in the gaps when/if it falls short with his own money. So if Clinton raises 1 billion, and Trump only managed to raise 0.75 billion, he's happy to chip in the last bit to stay competitive. This means that Trump will be taking monies from every large donors that he can secure. And if he nabs the nomination, (more) large donors will start showing up at Trump's door.

The proof will be in the pudding. Candidates are required to release campaign finance reports. People who know how to get those documents and to decipher them can figure out what sorts of money is Trump taking in.

I will also say that it's a bemusing sort of self-delusion to think that Trump is not beholden to the interests of the corporate donors on account of him possibly not needing/taking their support as much as Clinton would, while ignoring at the same time that Trump is a member of the coporate conglomerate elite that is fleecing America. That's like saying I will not vote for Joe because Joe takes money from Laura and Tim, but I will vote for Laura because she's not taking money from Tim.

Ugh, it bums me out that we have to do this math.  We need to fix this, I just don't know how to do it. 

[Martell Spy]

You wan't him to lay out each decision he wants the justices to make?   Do we expect that from the other candidates?

 

We already know Sanders and Clinton would appoint justices that would overturn Citizens United, because they have done us the courtesy of telling us so. Justices appointed by Bill Clinton voted against Citizens United, also. Meanwhile, Trump is very vague on nearly all positions that don't have to do with hating on minorities. He's quite clear that he'll get them good. Observe the contrast.

We also have the pattern of all Republican appointed justices supporting more cash in elections consistently in recent times. There is no reason to believe that any Republican will not repeat this pattern until one of them says so and promises to stop it. Trump's statements make no promises about campaign finance and you are a sucker if you believe they do. He talks only about how awful it is, and makes no prescriptions about fixing it.

Yes, I have access to google like most Amercians. Your. article wasn't very useful.. Trump makes no promises regarding fixing campaign finance or campaign finance reform. As usual. 

[Iskaral Pust]

I like Sanders and I think his core policies of universal healthcare, free tuition (but would require spending controls on colleges), domestic infrastructure investment and a focus on income inequality are a very good direction. My main concern is that he's an impractical Don Quixote with noble aspirations but no practical way to get them. Even if he had the legislative support from Congress (which he won't) I worry that he would blunder into all kinds of unintended consequences and drag down the economy. He looks like a classic tax & spend populist who'll rapidly run out of other people's money. And his policy focus doesn't extend further than the low-to-moderately educated white middle class; in a way he's the mirror image of Trump. He looks like VP material to me.

I'm not thrilled about Hilary because she looks like a corrupt chicken hawk, but still better than any Republican.

[Shryke]

I humbly suggest that the downticket results of an energized Sanders campaign will greatly affect what the President can or cannot do, whereas a desultory Clinton campaign will not.

This is the narrative many people seem to think is true, but polling consistently shows Clinton has high favourability among Democrats.

Like any of these kind of polls (say, Obama's popularity as another good example) it's important to separate them by party identification because self-identifying Republicans heavily pull favourability numbers for any prominent democrat downward. But how favourable republicans view Clinton is utterly irrelevant for talking about how enthusiastic her support would be in an election cause, you know, they won't vote for her.

Clinton is very popular with Democrats and it's silly to act like that's not true.

[BookWyrm2]

Clinton is very popular with Democrats and it's silly to act like that's not true.

I think the idea that Sanders is extremely popular with independents and first-time voters, however is what Bonesy is talking about (obviously correct me if I'm wrong Bonesy).

Sanders polls (consistently) better than Clinton in those demographics and the assumption, as far as I can tell, is that a Sanders ticket wouldn't lose the number of people who vote democratic unconditionally like a Clinton ticket might lose the many uniquely Sanders supporters.

Hence the idea that Sanders can get high voter turnout and help democrats win big.

Your distinction's obviously important for primary contests but Bonesy mentioned Sanders' potential in the downticket contest. Net favorability polls would seem to be more representative since everyone gets to vote. 

[Bonesy]

I believe it's silly to think Democrats alone will elect a Democrat to the presidency. I believe you need all of the pissed off progressives, Greens, Libertarians, disgusted Republicans, and independents that Sanders pulls and Clinton certainly will not.

ETA: And obviously the downticket thing. I didn't mention it again as it was largely dismissed the first time.

Good to see someone else sees that.

[Shryke]

I think the idea that Sanders is extremely popular with independents and first-time voters, however is what Bonesy is talking about (obviously correct me if I'm wrong Bonesy).

Sanders polls (consistently) better than Clinton in those demographics and the assumption, as far as I can tell, is that a Sanders ticket wouldn't lose the number of people who vote democratic unconditionally like a Clinton ticket might lose the many uniquely Sanders supporters.

Hence the idea that Sanders can get high voter turnout and help democrats win big.

Your distinction's obviously important for primary contests but Bonesy mentioned Sanders' potential in the downticket contest. Net favorability polls would seem to be more representative since everyone gets to vote. 

Which is a nice idea but I don't think matches how people vote. Sanders does poll better with young people and people who identify as independents. (also a few other more minor things you'd expect to correlate with these things, like atheist/agnostic or student)

The problem is, as I guess I covered in the other US politics thread but not here now that I think about it, is that self-identification as independent doesn't actually mean shit. Party identification in polling is only self-ID because there's no other measure. So independents are just people who don't ID as Democrat or Republican. When you actually look at their voting habits, Independents vote consistently one way or the other. Or consistently not at all. Identification as an "independent" doesn't mean much of anything when ti comes to voting habits basically.

This applies also to those that identify as Dem or GOP too of course. Which basically amounts to the idea of cross-over voting is bullcrap these days. It's all about turnout.

This is also why overall favourability is irrelevant. Republicans aren't gonna show up and vote for Clinton or Sanders and that's true whether they hate them a little or hate them alot. All that matters is how the people who will show up and vote for a Democrat feel and those people like Clinton. Alot. Just like they like Obama alot. And like Sanders too (not as much as the first two, but it's improving as his name recognition rises) And this applies downticket too, since the whole point is people show up to vote for the presidency and then go and check off all the other shit on the ballot down the party line too. (or so every candidate hopes anyway)

The basic point here being that crossover votes don't exist so how people who aren't gonna vote Democrat anyway don't matter. And among those that will, Clinton is well liked despite the narrative going around many places.

 

A few notes that may or may not be relevant to the current discussion but should probably be thrown out there for full disclosure:

- Sanders is more popular then Clinton with, say, the 18-29 demo but that doesn't mean Clinton isn't also popular with those groups. Just less so. The difference isn't even that bad for alot of those. I believe I've consistently seen it around the 5% mark.

- the exact demographics Sanders polls well with are consistently the least reliable. Young people suck at showing p to the polls sadly.

- it's important to remember that the end of the GWB years saw a big shift in identification in that many Republicans started identifying as independent because Bush's legacy was so poisonous.

 

 

I believe it's silly to think Democrats alone will elect a Democrat to the presidency. I believe you need all of the pissed off progressives, Greens, Libertarians, disgusted Republicans, and independents that Sanders pulls and Clinton certainly will not.

ETA: And obviously the downticket thing. I didn't mention it again as it was largely dismissed the first time.

Good to see someone else sees that.

What is this based on? This is the same argument you just made with the same fault. Again assuming that because Clinton doesn't excite you, she doesn't excite anyone.

[Bonesy]

You just said crossover votes don't exist, whereas I see it everywhere.

Unless, one of us changes their opinion, I suspect this is a dead end conversation.

[Shryke]

You just said crossover votes don't exist, whereas I see it everywhere.

Unless, one of us changes their opinion, I suspect this is a dead end conversation.

Except this isn't my opinion, this is me reading the results of political science studying the issue. The research on this is quite consistent afaik. Swing voters, those that might go to one party or the other, are a small minority of those that don't explicitly identify as one party or the other. And this is even more truth these days then, say. 20 years ago.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, sorry bones. You have this idea that what you need is to swing votes from one side to another to win. What wins elections is getting out the pathetically low amount of voters to vote for the party they tend to vote for.

Self identifying independents and Republicans matter when you're talking about a Reagan-Mondale level of shellac king. They don't matter at all for the most part here.

Really, as long as a Democrat has favorable numbers the demographics basically will make that dem win. Especially when poised against a fairly unfavorable repub.

Do you have any actual study to indicate otherwise? Because nate silver really disagrees with you.

[peterbound]

You just said crossover votes don't exist, whereas I see it everywhere.

 

Unless, one of us changes their opinion, I suspect this is a dead end conversation.

 

Me as well.  I've voted both republican and democrat throughout my life

[Bonesy]

Excellent. Nonetheless, I'm not just making this up either. I interact with these people online, in person, on the phone, on a daily basis.

I could be statistically lucky and you are completely correct, but your study of political science is not so compelling to me personally as the evidence in front of me.

Good thing is, unlike a certain series of books, we will get to find out come June and November.

[Bonesy]

Two things:

Every thing I've seen says Clinton polls high due to perceived electability/fear of the GOP while also carrying poor favorability ratings.

And Nate Silver has been his own harshest critic all year.

[Kalbear]

Excellent. Nonetheless, I'm not just making this up either. I interact with these people online, in person, on the phone, on a daily basis.

I could be statistically lucky and you are completely correct, but your study of political science is not so compelling to me personally as the evidence in front of me.

Good thing is, unlike a certain series of books, we will get to find out come June and November.

Anecdotes aren't data.

I'm not saying these people don't exist. I'm saying that they don't exist in sufficient quantities and they don't vote in patterns that you think they will - or patterns that they say they do - to matter.

There are a lot of people who say they vote however. They don't make a particularly large difference save in swing states, and even then getting out 50% of the population vs. 40% is what matters more.

[Bonesy]

For reference: I've done all of my phone banking in Iowa and KY, so theres that.

In my apparently negligible experience Clinton has soft support in the former and a snowball's chance in Congress in the latter.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Ugh, it bums me out that we have to do this math.  We need to fix this, I just don't know how to do it. 

Easy: select all currently elected positions by lot among eligible citizens instead of having elections.

Of course that may cause more problems, but it solves that one. If you want to elect leaders, you'll have to accept that they have an inherently oligarchic character. It's something the Athenians understood.

As it stands, there's no way that selecting the leader of 300 million people can be easy or cheap.

[Bonesy]

Not for nuthin' but Bill O'Reilly said he'd move to Ireland if Sanders is elected.

I think we can all support that.

[Relic]

On the Iraq War, yeah, in retrospect that was a really bad vote. However, I'm generally willing to give senators a pass on that, considering that they were being straight-up lied to by the Bush administration at a time when no one would've believed something that brazen could happen.

If by "no one" you mean "millions of people" then you would be right.