I think its pretty reasonable that Warren would have been a better spokesman for the progressive wing just by virtue of having more credentials/knowledge/party orthodoxy and getting treated as a "Serious person" who deserves a seat at the table.

But at the same time I don't think she taps into the same passion that Bernie reached with younger voters. They get fired up by the outsider, moral purity, "cheap heat" stuff.

Warren would get more op-eds in the NYT praising her policies, but no where near the level of fundraising/crowds/excitement that Sanders is generating and probably does slightly worse at the polls. Idk which is more important in the end, but Sanders' style is probably more cathartic.

You pretty much are proving my point. It is simply inconceivable to you that there is anything other than widespread support for virtually every part of Bernie's agenda. I'm sure that you are happy to rely solely on more radical explanations for why Bernie was not the Democratic nominee.

As to your specific questions, I would make the following general observations.

First, people are making judgments not only about the changes that Bernie and HRC want to make, but also about the pace at which they want to make those changes.

Second, people are thinking not only what they individually prefer, but also their perceptions of what the country as a whole prefers. A Democratic voter might well say, "I slightly prefer Bernie's position on Issue A to HRC's position on Issue A, but I think that HRC's position on Issue A will play much better in a general election based on my perception of the country as a whole. You probably object to that sort of thought process, but I don't think it is per se illegitimate to think about politics in this way.

Third, I think that it is very difficult to know what the country as whole, or Democratic voters specifically, think about issues like single payor healthcare. For starters, a relatively low percentage of voters, Republican or Democrat, could give you an adequate definition of what single payor healthcare means. Issue polling doesn't mean much if respondents don't understand the issue about which they are being polled. And many who could define the term are rightfully skeptical of their ability to judge the overall effect of implementing single payor because the economics of healthcare are enormously complex. (The complexity of the issue is why one can manipulate the results of polling merely by imbedding assumptions in how the question is framed.) Anyone who claims to know exactly what the effects will be of a major policy change on an issue as complex as healthcare reform is either a genius, a prodigious policy wonk, or arrogant, with arrogant being by far the most likely explanation.

Fourth, posters on this board (and most of the friends and colleagues of the posters on this board) are younger than the average Democratic voter. Bernie's position on taxation, foreign policy, college tuition, etc., play very well with the 25 and under crowd and far less well with 55 and over crowd.

I've read some of her legal work and she's very good, especially about details, which is 80%+ of policy. She worked her way up from a being a divorced single mom to an influential Harvard Law professor. Sander's has a broad 20,000 ft view, some of which I think it pie in the sky, but I think Warren would be much better with policy and legislation. Also, while I think Sanders is fairly smart, I think Warren's about as smart as they come and would be better strategically. She also likely has a much bigger network for things like appointments, especially judicial.

Warren can discuss the U.S. financial system in a far more sophisticated way than Bernie can because she is much more knowledgeable about it than he is. It is inconceivable that she could have given the NY Daily News interview that Bernie gave.

Thanks for assuming what explanations I am relying on for why Bernie isn't the nominee. I guess you used that crystal ball Clinton supporters use for other things like "electability",etc. to determine what explanations I rely on given I haven't given any explanations for why I think Bernie is losing as it wasn't what we were talking about.

I asked you which part of his agenda do Democrats not support? I also asked you which part of it American's as a whole don't support? You have not provided the response to either.
Of course I object to this given Republicans could care less about moving to the center and Democrats keep following them to the right. Let's keep starting our negotiations for what we want not from what we want. Sanders is well respected in Congress not because he starts where Republicans want him to but because he firmly states what he wants and then negotiates AFTER. It is all a moot point however given against Republicans any agenda will get blocked. No wait my bad Clinton doesn't get blocked for whatever fantasy reasons.
Try voters under 45ish~

I think this is a good analysis. My main point was that people were only thinking about where Warren might be better but not where she could be worse. Somehow the parts she would be better just lined up with what they don't like about Bernie. It's all hypotheticals anyway and nobody really knows.

So basically you respect Warren's life achievements more. I still don't see where as a politician agreeing on the issues she would have been better at campaigning than Bernie for President or where we even know what that would look like from her. It's all hypothetical.

Maybe she can sure but what was wrong with the Daily News interview? Actual economists have said he gave normal answers on financial reform. The people that wrote articles bashing him seem to write "generally" for politics and have no qualifications in finance/economics. http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/04/ho...-wrong-on.html
EDIT - Here's Dean Baker as well commenting on the NY Daily News piece http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-...ers-specifics/

Not sure why people worry about socialism and wealth redistribution, sometimes it gets you a 2 day work week!

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...rkweek/480111/

If there were a way to poll the issues effectively, I suspect that Americans as a whole would not support Bernie's positions on isolationist foreign policy, changes to the US income tax structure, college tuition, some aspects of health care reform, some elements of financial reform. Not sure about a lot of other issues.

Again with the caveat that it is difficult to reliably poll on many of these issues, I suspect that Democrats prefer HRC to Bernie on gun control, changes to the income tax structure, college tuition, some elements of financial reform (and some not).

"Anti-establishment" is a feeling, not a policy, but I certainly agree that Bernie has a huge advantage among voters who have anti-establishment sentiments. I suspect that Bernie might also have an advantage over HRC among Democrats on health care and some aspects of financial reform. Not sure about minimum wage.

Foreign policy preferences always depend on the climate at the moment. During a crisis, I am positive that Democratic voters would prefer HRC to Bernie. Bernie's foreign policy plays better against HRC's during period of relative calm.

But the main difference is at the gut level. Bernie portrays himself as a fire breathing revolutionary. Clinton portrays herself as a cautious incrementalist. And I would guess that the average Democratic voter is more likely to self identify as a cautious incrementalist than as a fire breathing revolutionary.

it's amazing how rustled max's jimmies are considering bernie has no chance of getting the nomination. This "yeah but he's only won a few k votes from yokels in vermont" response to the question of Bernie's effectiveness as a legislator is pretty weird but standard for max.

My main problem was that he seemed uncertain of the source of government authority to break up the banks. (And I'm talking about the source in a general way, not whether he could cite code provisions.)

And I do not find it acceptable to say that it is solely up to JP Morgan to decide how to break itself up. The problem is much more complicated than "too big to fail." The gov't should some idea of which functions at JPM it would allow to remain under one roof and which functions, if any, it would insist be divested.

Or it can get you a higher employment level than the US. Seems to be a wide range.

I don't consider myself a "fire breathing revolutionary" but more someone who thinks we can do better in certain areas and have zero issue fighting for those things for exactly what they are and not minimizing them just because. That doesn't mean we get 100% of what we want but at least that's where we start negotiating. I supported Clinton before Sanders came along and changed my expectations of what a candidate can be. His stance on campaign finance reform where he walks the walk is a big deal IMO and it should allow Democratic voters to call bull**** on candidates going forward who say "but I have to take their money". Democrats could really set themselves up big for the future if they can do a good job of incorporating Bernie's agenda and support but I have my doubts they will do that. They appear more likely to try and get moderate Republicans on board against Trump rather than have to coalesce to the progressives.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

Those demonstrate economic and legal illiteracy.

1. that would create at absolute minimum hundreds of banks, most likely thousands. We know from history that this is a horrible situation.

2. Courts have already struck down FSOC's attempt to designate MetLife as financial institution and the SEC/Fed have already loled at many FSOC's recommendations as unworkable or just idiotic.

3. The Federal Reserve and FDIC are not interested in breaking up big banks because they actually understand that would be a horrible idea. And by the way, Federal Reserve is technically not a federal agency. In order to order it to do anything, you need to pass specific legislation.

These really aren't disputed questions of law at this point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/bu...ss-muster.html

Short or long term, breaking up the big banks is a terrible idea. It will make the industry even less transparent and more susceptible to foreign shocks.

Warren is much closer to Sanders than Clinton and it's very likely that Warren would be part of the Sanders administration as VP or Sec of Treasury

I don't have time now to do a ton of research for this post, but...

First off the way it passed was insane just like the way they tried to pass the TPP and fasttrack. It's just so frustratingly awful that in this case a huge bill is put together by all kinds of special interests and it's rushed to vote before the public can see it and really without the opportunity for most members of congress to even read it.

The bill was brought to the floor on the same day it was introduced October 23, 2001 6 weeks after 9/11.

It passed 357-66, so Bernie wasn't the only one radical enough to vote no on something Bush was shoving down congress' throat.

It passed the Senate the next day with Hillary's vote and was signed by Bush the day after.

So to start, the process is disgusting and undemocratic and no one should have voted for it under those circumstances. It shows a complete lack of respect for democracy.

As to the effects, for now to start: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...rugs-terrorism

Sneek and peek warrants. An infringement on our civil rights that was supposed to be used to catch terrorists. In 2001 they were used 47 times. Sounds like terrorism investigations? Well, you give the police a tool and they use it. In 2013 they were used 11,129 times. From 10/2009-11/2010 out of 3970 request, 3034 were for narcotics cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nvestigations/



National Security Letters - the FBI used to have to get a warrant to get your personal information from the phone company or ISP, but they don't anymore. Is that cool?

From 2003-2005 they issued 143074 National Security Letters resulting in 53 criminal referrals. 17 for money laundering, 17 for immigration, 19 for fraud, 0 for terrorism.

All I have time for atm. I'm not sure if I will be able to find how many prosecutions resulted from this.

I guess I have to stop short of saying voting for this or for the Bush Iraq war authorization is disqualifying, because I'm still voting for Hillary in the GE, but it's pretty close. They were both awful votes that showed people who either agreed with Bush/Cheney or had no backbone.

You don't think people potentially respond, in some cases dramatically, differently to the same message delivered by two different people?

Yes they can respond differently and it usually highlights whatever inherent biases they have towards people and/or the way the message is delivered. We have zero way of knowing how Warren would run a Presidential campaign or how she would choose to frame issues. Only you can say whether the same thing said from Warren or Sanders would make you likely to support both or just one out of the two. It's a bit odd to me that people would only support one out of the two.

Wtf is happening in this thread? Bernie is done in terms of being the nominee.

Standard in that it went totally over your head I see.

The echo chamber that was this thread is dying and this is what it feels like to enter into a black hole.