Go Bernie!

[malchior]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

That is the weird struggle here. The media and pundit class and the GOP smear machine have Americans completely twisted up. Poll the individual ideas and they do well for many of them. Bundle them together, call him a socialist, and you have this group of people talking about how he is going to crash the economy. Next year the day he gets into office. And many people buy into this sham. I love America but we are pretty stupid.

[Grifman]

I guess this is news to you, but the rhetoric of Sanders perfectly matches the rhetoric of social democratic movements in Europe at the time when these basic rights were instituted here.

I guess this is news to you, but this isn't Europe. Things play out differently here.

But keep trying. Maybe some of these disgusting comparisons to communist dictatorships will fool some voters.

It won't fool voters but it will provide reasons for voters that Bernie needs to win to reject him. Fooled or not, it will be his fault if his rhetoric turns them away.

[Grifman]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

From a political perspective in the US (which is what matters here, not your personal perspective), Bernie is "extreme left". The idea that he is a "centrist" doesn't conform to US political reality.

[noxiousdog]

Factually correct and politically tone-deaf again. I hope someone asks him tonight about the millions that died during the Cultural Revolution and the millions of Muslims in camps. It would be great if he could try some message discipline and focus on improving literacy, poverty rates, etc. without talking about authoritarian regimes.

I think he's just that far left. He's operating the communist playbook:
Step 1: down with the property owners!
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Utopia

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Talk about disingenuous. Sanders' platform is literally trying to copy elements of the welfare state model of successful European states (France, Germany, UK, Nordic countries).

I guess this is news to you, but the rhetoric of Sanders perfectly matches the rhetoric of social democratic movements in Europe at the time when these basic rights were instituted here.

But keep trying. Maybe some of these disgusting comparisons to communist dictatorships will fool some voters.

You are the only person here that thinks this. It's telling that nobody pushed back on my comment except you.

Sanders is a true believer. I'll give him that. He's not militant but it is his way or the highway. It's not about policy. Warren effectively has the same policy, but is willing to work with others. Sanders won't even identify with the party and then screams (literally) when he doesn't get his way.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Grifman]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

That is the weird struggle here. The media and pundit class and the GOP smear machine have Americans completely twisted up. Poll the individual ideas and they do well for many of them. Bundle them together, call him a socialist, and you have this group of people talking about how he is going to crash the economy. Next year the day he gets into office. And many people buy into this sham. I love America but we are pretty stupid.

This isn't entirely accurate. His ideas poll well as long as voters aren't given the full picture. If you start discussing exactly how some of those ideas work and the costs and how they will (or will not be paid for), those ideas become a lot less popular.

[malchior]

Sanders is a true believer. I'll give him that. He's not militant but it is his way or the highway. It's not about policy. Warren effectively has the same policy, but is willing to work with others. Sanders won't even identify with the party and then screams (literally) when he doesn't get his way.

This is pretty much my issue around Sanders. He is trying to co-opt a party because he hasn't been able to build relationships on his own. He has a cadre of bullies online and going on tv advocating "forcefully" and he doesn't talk out about it because it isn't in his personal interest. That's pretty Trump-y.

Do 70% of people want some form of universal healthcare. Yes. Pretty much true. That isn't an extreme position. However, we need to get there in stages if we are to get there at all. Essentially saying throw the switch and get there now all consequences be damned is straight unrealistic. That's the problem with the man. All his ideas sound great but can't be implemented as defined. And his answer is to quote Mandela. That is also why I say it is a sham to say he'll crash the economy. He won't be able to do much to do so within this system which Warren and Pete pointed out last night.

This isn't entirely accurate. His ideas poll well as long as voters aren't given the full picture. If you start discussing exactly how some of those ideas work and the costs and how they will (or will not be paid for), those ideas become a lot less popular.

That wasn't what I intended to argue. The ideas irrespective of whoever sells them whether Warren/Bernie are popular. His version is a problem (as discussed above). European standards poll well here *individually*. It is when they are bundled up and branded socialism that they fail.

The last part of the sentence is what gets twisted up by the pundits. For example, most discussion on healthcare paying for universal healthcare is a straight sham. Warren did the best job on this but that was never widely covered. Few honestly talks about the total cost of the system currently as is, compare it to other major systems, compare typical out of pocket costs now, and how the *total cost* to most people will be lower long-term. The issue is it's complicated and the GOP and special interests peck the complications to death to prevent discussion. John Oliver's segment on this was very good. And most of the business community here should be clamoring for it. Dealing with health care benefits is a huge time/money sink for most businesses.

[Grifman]

That wasn't what I intended to argue. The ideas irrespective of whoever sells them whether Warren/Bernie are popular. His version is a problem (as discussed above). European standards poll well here *individually*. It is when they are bundled up and branded socialism that they fail.[/quote]

Again, this isn't entirely true. You can take a group of people who look favorably upon Bernie's plans - health care is just one of them - and when given more details, the group as a whole looks a lot less favorably upon those proposals. It has nothing to do with labeling them "socialism". Yes, that works with some people, but that's what I'm talking about here.

[malchior]

Again, this isn't entirely true. You can take a group of people who look favorably upon Bernie's plans - health care is just one of them - and when given more details, the group as a whole looks a lot less favorably upon those proposals. It has nothing to do with labeling them "socialism". Yes, that works with some people, but that's what I'm talking about here.

We aren't talking about the same things. I am not arguing about the popularity or feasibility of Bernie's plans. I was saying that universal healthcare, free college, etc. poll favorably on their own. Many people and a huge portion of the sub-35 crowd want a standard of living comparable to Europe. (I'd also agree they don't really know what that means).

We already effectively pay taxes + health care costs that approach or exceed European tax levels minus the non-existent wealth tax here. So it isn't about the money really if explained properly. Still those ideas all get lumped into the socialism bucket and banished from public discussion. It is interesting because in particular, healthcare was finally turning a corner on people getting this because the system continues to slowly fail. Then the idealists added in banishing private healthcare from the get go which threw new poison in the well.

[Dogstar]

Talk about disingenuous. Sanders' platform is literally trying to copy elements of the welfare state model of successful European states (France, Germany, UK, Nordic countries).

I guess this is news to you, but the rhetoric of Sanders perfectly matches the rhetoric of social democratic movements in Europe at the time when these basic rights were instituted here.

But keep trying. Maybe some of these disgusting comparisons to communist dictatorships will fool some voters.

Here's the thing -- I'm not the one who talks about the literacy program of Cuba or the economic uplift of China out of the blue. It's Sanders. He could cite France, Germany, UK, the Nordic countries -- it's not tough to pivot on programs/issues that are important to you when other examples exist. The China economic uplift was unprompted by anyone. This is just where his mind goes.

From a political perspective in the US (which is what matters here, not your personal perspective), Bernie is "extreme left". The idea that he is a "centrist" doesn't conform to US political reality.

This.

This isn't entirely accurate. His ideas poll well as long as voters aren't given the full picture. If you start discussing exactly how some of those ideas work and the costs and how they will (or will not be paid for), those ideas become a lot less popular.

Mayor Pete hit on two points: 1) Americans may be progressive, but they would prefer less drama/upheaval. 2) It's tough for Sanders's ideas to get passed, let alone for the Democrats to hold on to the House and take the Senate, when Congressional candidates already feel like they have to run away from Sanders as the nominee of their party.

[LordMortis]

From a political perspective in the US (which is what matters here, not your personal perspective), Bernie is "extreme left". The idea that he is a "centrist" doesn't conform to US political reality.

This.

This. The fact that he is in the hunt in the US is an illustration of the US moving left in our lifetime but he is most definitely not centrist. As much as PoTUS wants to build Greco-Roman monuments to our inheritance as the champion of Western Civilization, we're still the US, not the EU. It's funny to me that I have always seen Warren as "progressive" (as much as Sanders, in many cases too progressive for my getting old ass, I guess) and the left sees her as centrist while the right sees her as SOCIALIST!!!.

I think John Oliver's Lastweektonight on healthcare was a pretty good show of the political reality of the US. Both in how far left we've moved and how far left we haven't

[LawBeefaroni]

Where are the campaign advisors to rein him in? Is it really such an echo chamber that they all think this is a winning strategy?

Obama said the same thing about Cuba. He won. Maybe voters aren't that impressed by the DICTATORS! argument.

Sanders isn't Obama, obviously. But more to the point, Obama's sweeping chage was healthcare reform based on Romney freaking Care.

He didn't want to go full Nordic. An off-hand comment a out Castro in one context is different than an off-hand comment about Castro in another.



FWIW, if we could flip a switch and be on the Nordic social welfare system tomorrow, I'd take it. The problem is there is no magic switch and the road to get there is going to be paved with low and middle class casualties as the elite extract as much wealth and power as they can while they can. Bernie isn't the guy to mitigate the damage.

[LordMortis]

FWIW, if we could flip a switch and be on the Nordic social welfare system tomorrow, I'd take it. The problem is there is no magic switch and the road to get there is going to be paved with low and middle class casualties as the elite extract as much wealth and power as they can while they can. Bernie isn't the guy to mitigate the damage.

All of this. Also ironically, I think the bureaucracy of our size and space and the position we have seized as world peace keeper will make our ability to have such a neat and tidy social welfare system a bit less practical. Still if we could get a less practical version tomorrow wrapped with a bow, I'd take it. Heck, I'm fighting the good fight to find us candidates to put on the track for Canada's social welfare system in my lifetime. I believe... no I think that's a realistic goal, as much as one can reason this together without an advance econ degree while not sitting in Congress.

[Dogstar]

So much unity.

[LordMortis]

"It's a hard no," Weaver told NBC News after Tuesday night's debate. "Bernie

... believes he is the solution and doesn't want Bloomburg's filthy lucre. This is about the cult of his [Sanders'] personality. He will not be beholden to special interest groups like Bloomberg or democrats or the American people.

Honestly, as much as I don't want to unseat a "billionaire" with an actual billionaire, I don't have a feeling that Bloomberg's heart is in the wrong place and, like him, I'll support anyone who takes the seat of challenging the current presidency, even Michael Bloomberg.

[Holman]

Sobering quantitative news on Bernie's electability.

40,000-person survey suggests that Sanders would shift large numbers of swing voters towards Trump. His path to victory would require a 30% increase in the youth vote vs 2016 (something that's very very unlikely).

Not 30%, 11% compared to 2016 (when Hillary ran). From 43,4% to 54,4%, according to the very link you posted, and only 6% from the Obama election in 2008 (which was at 48,4%). I don't think it's at all unlikely.

The desperation from corporate media is palpable. They're throwing everything they've got to see what sticks. The recent red-baiting is particularly entertaining (CASTRO!!!).

Going from 43.4 to 54.4 is about a 30% increase in the number of voters. You compare the turnouts to each other, not to the whole population.

In other words, Bernie has to turn 30% more non-voting young people into voting young people. That's a tall order.

[Kurth]

So much unity.

Fuck Bernie Sanders. If he's the nominee, he's not going to accept help from a significant financial backer of the Democratic party? It's not like Bloomberg is a pharma company or Exxon/Mobile or big tobacco.

This encapsulates so much of what I hate about Sanders. It's idealogical purity above all else. Would Bloomberg's billions help level the playing field and unseat Trump? Of course they would. Does Bernie care? Nope. His way or the highway. And the Bernie Bros and left wing backers will cheer this as some sort of moral stand. I hope their moral stand gives them a ton of solace while the country endures four more years of MAGA.

Actually, no. I hope they choke on it.

[El Guapo]

So much unity.

Fuck Bernie Sanders. If he's the nominee, he's not going to accept help from a significant financial backer of the Democratic party? It's not like Bloomberg is a pharma company or Exxon/Mobile or big tobacco.

This encapsulates so much of what I hate about Sanders. It's idealogical purity above all else. Would Bloomberg's billions help level the playing field and unseat Trump? Of course they would. Does Bernie care? Nope. His way or the highway. And the Bernie Bros and left wing backers will cheer this as some sort of moral stand. I hope their moral stand gives them a ton of solace while the country endures four more years of MAGA.

Actually, no. I hope they choke on it.

I agree. It's unfathomable to me why anyone would pick Sanders over Warren, in particular. With Warren you get 99% of the same policy preferences, but you get someone who does the homework and deigns to actually care about politics. And who is 8ish years younger, to boot.

Anyway, the upside is that Sanders is making this stuff clear while Democratic voters still have time to deny him the nomination.

[malchior]

I agree. It's unfathomable to me why anyone would pick Sanders over Warren, in particular. With Warren you get 99% of the same policy preferences, but you get someone who does the homework and deigns to actually care about politics. And who is 8ish years younger, to boot.

People and especially younger people are very unhappy and want change now. This is similar to how Trump took over the GOP in that sense. It is a symptom of our political issues coming to a head.

Anyway, the upside is that Sanders is making this stuff clear while Democratic voters still have time to deny him the nomination.

Indeed. We will know a whole lot more in about a week.

[Kurth]

I agree. It's unfathomable to me why anyone would pick Sanders over Warren, in particular. With Warren you get 99% of the same policy preferences, but you get someone who does the homework and deigns to actually care about politics. And who is 8ish years younger, to boot.

Anyway, the upside is that Sanders is making this stuff clear while Democratic voters still have time to deny him the nomination.

Except, in the media, they're making it out to look like he's already freaking won. Or that we are destined for a contested convention where the Democratic establishment will crush the Bernie's populist movement and steal the nomination.

I feel like large segments of the media are hoping and praying for a contested convention. It's like, that's all they want, and their reporting on it is almost transparent.

Also, I thought this was one of Buttigeig's best lines from the debate:

BUTTIGIEG: ... American credibility, the only way you can do this is to actually win the presidency. And I am not looking forward to a scenario where it comes down to Donald Trump, with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950s, and Bernie Sanders with a nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960s.

[LordMortis]

It's unfathomable to me why anyone would pick Sanders over Warren, in particular. With Warren you get 99% of the same policy preferences, but you get someone who does the homework and deigns to actually care about politics. And who is 8ish years younger, to boot.

Anyway, the upside is that Sanders is making this stuff clear while Democratic voters still have time to deny him the nomination.

This. Though, as a former Sanders supporter, I spoke to others who where I was in 2015 and some seem to be under the impression that Warren is "establishment". I had a hard time not . Sanders seemed like the best in a bad field in 2015 (I may have been wrong there. I'm still ambivalent but his unchecked ego and unchecked facts since 2016 are moving me away from the ambivalence). In 2020 he's not even the best in his niche.

My take away is Sanders cares about Sanders being president. Warren cares about the presidency moving the nation to here progressive vision. I both like her heart and her wonkiness better. I don't know that she's going to be the best leader for our nation, especially at plot point on the timeline but the only checkbox she doesn't check that Sanders does is "Gets people fired up." The thing is, I'm sure that check box is all that good, especially with way Sanders weaponizes it. If I don't like that weaponization is Trumpland, why would I like it Sanderstopia?

[LawBeefaroni]

So much unity.

Fuck Bernie Sanders. If he's the nominee, he's not going to accept help from a significant financial backer of the Democratic party? It's not like Bloomberg is a pharma company or Exxon/Mobile or big tobacco.

This encapsulates so much of what I hate about Sanders. It's idealogical purity above all else. Would Bloomberg's billions help level the playing field and unseat Trump? Of course they would. Does Bernie care? Nope. His way or the highway. And the Bernie Bros and left wing backers will cheer this as some sort of moral stand. I hope their moral stand gives them a ton of solace while the country endures four more years of MAGA.

Actually, no. I hope they choke on it.

I agree. It's unfathomable to me why anyone would pick Sanders over Warren, in particular. With Warren you get 99% of the same policy preferences, but you get someone who does the homework and deigns to actually care about politics. And who is 8ish years younger, to boot.

Anyway, the upside is that Sanders is making this stuff clear while Democratic voters still have time to deny him the nomination.

Democratic voters are still American voters. They'll vote with their "gut" based on however the wind is blowing.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Except, in the media, they're making it out to look like he's already freaking won.

Unless something dramatically changes and a bunch of people drop out, he pretty much has. Sanders is like Trump in that he has his base that will vote for him no matter what. And so as long as other candidates are splitting up the vote between them, Sanders will likely have an insurmountable lead after Super Tuesday. That could change, but it would require at least two or three of the more moderate candidates to drop out and drop out soon.

[gbasden]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

Truth. Bernie was completely right last night when he kept pointing out that all of his positions are perfectly mainstream in every other 1st world country. I would still much rather see Warren get the nod, but Bernie is only seen as radical because we are such a crazy far right country.

[El Guapo]

Except, in the media, they're making it out to look like he's already freaking won.

Unless something dramatically changes and a bunch of people drop out, he pretty much has. Sanders is like Trump in that he has his base that will vote for him no matter what. And so as long as other candidates are splitting up the vote between them, Sanders will likely have an insurmountable lead after Super Tuesday. That could change, but it would require at least two or three of the more moderate candidates to drop out and drop out soon.

A lot depends on the next week. Most likely non-Sanders scenario is that Biden wins in SC (more likely than not at this point), followed by the media writing a lot of "Biden comeback" stories, then at least one other candidate drops out (most likely Steyer), and Bloomberg and/or Klobuchar deflate to Biden's gain. Then Biden and Sanders mostly draw on Super Tuesday, and the race comes down to Biden vs. Sanders. That's then winnable for Biden, as long as Sanders didn't already gain too much of a delegate lead.

I do wonder whether in a scenario where you have Sanders and Biden roughly tied at (say) 40% each on delegates, and Warren at 15%ish, whether the camps could agree on Warren as a compromise.

[Grifman]

We aren't talking about the same things.[/quote]

Ok

I am not arguing about the popularity or feasibility of Bernie's plans.

Ok, again.

I was saying that universal healthcare, free college, etc. poll favorably on their own.

Uh, how is "popularity" different from "poll favorably on their own"? I must be missing something here

[Grifman]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

Truth. Bernie was completely right last night when he kept pointing out that all of his positions are perfectly mainstream in every other 1st world country. I would still much rather see Warren get the nod, but Bernie is only seen as radical because we are such a crazy far right country.

Well, you have to run for President in the country you live in, not the country you wished you live in.

[Smoove_B]

A lot depends on the next week. Most likely non-Sanders scenario is that Biden wins in SC (more likely than not at this point), followed by the media writing a lot of "Biden comeback" stories, then at least one other candidate drops out (most likely Steyer), and Bloomberg and/or Klobuchar deflate to Biden's gain.

Looking more likely, now that Clyburn has officially endorsed Biden's run for Senate.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

A lot depends on the next week. Most likely non-Sanders scenario is that Biden wins in SC (more likely than not at this point), followed by the media writing a lot of "Biden comeback" stories, then at least one other candidate drops out (most likely Steyer), and Bloomberg and/or Klobuchar deflate to Biden's gain. Then Biden and Sanders mostly draw on Super Tuesday, and the race comes down to Biden vs. Sanders. That's then winnable for Biden, as long as Sanders didn't already gain too much of a delegate lead.

Certainly Biden can get a bump from SC, but he'll need more than just a bump to be competitive in, say, CA. I honestly can't see a path for Biden unless multiple people drop out. Klobuchar seems the most likely to drop after SC, assuming she does as polling suggests she will, but I can't see Bloomberg dropping out before Super Tuesday when he still has 59.5 billion dollars available to spend. If Pete doesn't make at least some significant gains with African-Americans in SC, he may also drop out but probably not before Tuesday. Plus, early voting has been going on for days/weeks in most of the Super Tuesday states. Even a win in SC might be too late for Biden.

[El Guapo]

A lot depends on the next week. Most likely non-Sanders scenario is that Biden wins in SC (more likely than not at this point), followed by the media writing a lot of "Biden comeback" stories, then at least one other candidate drops out (most likely Steyer), and Bloomberg and/or Klobuchar deflate to Biden's gain.

Looking more likely, now that Clyburn has officially endorsed Biden's run for Senate.

That's awkward, seeing as how he's running for President.

[Defiant]

[El Guapo]

A lot depends on the next week. Most likely non-Sanders scenario is that Biden wins in SC (more likely than not at this point), followed by the media writing a lot of "Biden comeback" stories, then at least one other candidate drops out (most likely Steyer), and Bloomberg and/or Klobuchar deflate to Biden's gain. Then Biden and Sanders mostly draw on Super Tuesday, and the race comes down to Biden vs. Sanders. That's then winnable for Biden, as long as Sanders didn't already gain too much of a delegate lead.

Certainly Biden can get a bump from SC, but he'll need more than just a bump to be competitive in, say, CA. I honestly can't see a path for Biden unless multiple people drop out. Klobuchar seems the most likely to drop after SC, assuming she does as polling suggests she will, but I can't see Bloomberg dropping out before Super Tuesday when he still has 59.5 billion dollars available to spend. If Pete doesn't make at least some significant gains with African-Americans in SC, he may also drop out but probably not before Tuesday. Plus, early voting has been going on for days/weeks in most of the Super Tuesday states. Even a win in SC might be too late for Biden.

Biden's path probably depends (in addition to winning SC) on making some gains before Super Tuesday based on momentum / media narratives / some people freaking out about Sanders electability. The upside is he doesn't really need to *win* Super Tuesday so much as he needs to stay close in delegates.

Sanders is definitely the most likely nominee. It's just a matter of whether this is all locked up after Super Tuesday, or whether Biden can make this competitive.

Hard to see how it's anyone other than Sanders or Biden at this point, though, unless something weird happens OR we have a brokered convention without one candidate having a clear delegate lead going into it.

[Dogstar]

I have to wonder how long it'll take for the Party elders to come to Buttigieg and Klobuchar to ask them to bow out to coalesce support around Biden. At some point, they have to realize that their supporters and platforms are not well-served if no moderate is a viable candidate. Plus, the elders could make a promise that their service/sacrifice would be remembered; that's not likely to happen in a Sanders-led party. Then again, I may have watched too much West Wing.

As for Bloomberg, if he ostensibly got into it to head off a Sanders nomination, what's his argument to stay in if Biden is the guy?

[El Guapo]

I have to wonder how long it'll take for the Party elders to come to Buttigieg and Klobuchar to ask them to bow out to coalesce support around Biden. At some point, they have to realize that their supporters and platforms are not well-served if no moderate is a viable candidate. Plus, the elders could make a promise that their service/sacrifice would be remembered; that's not likely to happen in a Sanders-led party. Then again, I may have watched too much West Wing.

As for Bloomberg, if he ostensibly got into it to head off a Sanders nomination, what's his argument to stay in if Biden is the guy?

Also at this point it's pretty clear that Bloomberg is helping Sanders, not hurting him.



IF he really wants to stop Sanders, in other words, the best thing he could do would be to drop out before Super Tuesday. BUT I really doubt that he'd be willing to do that.

[Smoove_B]

That's awkward, seeing as how he's running for President.

Tell him!



If not vote for the other Biden!

[noxiousdog]

Bernie is a centrist from my perspective. If you think he's extreme left, you haven't met many extreme lefties.

Truth. Bernie was completely right last night when he kept pointing out that all of his positions are perfectly mainstream in every other 1st world country. I would still much rather see Warren get the nod, but Bernie is only seen as radical because we are such a crazy far right country.

Which countries outlaw private insurance?
Which ones have banned fracking?
Who is cancelling 1.6 trillion of citizens debt?
Which countries doesn't deport anyone?
In which countries is government rent controlled?
Which countries want to spend 2.5 trillion on public housing?
Which countries provide universal 10 hours of child care per day?
Which countries use no outsourcing of jobs?



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Fireball]

Except, in the media, they're making it out to look like he's already freaking won.

Unless something dramatically changes and a bunch of people drop out, he pretty much has. Sanders is like Trump in that he has his base that will vote for him no matter what. And so as long as other candidates are splitting up the vote between them, Sanders will likely have an insurmountable lead after Super Tuesday. That could change, but it would require at least two or three of the more moderate candidates to drop out and drop out soon.

The magic number to watch for next weekend is 150. If Sanders has a lead of more than 150 delegates after Super Tuesday, it'll likely be impossible stop him from getting a plurality of pledged delegates. Obama pulled himself up to a lead of 148 delegates at the end of February in 2008, and despite Clinton wining most of the primaries from that point on his lead held — he ended up with 61 more delegates than her. In 2016, Super Tuesday gave Hillary a 191 delegate lead, and her path to the nomination was never in danger after that.

It's very conceivable Sanders will get to a 150 delegate lead in six days, given that he is leading in California and neck and neck in Texas and Virginia.

[malchior]

Uh, how is "popularity" different from "poll favorably on their own"? I must be missing something here

Its not different. You are totally missing it. I dont know how to be clearer here.

[Grifman]

Uh, how is "popularity" different from "poll favorably on their own"? I must be missing something here

Its not different. You are totally missing it. I dont know how to be clearer here.

Yet you said they were different. You said you weren't talking about "popularity" but "polling favorably" meaning they are different. Now you are saying they are the same thing. You can't say they are different but then say they are the same

[malchior]

Uh, how is "popularity" different from "poll favorably on their own"? I must be missing something here

Its not different. You are totally missing it. I dont know how to be clearer here.

Yet you said they were different. You said you weren't talking about "popularity" but "polling favorably" meaning they are different. Now you are saying they are the same thing. You can't say they are different but then say they are the same

Please tell me where I said they were different. At this point I can't tell if you are trolling or not. You are 100% missing the entirety of the argument yet trying to tell me I am being inconsistent. I'm not. You are simply missing the entire thread of the argument I was making. I re-read it and I can't fathom where you are hung up.

I'll try to restate the point and see if that works. Many of the social policies that Europe has had for decades poll very well here. So along comes a politician who attempts to serve these constituents by proposing some policy to address it. What inevitably happens is that special interests/right-wingers deconstruct them and then peck them to death before they can crystallize into an actual workable policy proposal. It should be 100% possible to develop a policy because dozens of countries have already implemented them. It isn't like we are re-inventing the wheel.

At some point after they've been whittled down they are just branded as socialism and binned. It works because socialism has been re-defined/demonized even though some of our most popular government programs are classic market liberal democratic socialism programs. Medicare/SS to be the biggest examples. Classic 'socialist' programs and you can't touch them because they are pretty much sacred.

On the other hand, Bernie has taken some of the big ideas and proposed unworkable versions of them. For example, Medicare for All that outlaws private healthcare from the outset. The public housing proposals that are pretty much non-starters. His college tuition free program is very different from the European version. To be clear, these aren't the same things as the 'European policies' that poll well absent Bernie. That they are born from the same font doesn't make Bernie's proposals the same ideas. He is mainly co-opting them and has made them impossible to support.

My overall point is that people often say the United States is center-right and against socialism. However, that isn't quite accurate. Polls indicate they want European style services such as universal healthcare, low-tuition college, and higher taxes on the weathiest. That defacto means we aren't center-right. Our political system just has many levers that prevent change and imposes a center-right framework on the majority. That imbalance between what people want and what the system delivers is a big part of why the nation is under so much stress.

[El Guapo]

Uh, how is "popularity" different from "poll favorably on their own"? I must be missing something here

Its not different. You are totally missing it. I dont know how to be clearer here.

Yet you said they were different. You said you weren't talking about "popularity" but "polling favorably" meaning they are different. Now you are saying they are the same thing. You can't say they are different but then say they are the same

Please tell me where I said they were different. At this point I can't tell if you are trolling or not. You are 100% missing the entirety of the argument yet trying to tell me I am being inconsistent. I'm not. You are simply missing the entire thread of the argument I was making. I re-read it and I can't fathom where you are hung up.

Well, it's because you said that you weren't talking about how popular the plans are, you were just talking about how they poll favorably. If you're talking about how favorably they poll, you are talking about (one measurement of) how popular they are.

Just to cut through this, I take your point to have been that if you take a bunch of popular plans (universal healthcare, greater safety net, etc.) and brand them collectively as "socliasm", they poll worse. Grifman was disputing part of your premise, that the plans being thrown together are 'popular'. Because the polling depends in significant part on what you ask about and the details of the plans. Which at least complicates the story of "these are all popular ideas, it's just the branding of them that's the problem."