Go Bernie!

[malchior]

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."

And my point all along is that we rarely get to a place where we ever see a realistic proposal because they get thrown off the cliff at birth like in 300 because they look all 'socialist' like instead of like a strong 'capitalist'. Yet 70% want universal healthcare. However, a healthy chunk of that 70% (about a third) want to have the option to keep private healthcare. Unfortunately in this case Bernie was able to float some cockamamie proposal that talks about banning private healthcare. The right has latched onto it to attempt to sink all discussions of universal healthcare. So what I don't understand is how that undermines the popularity of universal healthcare as a concept. The problem is the politician. Not the idea. That is what I was getting at.

[El Guapo]

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."

And my point all along is that we rarely get to a place where we ever see a realistic proposal because they get thrown off the cliff at birth like in 300 because they look all 'socialist' like instead of like a strong 'capitalist'. Yet 70% want universal healthcare. However, a healthy chunk of that 70% (about a third) want to have the option to keep private healthcare. Unfortunately in this case Bernie was able to float some cockamamie proposal that talks about banning private healthcare. The right has latched onto it to attempt to sink all discussions of universal healthcare. So what I don't understand is how that undermines the popularity of universal healthcare as a concept. The problem is the politician. Not the idea. That is what I was getting at.

Well, I think the issue is in part about how meaningful is the notion that universal healthcare has 70% support if any given universal healthcare plan is not going to come near that number. It's sort of like saying "reducing poverty is popular". Sure, of course it is, but that doesn't mean much.

To the extent that you're point is that Bernie is a flawed politician, I suppose I wouldn't dispute that.

[malchior]

Well, I think the issue is in part about how meaningful is the notion that universal healthcare has 70% support if any given universal healthcare plan is not going to come near that number. It's sort of like saying "reducing poverty is popular". Sure, of course it is, but that doesn't mean much.

I disagree. This is not the proper causality here. The problem is our broken political system doesn't allow big policy changes to be born. Here's a thought experiment around this.

Let's start with the current requirements for universal healthcare at the highest-level that covers that 70%. A universal healthcare system that provides the option to keep private healthcare. We can go green field or use Medicare as a base since the billing system is established. The way Medicare operates is well-known. Another option are Medicaid block grants. Whatever, the case we aren't starting from zero. Warren and Bernie started from this point.

Imagine we approached designing policy rationally, we could have blue ribbon committees or Congress work and research policy regimes across dozens of advanced democracy. We can even look at how the extremely large countries such as India and China who are poorer deal with this problem. There is a wealth of knowledge here.

Unfortunately, that isn't the process. Instead, what we do now for big problems is we generally rely on a Presidential candidate to run on a relatively specific proposal. It isn't going to be crafted with all the resources of the government. The campaigns typically will have to rely on ideological think tanks or paid experts. They can't get broad exposure and negotiate with the wide stakeholder base because those folks are their political opponents. It is going to be flawed for these reasons.

Anyway, aside from that foreshadowing back to the process as is. The candidates have to hope they win big and then usually they can get their policy implemented. That was the general shape of things in the modern era.

So let's reset to the past decade and look how this general process has panned out. Obama won a crushing victory on the back of a downturn and his signature policy was going to be the ACA. We probably all remember the drama getting it even through Congress. The ACA which was essentially a market reform and a penalty regime intended to drive people into insurance coverage was decried as *SOCIALISM*! Then it was subjected to constant attack for a decade. This goes for any big change IMO. Trump has suffered this problem trying to push through his immigration policy changes. The proposals were naturally flawed and could not be implemented *inside the current* system. It didn't help that he barely won and they are generally unpopular policies. Still the system is pretty much locked up and only changing by executive order at this point. A natural steer towards autocracy to break the deadlock is a bit of a natural consequence of this.

And I'd argue because of that increasing imbalance and failure of the healthcare system support for universal healthcare has only increased. The implementation isn't the issue. The desire for it is the important factor. We could almost certainly get it done if our governance process wasn't non-functional. Presuming that they aren't popular because we are evaluating bad policy proposals is inherently flawed as a preposition.

[malchior]

Well, I think the issue is in part about how meaningful is the notion that universal healthcare has 70% support if any given universal healthcare plan is not going to come near that number. It's sort of like saying "reducing poverty is popular". Sure, of course it is, but that doesn't mean much.

I disagree. This is not the proper causality here. The problem is our broken political system doesn't allow big policy changes to be born. Here's a thought experiment around this.

Let's start with the current requirements for universal healthcare at the highest-level that covers that 70%. A universal healthcare system that provides the option to keep private healthcare. We can go green field or use Medicare as a base since the billing system is established. The way Medicare operates is well-known. Another option are Medicaid block grants. Whatever, the case is we aren't starting from zero. Warren and Bernie started from this point.

Imagine we approached designing policy rationally; we could have blue ribbon committees or Congress work and research policy regimes across dozens of advanced democracy. We can even look at how the extremely large countries such as India and China who are poorer deal with this problem. There is a wealth of knowledge here.

Unfortunately, that isn't the process. Instead, what we do now for big problems is we generally rely on a Presidential candidate to run on a relatively specific proposal. It isn't going to be crafted with all the resources of the government. The campaigns typically will have to rely on ideological think tanks or paid experts. They can't get broad exposure and negotiate with the wide stakeholder base because those folks are their political opponents. It is going to be flawed for these reasons.

Anyway, aside from that foreshadowing back to the process as is. The candidates have to hope they win big and then usually they can get their policy implemented. That was the general shape of things in the modern era.

So let's reset to the past decade and look how this general process has panned out. Obama won a crushing victory on the back of a downturn in 2008. His signature policy was going to be the ACA. We probably all remember the drama getting it even through Congress. The ACA which was essentially a market reform and a penalty regime intended to drive people into insurance coverage was decried as *SOCIALISM*! Then it was subjected to constant attack for a decade. The right-wing undermined any progress; even incremental progress.

Similarly, Trump has suffered this problem trying to push through his immigration policy changes. The proposals were naturally flawed and could not be implemented *inside the current* system. It didn't help that he barely won and they are generally unpopular policies. Still the system is pretty much locked up and only changing by executive order at this point. A natural steer towards autocracy to break the deadlock is likely partially a natural consequence of this.

And I'd argue because of that increasing imbalance plus the continuing failure of the healthcare system, support for universal healthcare has only increased. We could almost certainly get it done if our governance process wasn't non-functional. That all said, presuming that they aren't popular because we are evaluating bad policy proposals or factoring in division without negotiation is inherently flawed as a proposition.

[naednek]

The problem with Bernie is he has no plan on how he's going to give free healthcare, or free college or the other "free" ideas he's been pushing over the years. People ask, and he replies with I don't know. Apparently his website has some form of a plan, but when he is asked directly, he has a hard time communicating it. I personally think if Bernie is nominated, Trump just won his reelection.

I think he's a bit out there. In order to win, Democrats need to find someone who can appease the middle. Yelling his pipe dreams of free medicare for all is a nice idea.... BUT HOW?

[gbasden]

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

For sure. I still think he's too left to win here. It just drives me nuts to see him branded as a complete left wing freak when he's in the mainstream of every other first world country. It's just definitional, I know, but it's irritating.

[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.

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

For one, he's pushing the Overton window just as he successfully did during 2016.

But to answer, from a quick search:

No or extremely little private insurance - Iceland, Norway, Finland. Most Western European countries have extremely small groups covered by private insurance - Sweden is about 6.5%. It's clear that what Sanders is trying to do is move to a single payer system rather than the Obama/Buttegieg model of trying to expand access while keeping private insurance.

Banned Fracking - France, Bulgaria, Germany, Scotland. Complete Moratoria - UK, Romania, Denmark, Ireland, South Africa and the Czech Republic.

Cancelled Debt - I'm assuming you are referring to student loans. I couldn't find a direct answer to the question with a quick search, but I did find a few tidbits. The UK doesn't require repayment of student loan debt until the borrower's income exceeds $25,977 a year and all loans are forgiven after 25 years. The UK estimates that about 25% of total student loan debt will be forgiven. Germany has a total expected cost for an undergraduate degree of $2,160 due to free tuition, leading to extremely low debt that does not need to be forgiven. Iceland, Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, Brazil, Slovenia and the Czech Republic also offer free college tuition.

Deportation - This was a new one for me, but I do believe this is one area that is not mirrored anywhere else. Of course, he also walked it back but that just highlights how stupid it is.

Rent Control - Canada and Germany currently have country wide rent regulation. There are a number of rent control ordinances in various global cities such as San Francisco, New York and London.

Childcare - As best I found I don't see any other countries that have completely free child care. Most Western European countries pay for a great deal of childcare, though, with Korea, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden, Estonia, Iceland, Poland and Spain below 7% of an average family net income.

I can't find any details on public housing spending, but I will pretty much agree that the odds are poor that any other countries are spending that per capita. Same with outsourcing - I would assume there are some countries that are the targets of outsourcing far more than they themselves outsource, but I don't know of any that do.

So, you did get me on a few issues I didn't know about. The outsourcing and deportation prohibitions are stupid. I do think that we need to invest heavily in public housing along with much of the other infrastructure we have let decay. We should be changing the model, though, and emulate what works in countries like Singapore instead of segregating the poor into effective ghettos. The rest, though, are all fairly common.

[El Guapo]

Well, I think the issue is in part about how meaningful is the notion that universal healthcare has 70% support if any given universal healthcare plan is not going to come near that number. It's sort of like saying "reducing poverty is popular". Sure, of course it is, but that doesn't mean much.

I disagree. This is not the proper causality here. The problem is our broken political system doesn't allow big policy changes to be born. Here's a thought experiment around this.

I agree that our system is broken, but you're jumping around a lot here topic wise - this isn't really anything particular to healthcare; rather, now we're talking about the problems of being stuck with the first major modern democratic system, designed in the late 18th century with little practical experience. With the main problems being that it's extremely difficult to pass any major new legislation, because you effectively have three failure points (House, Senate, and presidency), plus sort of the courts, and those three have different electorates in effect. AND more than that, the Senate is wildly undemocratic, which means you can block any legislation with a small minority of the population (something like 25%ish of the electorate is enough block legislation in the Senate). Where it does tie to healthcare is that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural areas, which at the moment trend conservative / reactionary.

Where this does tie to healthcare is that if we had a more representative system we would have policy that's more reflective of majority will, which would at least mean *more* universal healthcare (if not completely universal), more gun control, etc.

[noxiousdog]

@gbasden, so what you're saying is, Sanders is not widespread common European style socialism.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[malchior]

I agree that our system is broken, but you're jumping around a lot here topic wise - this isn't really anything particular to healthcare; rather, now we're talking about the problems of being stuck with the first major modern democratic system, designed in the late 18th century with little practical experience. With the main problems being that it's extremely difficult to pass any major new legislation, because you effectively have three failure points (House, Senate, and presidency), plus sort of the courts, and those three have different electorates in effect. AND more than that, the Senate is wildly undemocratic, which means you can block any legislation with a small minority of the population (something like 25%ish of the electorate is enough block legislation in the Senate). Where it does tie to healthcare is that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural areas, which at the moment trend conservative / reactionary.

All this is what drives what I was talking about. Healthcare was just the use case. I am trying to hammer home that popularity of a policy *idea* or the overall political lean of the nation cant be measured by the policy outcomes we see.

The outcomes are almost predestined in this system. You can not get anything done unless it has the support of certain special interests. However, the original argument was that when people get a look at the details of the proposals the popularity falls. My argument is of course they do. They are always bad. They cant be realistic because they usually need to survive a party putting it in their national platform. There is no reason that a non-broken system couldn't work these issues out. Especially since so many working examples exist. That is what I'm trying to convey.

Where this does tie to healthcare is that if we had a more representative system we would have policy that's more reflective of majority will, which would at least mean *more* universal healthcare (if not completely universal), more gun control, etc.

Exactly. This is why I always push back on the definition of the US are a center-right nation. It isnt true. The system produces center-right outcomes. And they generally dont reflect anything approaching the will of a majority across many policy use cases.

[Dogstar]

I'm not sure this one instance is going to do it, but it's not a great look with Bernie helping direct nuclear waste into a poor community that's primarily Hispanic.

https://thebulwark.com/sierra-blanca-is ... es-bernie/

[El Guapo]

I agree that our system is broken, but you're jumping around a lot here topic wise - this isn't really anything particular to healthcare; rather, now we're talking about the problems of being stuck with the first major modern democratic system, designed in the late 18th century with little practical experience. With the main problems being that it's extremely difficult to pass any major new legislation, because you effectively have three failure points (House, Senate, and presidency), plus sort of the courts, and those three have different electorates in effect. AND more than that, the Senate is wildly undemocratic, which means you can block any legislation with a small minority of the population (something like 25%ish of the electorate is enough block legislation in the Senate). Where it does tie to healthcare is that the Senate gives disproportionate power to rural areas, which at the moment trend conservative / reactionary.

All this is what drives what I was talking about. Healthcare was just the use case. I am trying to hammer home that popularity of a policy *idea* or the overall political lean of the nation cant be measured by the policy outcomes we see.

The outcomes are almost predestined in this system. You can not get anything done unless it has the support of certain special interests. However, the original argument was that when people get a look at the details of the proposals the popularity falls. My argument is of course they do. They are always bad. They cant be realistic because they usually need to survive a party putting it in their national platform. There is no reason that a non-broken system couldn't work these issues out. Especially since so many working examples exist. That is what I'm trying to convey.

Where this does tie to healthcare is that if we had a more representative system we would have policy that's more reflective of majority will, which would at least mean *more* universal healthcare (if not completely universal), more gun control, etc.

Exactly. This is why I always push back on the definition of the US are a center-right nation. It isnt true. The system produces center-right outcomes. And they generally dont reflect anything approaching the will of a majority across many policy use cases.

I do kind of wish that people would put less emphasis on the issue of "millionaires and billionaires" and "special interests" in our political system (though that is a problem) and more emphasis on the structure of our government (and the Senate in particular), as the latter is much more of an obstacle to necessary reforms than the former.

[malchior]

Honestly IMO they are hand in hand. The structural issues are the vulnerability that the special interests exploit to wield power. When we have narrow elections then their support is only that much more important. Sort of how Manchin might become one of the most powerful Senators if a couple of seats change hands. You can focus your spend on the person who has the most influence.

[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

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."

Thank you Guapo, this is exactly what I was saying. Obviously you got what I was talking about

[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.

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."

Thank you Guapo, this is exactly what I was saying. Obviously you got what I was talking about

Which is why I clarified because it still wasnt the point I'm making.

[gbasden]

@gbasden, so what you're saying is, Sanders is not widespread common European style socialism.

That's not exactly what I said, no. Single Payer is common European socialism. Banning Fracking is common European Socialism. Rent Control certainly isn't unknown. Free or cheap tuition is common European socialism. Subsidized childcare is common European socialism.

[hitbyambulance]

Klobuchar seems the most likely to drop after SC, assuming she does as polling suggests she will,

speaking as a native Minnesotan, no way Amy's dropping out before Minnesota's primary.

[noxiousdog]

@gbasden, so what you're saying is, Sanders is not widespread common European style socialism.

That's not exactly what I said, no. Single Payer is common European socialism. Banning Fracking is common European Socialism. Rent Control certainly isn't unknown. Free or cheap tuition is common European socialism. Subsidized childcare is common European socialism.

Yes, yes it is. You took moderated positions that a few European countries have and acted like Sanders's universal adoption of the extreme position is the same thing.

[Anonymous Bosch]

@gbasden, so what you're saying is, Sanders is not widespread common European style socialism.

That's not exactly what I said, no. Single Payer is common European socialism. Banning Fracking is common European Socialism. Rent Control certainly isn't unknown. Free or cheap tuition is common European socialism. Subsidized childcare is common European socialism.

Yes, yes it is. You took moderated positions that a few European countries have and acted like Sanders's universal adoption of the extreme position is the same thing.

Bernie Sanders’s Scandinavian fantasy

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that his proposals “are not radical,” pointing again and again to countries in Northern Europe such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway as examples of the kind of economic system he wants to bring to the United States. The image he conjures up is of a warm and fuzzy social democracy in which market economics are kept on a tight leash through regulation, the rich are heavily taxed and the social safety net is generous. That is, however, an inaccurate and highly misleading description of those Northern European countries today.

Take billionaires. Sanders has been clear on the topic: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.

Sanders’s vision of Scandinavian countries, as with much of his ideology, seems to be stuck in the 1960s and 1970s, a period when these countries were indeed pioneers in creating a social market economy. In Sweden, government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product doubled from 1960 to 1980, going from approximately 30 percent to 60 percent. But as Swedish commentator Johan Norberg points out, this experiment in Sanders-style democratic socialism tanked the Swedish economy. Between 1970 and 1995, he notes, Sweden did not create a single net new job in the private sector. In 1991, a free-market prime minister, Carl Bildt, initiated a series of reforms to kick-start the economy. By the mid-2000s, Sweden had cut the size of its government by a third and emerged from its long economic slump.

Versions of this problem and these market reforms took place all over Northern Europe, creating what is now called the “flexicurity” model, combining flexible labor markets with a strong and generous safety net. I remember meeting the Danish prime minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, who enacted many of the reforms in Denmark in the 1990s. He emphasized that the first part of the model was key: ensuring employers had the flexibility to hire and fire workers easily, without excessive regulation or litigation.

...

It is true that these countries have a generous safety net and, in order to fund it, high taxes. What is not often pointed out, however, is that in order to raise enough revenue, these taxes fall disproportionately on the poor, middle and upper middle class. Denmark has one of the highest top income tax rates in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 55.9 percent, but that rate is applied to anyone making 1.3 times the average national income. In the United States, this would mean that any income above $65,000 would be taxed at the rate of 55.9 percent. In fact, the highest tax rate in the United States, 43.7 percent, applies to income that is 9.3 times the national average, which means that only those with incomes over approximately $500,000 pay this rate.

The biggest hit to the poor and middle classes in Northern Europe comes because they, like everyone, pay a national sales tax (value-added tax) of about 25 percent. These countries raise more than 20 percent of their taxes this way. In the United States, the average sales tax rate is 6.6 percent and accounts for only 8 percent of tax revenue.

...

In other words, bringing the economic system of Denmark, Sweden and Norway to the United States would mean embracing more flexible labor markets, light regulations and a deeper commitment to free trade. It would mean a more generous set of social benefits — to be paid for by taxes on the middle class and poor. If Sanders embraced all that, it would be radical indeed.

[hitbyambulance]

Klobuchar seems the most likely to drop after SC, assuming she does as polling suggests she will,

speaking as a native Minnesotan, no way Amy's dropping out before Minnesota's primary.

well, that's too bad.

[pr0ner]

Sooooo...Bernie really wants to do this? Ugh.

[El Guapo]

Ummmm...is there any plausible legal argument that he can do that? Or is this a DACA-style enforcement prioritization thing, where it would remain nominally illegal, but he's essentially ordering law enforcement to de-prioritize it to the point that it's de facto legal?

[pr0ner]

Ummmm...is there any plausible legal argument that he can do that? Or is this a DACA-style enforcement prioritization thing, where it would remain nominally illegal, but he's essentially ordering law enforcement to de-prioritize it to the point that it's de facto legal?

I'm guessing he thinks he can just write the order and it'll magically happen.

I don't think there is any plausible legal argument that he can make all pot convictions (even at state/local levels) magically go away, though.

[pr0ner]

And this goes to what is probably my biggest issue with Sanders - there's no plausible way his big ticket agenda items get through Congress, and that he'll decide to make them all happen via executive order.

[El Guapo]

Ummmm...is there any plausible legal argument that he can do that? Or is this a DACA-style enforcement prioritization thing, where it would remain nominally illegal, but he's essentially ordering law enforcement to de-prioritize it to the point that it's de facto legal?

I'm guessing he thinks he can just write the order and it'll magically happen.

I don't think there is any plausible legal argument that he can make all pot convictions (even at state/local levels) magically go away, though.

Is it clear that he means to reach state level convictions as well? I'm just going by the tweet here, but it's possible that he means just federal.

[pr0ner]

Ummmm...is there any plausible legal argument that he can do that? Or is this a DACA-style enforcement prioritization thing, where it would remain nominally illegal, but he's essentially ordering law enforcement to de-prioritize it to the point that it's de facto legal?

I'm guessing he thinks he can just write the order and it'll magically happen.

I don't think there is any plausible legal argument that he can make all pot convictions (even at state/local levels) magically go away, though.

Is it clear that he means to reach state level convictions as well? I'm just going by the tweet here, but it's possible that he means just federal.

I haven't seen the video (just the tweets) but the tweet definitely insinuates all convictions.

[El Guapo]

Ummmm...is there any plausible legal argument that he can do that? Or is this a DACA-style enforcement prioritization thing, where it would remain nominally illegal, but he's essentially ordering law enforcement to de-prioritize it to the point that it's de facto legal?

I'm guessing he thinks he can just write the order and it'll magically happen.

I don't think there is any plausible legal argument that he can make all pot convictions (even at state/local levels) magically go away, though.

Is it clear that he means to reach state level convictions as well? I'm just going by the tweet here, but it's possible that he means just federal.

I haven't seen the video (just the tweets) but the tweet definitely insinuates all convictions.

It's sort of a bonkers time for him to be saying that, though. Sanders nightmare scenario for tomorrow, especially with the moderate drop outs, is that moderate voters flock to Biden en masse. The progressive base isn't likely to do that, but it's plausible that anyone worried about either Sanders policy or his electability will turn to Biden as the only plausible option left (some percentage may turn to Bloomberg). Logically he should be reassuring those voters right now. And not that marijuana legalization is unpopular, but I'm not sure it's the right messaging signal.

I guess that's Sanders's style, though.

[Fireball]

I expect (hope?) that after being embarrassed tomorrow that Bloomberg drops out on Wednesday. He hasn't bought ads in states beyond Super Tuesday yet.

[Kurth]

I expect (hope?) that after being embarrassed tomorrow that Bloomberg drops out on Wednesday. He hasn't bought ads in states beyond Super Tuesday yet.

Please let it be so. I think it’s Biden or bust right now.

[Exodor]

I expect (hope?) that after being embarrassed tomorrow that Bloomberg drops out on Wednesday. He hasn't bought ads in states beyond Super Tuesday yet.

He's been inundating Oregon with ads and we don't vote until May 19.

I've really come to despise Bernie. I'll vote for him if he's up against Trump but I know it'll be a futile effort in a Mondale/ McGovern style blowout.

[Kurth]

+1

[ImLawBoy]

I expect (hope?) that after being embarrassed tomorrow that Bloomberg drops out on Wednesday. He hasn't bought ads in states beyond Super Tuesday yet.

He's been inundating Oregon with ads and we don't vote until May 19.

I've really come to despise Bernie. I'll vote for him if he's up against Trump but I know it'll be a futile effort in a Mondale/ McGovern style blowout.

The Bloomberg ads seem to be omnipresent here in Chicago, and we don't vote until 3/17.

[Scraper]

I expect (hope?) that after being embarrassed tomorrow that Bloomberg drops out on Wednesday. He hasn't bought ads in states beyond Super Tuesday yet.

He's been inundating Oregon with ads and we don't vote until May 19.

I've really come to despise Bernie. I'll vote for him if he's up against Trump but I know it'll be a futile effort in a Mondale/ McGovern style blowout.

The Bloomberg ads seem to be omnipresent here in Chicago, and we don't vote until 3/17.

Same thing in Ohio. Vote is 3/17 and Bloomberg is on TV, on the internet, my phone apps and on almost every television style billboard I pass.

[Zarathud]

My kids want to vote against Bloomberg, they’re so annoyed with the ads.

[El Guapo]

My kids want to vote against Bloomberg, they’re so annoyed with the ads.

It's interesting. My 10 YO daughter is very pro-Warren. I think it's 90% girl power, 10% hearing people in the Boston area say nice things about Warren.

My (7 YO) son said his first choice is Sanders, second choice is Bloomberg. Sanders I'm guessing is because our neighbors (who have a son that he plays with a lot) are very pro-Sanders. On Bloomberg when I asked him he said it's because Bloomberg "is nice and wants to beat Trump" (which I would say is half true). He watches a fair number of Youtube videos, though, so I think he's probably seen a lot of Bloomberg ads.

[stessier]

My kids want to vote against Bloomberg, they’re so annoyed with the ads.

My kids had that feeling for Steyer. He carpet bombed SC with ads as far as we can tell.

I have to say it's glorious being on the other side of the primary and being relatively ignored again.

[Grifman]

So do we need to change this thread title to "Give up, Bernie!"?

[Jaymann]

Or "Go Away Bernie!"

[Kraken]

Not everyone is giving up on Bernie. The GOP has been busy for months constructing a Biden-shaped pit. Maybe giving them a Biden to drop into it isn't the smartest thing to do.

November is going to be a referendum on Trump. If the economy is perking along and we dodged the plague, he will win easily. If not, he will lose. The identity of the Democrat is of secondary importance. Do you want to go for a bold win/loss or a timid one?

Look: I don't like Biden at all, or Bernie very much better. They're each risky for different reasons. The forum wants Democrats to follow the same cautious, centrist playbook that gave us presidents Hillary, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, and Gore. I believe that "playing it safe" will add Biden to that list. Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama were all insurgent candidates.

Bernie can trounce Trump

This fellow's argument involves turnout, which, you will object, Bernie is not driving as he must do to win. That's true -- in the primaries. Not necessarily true in the general, when everyone's paying attention.

I don't feel like I have a dog in this fight...but I'm not changing the thread title, either.

[Unagi]

How about adding:


"No, really Bearnie. Go!"