Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore

[kellyb]

Interesting, but not exactly as you present it. 58% of Americans prefered Bernie's scheme over the ACA. True that is better than the 51% that preferred Trump's scheme over the ACA, but it doesn't show how the figures would come out in a head to head clash, especially after the Republicans did a trash job on Bernie's scheme as they did with the ACA.

Is there evidence the GOP campaign against the ACA actually made people hate it who favored it previously, as opposed to just working those who already hated it from the get-go into an outright fury?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nobody, according to the article I referenced. But it would seem rather foolish to assume that if you fail to elect a candidate that is very far left, that somehow if you select someone that is very VERY far left (like Sanders) that it will somehow change the results.

Many people don't like extremes. Its a pretty simple concept.

Errr. Have you seen our President and Congress (and statehouses, school boards, at al)?

Globally, center parties are quite anemic, either relying on fringe parties for coalitions, lost in a coalition, displaced by a coalition of fringe parties, etc.

There are right and left versions all across the OECD.

ETA: Republicans integrated the Tea Party in the American version of a coalition to massive (electoral) success over time. The Democrats have made only tepid gestures to their side's extremes and seem to underperform. It's not the whole answer, but in context of the global shift (towards fringe parties, more right than left) it tracks.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[acbytesla]

What democrat has run in the general who's as far left as Sanders or FDR in the last 50 years?

LBJ. Civil Rights, War on Poverty. In fact, if it wasn't for the Vietnam War, he would easily be my favorite President in my lifetime.

 

[kellyb]

LBJ. Civil Rights, War on Poverty. In fact, if it wasn't for the Vietnam War, he would easily be my favorite President in my lifetime.

Doesn't the 1964 election miss the 50 year cutoff by 4 years, tho?

 

[The_Animus]

- Provided a reference to an analysis (see the Mother Jones link in a previous post) that shows that NO democrat holding far-left views has won a general election in the past half century. None. Election success (at least on the democratic side) tends to go to the moderates. Those with far-left views tend to go down to defeat (Oh, but I'm sure somehow Bernie would have been different!)

And when was the last time a far-right loon of the Trump caliber won a general election? It's almost as if this election was a bit different and that the electorate wanted someone different. Someone who was not the standard politician and instead a candidate they felt was genuine and had integrity. (I know that's insane to apply to Trump but nonetheless it's how many of his voters felt and continue to feel regardless of how inaccurate it may be.)

- Suggested that "Oh, I'm sure people will forgive him for being at a rally that favored killing Americans" (and forgive him for wanting to dump radioactive waste in minority areas. And forgive him for saying rape is OK.)

I'm not familiar with the dumping radioactive waste in minority areas nor saying rape is ok. Do you have a source on those?

if all the Trump voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Trump and still vote for him, and Clinton voters can ignore all the terrible aspects of Clinton and still vote for her, why should Sanders be any different?

Ultimately this is unknowable. There are valid arguments on both sides. I think it really comes down to how many votes Sanders would have lost from minorities/moderates staying home or voting Trump/3rd party vs how many votes he would have gained from the people who stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party because they didn't like Clinton. Based on the polls showing Sanders doing better than Clinton vs Trump, the admittedly anecdotal examples of people here, other forums, social media, and real life people I know, myself included, who did not vote Clinton but would have voted Sanders, and the lack of examples the other way around lead me to believe Sanders could have won the general election. I live in Wisconsin, which is one of the swing states that went to Trump and where Sanders was in my opinion more popular than Clinton for the reasons i've given in this thread. So perhaps that biases my view in this matter.

What I can tell you is that if the democratic party continues to ignore, dismiss, and disparage the progressive wing it's not going to serve them well.

 

[kellyb]

What I can tell you is that if the democratic party continues to ignore, dismiss, and disparage the progressive wing it's not going to serve them well.

I think the donor class would rather lose and stay economically "centric" (right leaning by historical and international standards) than win but have to significantly shift left policy-wise.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is there evidence the GOP campaign against the ACA actually made people hate it who favored it previously, as opposed to just working those who already hated it from the get-go into an outright fury?

This would be rather hard to find since the Republican attacks on the ACA started pretty much at the same time as the bill was being created and brought into being. It was the same time that they coined the term Obamacare and started with the claims of Death Panels and more.

It clearly did have some effect though as even in Feb of 2017 a survey showed that 35% of Americans did not understand that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing. 80% of Republicans disapproved of Obamacare, while only 60% of them disapproved of the ACA. 50% of Republicans thought that repealing Obamacare may have an affect in people enrolled on the ACA. Democrats did better with 80% realising that there would be an effect.

What we also know is that the ACA gained in popularity as people learned what it was compared to the Republicans ACHA bills.

ETA: Looking at the blueprint for Obamacare, which was Massachusetts' Romneycare, it had approval ratings of 67-68%

 

[kellyb]

It clearly did have some effect though as even in Feb of 2017 a survey showed that 35% of Americans did not understand that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing. 80% of Republicans disapproved of Obamacare, while only 60% of them disapproved of the ACA. 50% of Republicans thought that repealing Obamacare may have an affect in people enrolled on the ACA. Democrats did better with 80% realising that there would be an effect.

I don't see how that demonstrates an effect. It just means they'd never heard "Obamacare", aka "that health care idea being pushed by Obama and the Democrats", referred to as "The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act" yet.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't see how that demonstrates an effect. It just means they'd never heard "Obamacare", aka "that health care idea being pushed by Obama and the Democrats", referred to as "The Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act" yet.

It does show that the Republican machine did have an effect in that by branding the ACA as Obamacare they were able to make people dislike something that when they heard about it without the name Obamacare they actually liked.

Also, though my edit was a bit late for you, we can see that Massachusetts' Romneycare was well liked, with approval ratings up to around 70%, yet the national scheme which was modelled on it, Obamacare, had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks, and then rose in popularity as the Republicans showed their hand as being far worse.

I think that it does clearly show that much of the belief around Obamacare was formed by the attacks on it by the Republicans, and to believe that they would not have done the same, with the same results, to Sander's proposals is living in a dream world.

 

[kellyb]

It does show that the Republican machine did have an effect in that by branding the ACA as Obamacare they were able to make people dislike something that when they heard about it without the name Obamacare they actually liked.

Also, though my edit was a bit late for you, we can see that Massachusetts' Romneycare was well liked, with approval ratings up to around 70%, yet the national scheme which was modelled on it, Obamacare, had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks, and then rose in popularity as the Republicans showed their hand as being far worse.

I think that it does clearly show that much of the belief around Obamacare was formed by the attacks on it by the Republicans,

They did't like Obama. They knew he had some health care plan, and they opposed it before they knew much about it. It's was Obama's version of Trump's wall during the campaign.

Can I get a link on this part?

"had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks"

 

[PhantomWolf]

They did't like Obama. They knew he had some health care plan, and they opposed it before they knew much about it. It's was Obama's version of Trump's wall during the campaign.

And why do you think that they opposed it? It can't have been because they didn't like Obama, his approval ratings were higher than the approval rating for Obamacare, so why do you think that people were put off Obamacare even before it was passed?

Can I get a link on this part?

"had far poorer ratings after the Republican attacks"

You really need a link to how badly Obamacare was disliked? And how it fell to a 33% approval rating? Your memory is that short? Fine.

So there we have it. As the Republican Romneycare it was getting near enough to a 70% approval. Rename it Obamacare and attack it with all guns, and it drops to a 33% approval.

 

[Venom]

I get the impression the center-lefts here are kinda concerned Bernie would just be unfairly dismissed by the general population, but half-hearted concern of course.

But look, Trump is in office. Now's the time to start the honest conversation about what socialism is and isn't, how it's not scary, how Social Democrats in the vein of FDR, LBJ, JFK, etc actually helped the U.S. tremendously, how single payer is actually good, or if not, at least how we can improve the ACA.

Let's focus our energy into educating those people that social democrats aren't scary, like what Sanders is doing with his town halls, so that we don't have to be constantly playing damage control during the next election.

 

[Venom]

Sometimes it's important to know where the last war went wrong before fighting the next one, and making knee jerk reaction changes might just put you in a worse losing position overall if you don't pay close attention to the things that led to the first failure.

If we can say Sanders had skeletons in his closet that, *gasp* could be used against him, how about we look at the fact that Clinton was very unpopular and her name was tainted by the FBI investigations and general right wing propaganda.

 

[kellyb]

It can't have been because they didn't like Obama, his approval ratings were higher than the approval rating for Obamacare

That's a non sequitur. You can be ok-ish with a politician personally, but disagree with a policy change they promote.

, so why do you think that people were put off Obamacare even before it was passed?

Because they're ideologically opposed to government interference in the "free market. "

And how it fell to a 33% approval rating?

And then it was up to 50% soon after. There wasn't an overall change/trend over the tracked period, just normal month to month fluctuation.

 

[Delvo]

What democrat has run in the general who's as far left as Sanders or FDR in the last 50 years?

Both Clinton and Obama, according to the campaigns that got them elected. (Their failures to do as promised once they were in don't change what it was that got them elected.)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Does it bother anybody else that Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders are protectionists/economic nationalists/mercantilists just like Donald Trump, Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, Reed Smoot, and Willis Hawley?

Yep.

How many times must we relearn the lessons of history?

Relearn?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The polls during the primaries showed Sanders beating Trump and Clinton losing to Trump, for whatever those polls are worth.

Sanders should have run as an independent - then we would have seen what those polls were worth.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's a non sequitur. You can be ok-ish with a politician personally, but disagree with a policy change they promote.

Except that if it was merely the policy that they didn't like, it wouldn't matter if it was called Obamacare or the ACA, they would dislike them equally. That Obamacare was disliked more than the ACA, despite them being the same thing, indicates that there was something more then just the disagreement with policy going on.

Because they're ideologically opposed to government interference in the "free market. "

Except this clearly isn't the case because both RomneyCare and Sanders single payer systems were/are popular, and both also involve "government interference in the 'free market.'" If someone was ideologically opposed to the ACA on that ground, then they would also have to oppose RomneyCare and Sander's plan, and they don't.

And then it was up to 50% soon after. There wasn't an overall change/trend over the tracked period, just normal month to month fluctuation.

What the? Seriously? Take another look because your reality is drifting off into the Twilight Zone.

The Popularity of Obamacare started at about 45% at launch in 2010 before peaking at 50% in July, and then dropping steadily over the next two years to a low of 33% in late 2013. It then began to pick up slowly, but it didn't get back up into the 50's again until this year, well after the abomination of the ACHA that the Republicans failed to pass.

 

[kellyb]

Except that if it was merely the policy that they didn't like, it wouldn't matter if it was called Obamacare or the ACA, they would dislike them equally. That Obamacare was disliked more than the ACA, despite them being the same thing, indicates that there was something more then just the disagreement with policy going on.

They didn't even know the name of the actual policy, much less what was in it. That's all it demonstrates. Who knows what they thought the "ACA" was as opposed to "Obamacare".

Except this clearly isn't the case because both RomneyCare and Sanders single payer systems were/are popular, and both also involve "government interference in the 'free market.'" If someone was ideologically opposed to the ACA on that ground, then they would also have to oppose RomneyCare and Sander's plan, and they don't.

You're WAY overestimating the political literacy of the average American here. Not even most democrats were (or are?) aware of the fact that the ACA is Heritage-care/Romneycare.

Seriously? Take another look because your reality is drifting off into the Twilight Zone.

The overall unfavorable trend from the start of data collection to present is flat, around 41%. The peak of overall unfavorability happened in July of 2014, when 53% of people disliked it and only 37% liked it.

 

[Hellbound]

I meant to say what I said: what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone provides coverage to 100% of the population under single payer.

See chart 11-7:

Okay, still not seeing your point. I'll ignore the fact that this data is 14 years old; I'm still not seeing where it says what you think it says.

That chart lists total expenditure, which is roughly $6k per person.

Only a bit less that $3k of that is public expenditure; the rest is private.

So the medicare tax would have to, roughly, be doubled to cover everyone. I'm not seeing how the $3k public expenditure can cover $6k per capita spending.

You do understand, I hope, that EVERYONE in the U.S. pays into Medicare and Medicaid, not just the people using it, right? It's part of the withholdings on income.

ETA: Wait, I think I see the point you're trying to make now. The countries using some sort of single-payer spend less that just what we spend now on Medicare/Medicaid. That's where you're going with this, right? Got it now, thanks!

Still think that may not be a good comparison, though, because healthcare simply costs more over here. I'm not convinced just swapping to single payer will reduce those costs by over 50% (I expect it would make a significant dent, though).