Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore

[ahhell]

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:

This is the argument that should be used for universal coverage. The rights based argument doesn't work on conservatives but "we already pay for it and don't get it" might.

 

[kellyb]

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).

Yep.
Regarding the bolded, it costs more for reasons that have largely been sussed out and can be fixed. It's fantastically complicated breaking down where the heck all that money goes in the US compared to the single payer countries, but most of the groundwork there has actually been done. Most of the problems converting will come from people currently "profiteering" off the current system and making $250k+ a year, being reduced to "wage earner" status as managers under single payer.

 

[Segnosaur]

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)?

Yes I have. Which admittedly doesn't exactly support my premise.

But I think the difference is that left wing and/or moderate voters are often better informed and more likely to make decisions based on evidence and reason. These are the type of voters that will weigh look at policy decisions. On the other hand, the right wing tends to cater to bigots and religious hypocrites, who are less discerning when voting.

I should also point out that the current republican administration may be an outlier. I haven't seen the same sort of analysis for republican presidents as I have for democrats. But after googling a bit, I found:
- While Reagan is some sort of god-like figure to the republicans, when he was gov. of California he brought in both tax increases and pro-environment legislation. So anyone looking at his candidacy in 1980 might have seen him as more moderate
- When gov. of California, Bush Jr. actually tried (unsuccessfully) to increase business taxes, and pushed for green energy. Again, policies that might make him seem more moderate than his presidency ended up being

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.

First of all, the U.S. does not have a "center party"... they have a right and a left wing party. The democratic party is not "center" so trying to compare the U.S. situation to other countries is a mistake.

Secondly, the Canadian Liberal party (our "center" party) has won more elections and been in charge longer than the right wing conservative party and/or the left wing NDP. So politicians CAN find success in the middle.

ETA: Republicans integrated the Tea Party in the American version of a coalition to massive (electoral) success over time.

Ummmm... the tea party movement has only been around since the start of the Obama administration, and in that time, Obama handily won a second term.

By the way, I am specifically talking about the election of the president and the need for presidential candidates to maintain policies favorable to moderates. I make no claim that it applies to senate or house candidates, since those politicians and their platforms get much less attention paid to their candidacy than those running for the white house.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.)

Go back and look at the reference I provided. It measures how "left wing" candidates were based on their voting records in congress (or when they were gov).

While both Bill Clinton and Obama were solidly democratic and to the left of the American political spectrum, their voting records were not as far to the left as those of Sanders (or of Gore, Dukakis, etc.)

 

[Segnosaur]

- 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?

You're not familiar with that? But according to KellyB, each and every member of the American electorate had already heard of those and absolved Sanders!

Actually I'm being sarcastic. You're actually making my point for me... These were issues that could be damaging to a presidential campaign, but weren't widely discussed during the primaries. (The republicans were holding off on going after Sanders unless/until he won the primaries.) The fact that you (probably a more educated voter than average) was unaware of those issues means that they were probably were unknown to the general electorate.

I should also point out that Sanders never actually claimed that "Rape is OK". He wrote a paper that used that concept (but included additional information pointing out that no, rape is not ok), but when the Republican media blitz starts, Sanders words will be taken out of context.

I provided a reference to those particular issues multiple times, the last time back in post 28. (Its from a newsweek piece)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12226881&postcount=28

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?

Well, Clinton lost, so its likely that republican smear techniques (including manufacturing non-existent scandals. Bengazhi!) had the desired effect of cutting into her voter base. And while Trump won the election, he also lost the popular vote (and got fewer votes than Romney) so the terrible aspects of Trump probably had an effect as well.

The big difference with Sanders is that any scandals (real or manufactured) are hidden, allowing him to ride a wave of supposed popularity.

Ultimately this is unknowable. There are valid arguments on both sides.

While it might be "unknowable", I've at least brought some evidence to the table... potential scandals that were hidden to the electorate, an analysis showing far-left candidates tend to lose U.S. elections.

On the other hand, those suggesting Sanders could win are basing their arguments on lots of hand-waving... "Oh, I'm sure he could magically conjour up something that will become a rallying cry! People will ignore the tax increases his plans would require because they'll get a magical transformation that will convince them to give up their own money for the greater good".

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

Which again are irrelevant because the Republicans never got a chance to engage in any partisan attacks on Sanders.

the admittedly anecdotal examples of people here

Again, not relevant, because your average poster here is likely better informed and more intelligent than the "average" American.

other forums, social media, and real life people I know, myself included, who did not vote Clinton but would have voted Sanders

Ummm.... say what?

Remember when I suggested posters here were more intelligent than the average American? Well, maybe I was wrong.

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron, not much better than the idiots who wear confederate flag T-shirts and chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies. People like that are almost as responsible for getting the current Racist in office as those who actually supported Trump from the beginning. Congrats.... thanks to people like that we got a leader who thinks neo-nazis are "fine people" and that adding billions to the debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is good economic policy.

You could have had a leader that would have kept Frank-Dodd in place. But no, because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint (Wah! I wanted the guy who was never a Democrat to win the party leadership!) we're likely going to lose those regulations. You could have had a candidate who would have kept the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement, but because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint you've got a president who thinks climate change is a hoax and coal ash should be dumped in the waterways.

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.

And if the progressive wing continues to assume "its our way or the highway" the Democrats will continue to have problems.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yep.
Regarding the bolded, it costs more for reasons that have largely been sussed out and can be fixed. It's fantastically complicated breaking down where the heck all that money goes in the US compared to the single payer countries, but most of the groundwork there has actually been done. Most of the problems converting will come from people currently "profiteering" off the current system and making $250k+ a year, being reduced to "wage earner" status as managers under single payer.

Ok, lets get a few things straight...

First of all, there is really only one significant "single payer" health care system in the world, and that is Canada. All other countries (including the ones labeled "single payer") tend to have a mixture of private and public health care (and those covered in the commonwealth fund reports) use a mixture of public and private funding. (Some, like Britain, have universal coverage but allow private insurance. Others, like Switzerland, use private insurance but subsidize those who can't afford it.) Before you try to decide what you think health care should look like you need to actually understand what you're talking about. And in general, Canada's health care system sucks. While its cheaper than the U.S. system, it also has problems with things like waiting lists, physician shortages, etc.

Before you start voting for heath care changes and pushing for "single payer", perhaps you need to figure out what you actually mean by that.... True "single payer/no private funding at all"? Universal coverage by the government but allowing doctors to work outside the system? This is why I think polls pointing to support for "single payer" are flawed... because people the reference is incredibly vague and doesn't have the details people need to make an informed decision.

Secondly... there are actually many reasons why health care is expensive in the U.S.. While you may point to insurance companies (with well-paid executives) as a cause, switching to a public system may not necessarily be much better, as the rank-and-file workers are often unionized. There are other reasons why U.S. health care is more expensive compared to other countries: excess capacity (which means you don't have long waiting lists), expensive liability court costs, habit of doctors to order more tests than other countries and adopt heroic measures (e.g. keeping premature babies alive) and the use of newer technology. Yes, a public system could control costs by reducing capacity, not using resources on patients with poor outcomes, etc.... but those may not necessarily be popular.

Lastly, and most importantly... it is all totally irrelevant. You can point to the need for single payer. You can put together iron-clad arguments about why its better than the ACA. You can shout it to the wind. But all that will likely be irrelevant because your average voter is not likely to care because even if you control total health care costs, money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron, not much better than the idiots who wear confederate flag T-shirts and chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies. People like that are almost as responsible for getting the current Racist in office as those who actually supported Trump from the beginning. Congrats.... thanks to people like that we got a leader who thinks neo-nazis are "fine people" and that adding billions to the debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is good economic policy.

You could have had a leader that would have kept Frank-Dodd in place. But no, because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint (Wah! I wanted the guy who was never a Democrat to win the party leadership!) we're likely going to lose those regulations. You could have had a candidate who would have kept the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement, but because some Sanders supporters got their nose out of joint you've got a president who thinks climate change is a hoax and coal ash should be dumped in the waterways.

And if the progressive wing continues to assume "its our way or the highway" the Democrats will continue to have problems.

Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate. Enough people in enough key areas were willing to vote for a racist tangerine than have her as President. That's on her. Even if the Bernie segment would have pushed her numbers over the edge, it's still entirely her fault that people were willing to throw their vote away rather than support her. No one wanted her as President, she was just the option presented. Even your own post speaks to that.

Now, Bernie might have won, or might also have lost. We'll probably never know. But arguing that he would have lost doesn't mean much because Clinton also lost. "Back our losing candidate!" isn't a good political slogan.

 

[surrogate]

I think some of the posters in this thread are seriously underestimating the effectiveness of the GOP smear machine with people who don't follow politics closely. It is one of the two things they are really good at, the other being lurching toward the center in the general election by promising unrealistic things that they have no plan for.

 

[theprestige]

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron

That's not true, though. Me, for example. I'm not a moron, I just disagree with your conclusions. The quoted statement is a clear example of a bigoted stereotype. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain from parading such opinions around in public like that.

 

[theprestige]

I think some of the posters in this thread are seriously underestimating the effectiveness of the GOP smear machine with people who don't follow politics closely.

I'm not sure it's possible to underestimate the effect of something on people who aren't paying attention to it.

I dunno, though. Maybe I'm seriously underestimating the effect of New York Fashion Week on people who don't give a toss about couture.

 

[Segnosaur]

Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate. Enough people in enough key areas were willing to vote for a racist tangerine than have her as President. That's on her.

Actually its not all on her...

After all, part of the reason she was seen as a "crappy candidate" was because of constant republican attacks (many/most of them false and manufactured)... I swear that Fox news anchors probably have orgasms when they hear the name Benghazi.

Sanders was never tested in the way that Clinton was.

Plus she was born without a penis. Which she probably isn't to blame for either.

About the only thing she might well and truly be blamed for is not campaigning in certain states that they thought were solidly democratic. But given the fact that polling numbers didn't really highlight the problems there until it was too late.

Even if the Bernie segment would have pushed her numbers over the edge, it's still entirely her fault that people were willing to throw their vote away rather than support her.

The U.S. is a democracy... as such, people do have a certain amount of power when it comes to elections. They can vote rationally to give power to a politician that gives the best options for the country moving forward, or they can act like spoiled brats. Guess what many BernieBros did?

Sorry, but I am not willing to absolve someone who decides to take a course of action that allows a neo-Nazi supporter to become president just because they think "Waaa!! I'm not getting my favorite candidate so I'm not going to support the person who gives MOST of what I want and will instead support the person who gives NOTHING that I want". BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected. They are almost as culpable as the bigots who supported Trump right from the start.

No one wanted her as President, she was just the option presented.

Well given the fact that she won the popular vote, I'd say there were plenty of people who DID want her as president.

Now, Bernie might have won, or might also have lost. We'll probably never know.

Even if we won't know for sure, evidence suggests he would have lost. Those suggesting he might have won tend to rely on some pretty powerful "he'll conjour up a rallying point" magic. (or as another poster pointed out, the "lost political tribe" would somehow show up and put Sanders over the top.)

But arguing that he would have lost doesn't mean much because Clinton also lost. "Back our losing candidate!" isn't a good political slogan.

What "slogan"? People made a foolish claim (Sanders would have won). That claim was challenged and evidence was provided. We aren't suggesting that the Democrats run Clinton again in 2020.

That's the nature of this forum... people make statements, others challenge them.

 

[surrogate]

I'm not sure it's possible to underestimate the effect of something on people who aren't paying attention to it.

I dunno, though. Maybe I'm seriously underestimating the effect of New York Fashion Week on people who don't give a toss about couture.

Do you really not comprehend the difference between someone who follows politics closely and someone tangentially exposed to political ads on TV and social media?

 

[Segnosaur]

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron

That's not true, though. Me, for example. I'm not a moron, I just disagree with your conclusions. The quoted statement is a clear example of a bigoted stereotype. I'm not sure what benefit you hope to gain from parading such opinions around in public like that.

Actually its quite true.

Trump was a bigot... it was obvious before the campaign (getting charged for not renting to minorities). It was obvious during the campaign (Mexicans are rapists). It is obvious after he took office (Neo-nazis are fine people).

People who voted for Trump either were bigots themselves, or were A-Ok with a president who was a bigot. As much as trump supporters try to use arguments like "but Emails! Benghazi!", those are merely fig-leafs... thin veneers used to hide support for a bigoted candidate.

In the last election, voters had a choice: give power to a bigot or don't give power to a bigot. Trump voters and BernieBros who didn't vote for Clinton made their choice: Power to the bigot.

You may not like the accusation, but its a harsh truth.

 

[kellyb]

Lastly, and most importantly... it is all totally irrelevant. You can point to the need for single payer. You can put together iron-clad arguments about why its better than the ACA. You can shout it to the wind. But all that will likely be irrelevant because your average voter is not likely to care because even if you control total health care costs, money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services.

If you want to debate the (irrelevant to you) merits and drawbacks of the systems generally referred to as "single payer", we can, but we should start a new thread for that.

Regarding: "money lost in taxes are usually viewed differ than money paid directly for services", sure. But after the costs of transitioning, we wouldn't necessarily have to pay more in taxes than we do. Like I keep mentioning, what we pay per capita for Medicare and Medicaid alone covers 100% of the population under NHS and Canadian-style "single payer".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Actually its not all on her...

After all, part of the reason she was seen as a "crappy candidate" was because of constant republican attacks (many/most of them false and manufactured)... I swear that Fox news anchors probably have orgasms when they hear the name Benghazi.

Sanders was never tested in the way that Clinton was.

Plus she was born without a penis. Which she probably isn't to blame for either.

About the only thing she might well and truly be blamed for is not campaigning in certain states that they thought were solidly democratic. But given the fact that polling numbers didn't really highlight the problems there until it was too late.

So was it the propaganda or the sexism that led her to make cringeworthily stupid jokes like "Trumped-up trickle down" in public appearances? I think she would have made a great president, but she was a terrible candidate. She had the charisma of a potato.

The U.S. is a democracy... as such, people do have a certain amount of power when it comes to elections. They can vote rationally to give power to a politician that gives the best options for the country moving forward, or they can act like spoiled brats. Guess what many BernieBros did?

Sorry, but I am not willing to absolve someone who decides to take a course of action that allows a neo-Nazi supporter to become president just because they think "Waaa!! I'm not getting my favorite candidate so I'm not going to support the person who gives MOST of what I want and will instead support the person who gives NOTHING that I want". BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected. They are almost as culpable as the bigots who supported Trump right from the start.

You're still doing it: blaming people for not voting for a candidate they didn't want instead of blaming the candidate for not being what they wanted. Clinton could have appealed more to progressives after the primaries. She didn't. She lost. Her fault.

Even if we won't know for sure, evidence suggests he would have lost. Those suggesting he might have won tend to rely on some pretty powerful "he'll conjour up a rallying point" magic. (or as another poster pointed out, the "lost political tribe" would somehow show up and put Sanders over the top.)

Well, one showed up to put Trump over the top. He was supposed to lose, remember? Even he thought so. Turns out having someone that people want to see in office is a pretty damned good idea, even if that person is a treasonous idiot.

That's the nature of this forum... people make statements, others challenge them.

... then people continue making the same statements for the next year and a half instead of stopping to consider that they might just have been wrong the whole time.

 

[quadraginta]

probably because for the most part, people think he's honest even if they don't agree with him, a rarity among politicians.

I lean more conservative than liberal but I would have voted for Bernie over Trump, I have a hard time believing that there are any liberal/left folks that would have voted Trump over bernie if given the choice. The worst that would have happened is they stay home, which lot did when it was Hillary vs Donald.

That's exactly what the die-hard Trump supporters say about Trump. Often even right after they have been shown incontrovertible proof that he has lied incessantly to them.

 

[theprestige]

Actually its not all on her...

Sure it is. Radical freedom and all that. Knowing that an effective partisan smear campaign had rendered her politically nonviable for high office, she still chose to put herself forward as the most viable candidate, and still chose to focus the resources of the party on supporting her candidacy.

If I put a wall across the racecourse, shame on me. If you see the wall from the starting line, and decide to start your engine and drive straight into it at speed... Shame on you.

 

[Belz...]

Plus she was born without a penis.

Not to derail the discussion, but I keep hearing about how being a woman was some sort of negative for her, but I've not seen much in terms of evidence for that claim. By that logic I'd think Obama would never have been elected, never mind twice.

BernieBros had an option: support a candidate that has the best chance of winning with policies that are rational and closest to what Sanders wanted, or take a course of action that sees a racist orangutan win. They chose poorly and in part because of them Trump got elected.

Bernie didn't do her any favour by delaying his graceful exit from the race and his endorsement of her.

 

[Belz...]

You're still doing it: blaming people for not voting for a candidate they didn't want instead of blaming the candidate for not being what they wanted.

Yeah what kind of an idiot blames people for their own choices?

 

[ahhell]

That's exactly what the die-hard Trump supporters say about Trump. Often even right after they have been shown incontrovertible proof that he has lied incessantly to them.

From what I've seen, its more about him being unfiltered than honest.