Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Bernie Sanders is a straight up BOSS Bernie Sanders is a straight up BOSS

04-27-2016 , 01:14 PM
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.
04-27-2016 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Which parts of Bernie's agenda do voters not want? When single-payer is polled for example you get a majority of overall Americans in favor while like 80%+ of Democrats want it. Clinton specifically said no we can't to single-payer and is in favor of increasing universal health coverage which basically means keeping status quo of insurance companies making bank. What about increasing the minimum wage? What about ending the drug war? Income inequality? Anti-establishment? Doing something about the insanity of student loans? Climate change? Police reform? Women's rights? ....etc. Do most voters not want these things? What about Democratic voters?

Next argument from people is that him and Clinton are so similar in what they want....so um does that mean voters don't want what Clinton's ideas are either given they are the same as Bernie's apparently and voters don't want Bernie's according to you? Oh never mind Clinton has this magical ability of getting her "similar" ideas passed because she is effective or something while Sanders can't. Got it.
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.

Last edited by Rococo; 04-27-2016 at 01:22 PM.
04-27-2016 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Which issues that you have with Sanders would Warren have hypothetically cleaned up?
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.
04-27-2016 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Which issues that you have with Sanders would Warren have hypothetically cleaned up? They are very similar on issues. Sanders actually has more experience in Congress than Warren and yet his experience was a problem for some against the highly experienced Clinton. Name recognition with Warren may have been an issue as well.
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.
04-27-2016 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
Try voters under 45ish~
04-27-2016 , 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 425kid
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.
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.
04-27-2016 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
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.
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.
04-27-2016 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
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
Quote:
Caitlin Cruz wrote that Sanders "struggled to detail how he would break-up the big banks". She is a journalist who started writing cultural pieces in 2010, moved on to local reporting, and has since generalized into covering "politics, policy, and national news".

Chris Cillizza called Bernie's comments "pretty close to a disaster" and accused him of "dodging as he sought to scramble back to his talking points." He has an English degree and writes generally about national politics.

David Graham said that Sander's answers "raises some questions about his policy chops." Graham has a B.A. (B.A.s?) and studied history, Arabic, and Islamic studies.

Tina Nguyen says that Sanders "displayed a lack of familiarity with economic principles" and "isn't sure how to break up big banks". She has a B.A. in government and covers "politics, current events (domestic and global), the media, fools and trolls".
EDIT - Here's Dean Baker as well commenting on the NY Daily News piece http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-...ers-specifics/
04-27-2016 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Yes rara, as much as you want to believe McCarthy is still relevant, he's not. You can say the words socialist or wealth distribution and not everyone ****s their pants.
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/
04-27-2016 , 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
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.
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.
04-27-2016 , 02:08 PM
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.
04-27-2016 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Maybe she can sure but what was wrong with the Daily News interview?
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.
04-27-2016 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by campfirewest
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/
Or it can get you a higher employment level than the US. Seems to be a wide range.
04-27-2016 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
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.
04-27-2016 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/
Quote:
There are three ways we can break up the banks:

1. Pass a law putting some sort of cap on the size of the balance sheet of financial companies, usually non-deposit liabilities. Caps, such as Senator Brown’s SAFE Banking Act, are generally proposed around 2 or 3 percent of GDP.

2. Have the council of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), on which the Treasury Secretary serves as chair, declare the largest firms to be too risky and that they must be broken up (Section 121).

3. Have the Federal Reserve, along with the FDIC, determine that the “living wills” of the biggest banks, which are plans for how they can fail without bringing down the economy, are not credible, and thus the banks must be broken up (Section 165d).

The second two work through Dodd-Frank; the first would work through Congress.

Here’s the first exchange that people are citing:

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Sanders is clearly saying that he wants to push on the first (“legislation passed”) and second (“secretary of treasury to determine”) approaches, two projects you can do at the same time. He’s emphasized Section 121 in the past. I wish he’d emphasize the third approach more, as that’s where the fight currently is, but his answer is fine.

If anything, Sanders is too wonky
.
04-27-2016 , 03:00 PM
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.
04-27-2016 , 03:22 PM
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.
04-27-2016 , 03:36 PM
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
04-27-2016 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
I'm not aware of thousands of prosecutions under the patriot act. Do you have a link?

As I understand it the PA mainly expanded some police powers for terrorism cases. Most of the cases I've heard the FBI pursue have had major flaws, but it's something that I don't regard as too significant on a broader scale.

So, specifically, whats wrong with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act I'm open minded, but most criticisms of the Act I've heard of are basically wingnuttery (and I don't support the FISA court or the overuse of the states secrets privilege and think the no fly list is a joke.)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep.BobbyScott
I think it is appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Committee on the Judiciary. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what is in it since we have been out of our offices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle.
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.
04-27-2016 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Also, it is hilarious how Clinton supporters are now saying Sanders would have fared better if he had been Warren because somehow they have a crystal ball they can look into to know how Warren would have handled running for President. She apparently would have been better than Bernie in exactly the spots where they disagree with Bernie. The rationalization is amazing! She agrees with Sanders on the issues and yet somehow because she isn't Sanders she would have been better at putting plans forth on the same issues and being a better wonk. Yet they don't care that Clinton is not a wonk and her plans are no more detailed than any of Bernie's. lol
You don't think people potentially respond, in some cases dramatically, differently to the same message delivered by two different people?
04-27-2016 , 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
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.
04-27-2016 , 07:16 PM
Wtf is happening in this thread? Bernie is done in terms of being the nominee.
04-27-2016 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
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.
Standard in that it went totally over your head I see.
04-27-2016 , 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plzd0nate
Wtf is happening in this thread? Bernie is done in terms of being the nominee.
The echo chamber that was this thread is dying and this is what it feels like to enter into a black hole.

      
m