The Official If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination thread.....

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
As an American who votes mostly Dem, Bernie doesn't stand a chance. Actually, the Dems are screwed IMO. Bernie will be known as the socialist who wants to raise your taxes while handing out free medical, and college tuition like candy. We aren't ready for a woman POTUS, and Bloomberg will be labeled as the out of touch Billionaire by Trump.

Get ahold of yourselves people. There is most of a year to go before the election.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
This is why I think he's got a shot.

Sanders appears to be mobilizing latinos, some of the African American vote that's not going for Biden, and tons of under 45s. Interesting reading some twitter and it seems that he is enjoying considerable support from Culinary Union members who's org opposes him because of M4A. It's possible that the prospects of that policy's actual weight on his candidacy could be subsantially oversold.

Let's hope so because the primary is effectively over and he's won barring some historic collapse next week.

I do think the odds of getting M4A passed are lower than the odds of Trump's wall getting built, and way less than the odds of Bernie's socialist tax and spend agenda getting hammered in the general as commie bullshit that ends up costing the Ds the house and Senate along with Trump's reelection.

Nothing is fated, but I think it's a weak hand.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Let's hope so because the primary is effectively over and he's won barring some historic collapse next week.

I do think the odds of getting M4A passed are lower than the odds of Trump's wall getting built, and way less than the odds of Bernie's socialist tax and spend agenda getting hammered in the general as commie bullshit that ends up costing the Ds the house and Senate along with Trump's reelection.

Nothing is fated, but I think it's a weak hand.

He's certainly favored to win the nomination at this point barring a set of really unusual events, which is possible but not super likely based on the polling.

I doubt M4A will pass congress. Much of Sander's more radical agenda will certainly be tempered in the Senate (should the Dems win it) by people like Manchin or Sinema. However that doesn't mean that we could not secure more reform than somebody like Bloomberg/Biden/etc might. There is also a possibility that Sanders could pivot somewhat in the general on this issue like Warren did in the primary.

I'm getting a lot of 2016 deja vu when Trump started to emerge as the GOP candidate and widespread doom was predicted for the down ballot. Didn't exactly work out that way. Lets see what happens after the convention which is when the party generally rallies around it's candidate. Anyway people who are predicting precisely what's going to happen should be in front of a roulette wheel somewhere instead of commenting on politics if there are that convinced of the outcomes.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
He's certainly favored to win the nomination at this point barring a set of really unusual events, which is possible but not super likely based on the polling.

I doubt M4A will pass congress. Much of Sander's more radical agenda will certainly be tempered in the Senate (should the Dems win it) by people like Manchin or Sinema. However that doesn't mean that we could not secure more reform than somebody like Bloomberg/Biden/etc might. There is also a possibility that Sanders could pivot somewhat in the general on this issue like Warren did in the primary.

I'm getting a lot of 2016 deja vu when Trump started to emerge as the GOP candidate and widespread doom was predicted for the down ballot. Didn't exactly work out that way. Lets see what happens after the convention which is when the party generally rallies around it's candidate. Anyway people who are predicting precisely what's going to happen should be in front of a roulette wheel somewhere instead of commenting on politics if there are that convinced of the outcomes.

Does it really even matter until super tuesday?

And based on my understanding it's at a high probability with the amount of split votes that were going to be dependent upon super delegates anyhow.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
As an American who votes mostly Dem, Bernie doesn't stand a chance. Actually, the Dems are screwed IMO. Bernie will be known as the socialist who wants to raise your taxes while handing out free medical, and college tuition like candy. We aren't ready for a woman POTUS, and Bloomberg will be labeled as the out of touch Billionaire by Trump.

Not sure why anyone would say this to be honest....

Going into 2016, a lot of people rightfully predicted that if Bernie didn't win the nomination that Trump would win.

At this point regardless of who your pick is, it's (in all honesty) hard to get excited about any of your candidates.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Not sure why anyone would say this to be honest....

Going into 2016, a lot of people rightfully predicted that if Bernie didn't win the nomination that Trump would win.

At this point regardless of who your pick is, it's (in all honesty) hard to get excited about any of your candidates.
The point of excitement is "Not Trump."

That said, of course Bernie sucks. Sucks bad.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
If Sanders wins the nomination, it needs to be Sanders/Buttigieg or Sanders/Klobuchar. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar started to surge in the face of a weakened Biden, but before Bloomberg started to steal the spotlight.

As much as I like what Bloomberg did for NYC and has done in support of gun control, he flopped in the last debate.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Does it really even matter until super tuesday?

And based on my understanding it's at a high probability with the amount of split votes that were going to be dependent upon super delegates anyhow.

Based on the polling I've seen, which of course has margin for error, it seems unlikely that Sanders won't amass an uncatchable delegate lead.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
If Sanders wins the nomination, it needs to be Sanders/Buttigieg or Sanders/Klobuchar. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar started to surge in the face of a weakened Biden, but before Bloomberg started to steal the spotlight.

As much as I like what Bloomberg did for NYC and has done in support of gun control, he flopped in the last debate.

When was the last time that a party nomination chose a rival in the election as their VP?

Honestly I've seen this suggested (like in 2016) - but I've never seen it done in the last 6+ elections?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
When was the last time that a party nomination chose a rival in the election as their VP?

Honestly I've seen this suggested (like in 2016) - but I've never seen it done in the last 6+ elections?

This is Biden erasure lol.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
1,991 delegates to win nomination... 4% reporting.

Sanders : 34
Buttigieg : 23
Warren : 8
Klobuchar : 7
Biden: 6

If the race was between two people... "Left" and "Center".... the breakdown would be 42 to 36, otherwise known as 54% to 46%. But seeing as it is only 4% reporting, this means little. And if the rest of the field pick up even a little slack, Sanders won't reach the delegates needed to win the nomination through election.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Bernie and Trump are essentially campaigning against the same thing, the entrenched Washington establishment, and the message obviously resonates with the voters. If you trend right then Trump is your guy, you go left, it is Bernie. And the established government is just shitting their pants. Because it looks like it's going to be one or the other who is the next president, and neither will follow the expectations of the bureaucrats.

Trump was a message that the populace hates Washington so they threw a grenade in there. Bernie Sanders is the left's version of that grenade. What the political parties should take-away from this is that the populace fucking hates all of them with a passion. They are less popular than hemorrhoids, Nickleback and herpes. But their jobs depend on not fixing that so we are left with this mess.

But Bernie is the left's version of a disruptive grenade. In a country that's predominantly center right by global standards and by Bernie's standards. In a country in which the performance of the stock market and the robustness of the job market are valued above all things, both of which are currently doing OK under Republican policies. And in America, uniquely in the industrialized world, the job market is inextricably interlinked with access to health care, which Bernie has promised to totally gut.

There's capitalist societies which have a strong social safety net (e.g. the touted "Scandinavian socialists", or, I suppose "Democratic Socialists") and the socialist societies that take over the means of production (the "Socialists Socialists", or, as Republicans say "Commies"). It's not difficult at all to get behind the former, but unfortunately Bernie has a long record of getting behind both. While he may not be singing the latter's praises lately, I have not heard any strong repudiation of his past remarks and associations. He generally is dismissive, with comments like "Why don't you bring up my 3rd grade book reports?" This in spite of the fact that he was grown man at the time. Yes, I do think that will be a problem for him if he wins the nomination, because Trump and the Republicans are going to bash Sanders and the electorate over the head with it.

The main line of attack will be "Bernie is a socialist who will destroy the economy and take away your private health insurance". It will be highly effective. A secondary line of attack will be that "Bernie hates America and has palled around with left-wing communist dicators for decades" It will be moderately effective with older voters. I hope he can overcome this with crossover messaging. So far I haven't seen it. We''ll see if his messaging changes if he wins the nomination. I will be behind Bernie if he wins
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
When was the last time that a party nomination chose a rival in the election as their VP?

Honestly I've seen this suggested (like in 2016) - but I've never seen it done in the last 6+ elections?
An uninspired homogenous ticket didn’t exactly electrify the electorate last election.

I honestly think we should go back to when the 2nd place finisher gets the VP slot.
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,038
2,652
136
Did you read this opinion piece?


.............................
"I don’t know exactly how they are going to do it – more convenient caucus kerfuffles, super-delegates, shenanigans at the convention – but there is no way your masters will ever let you win. Like I said, you’re socialists, and therefore stupid, so you will get cheated and you will end up having to vote for the Verne Troyer of American big-money politics.

And, like the obedient saps you are, you’ll do it.

Now, at this point, you probably have some complaints about this column. By complaining, you can temporarily distract from the indisputable fact that your own foolishness has put you in the position of being crushingly humiliated by the Democratic elite once again. Let me briefly address your whiny protests.

Yes, I say “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. This is because it’s a very bad thing. Like, to the tune of 100 million corpses bad thing. I’ve actually lived in the ruins of socialism and you, well, you had a man-bunned sociology TA tell you it was swell. And you believed him because you are a dupe. Be glad that I am assuming that you are stupid instead of the only other reason one would ever cavort with these blood-stained goblins: that you are evil.

But he’s a “democratic socialist,” you interject, because you are stupid. Would you feel fine with a “democratic Nazi?” Actually, you probably would, since Nazis are just a genre of socialist with white and black added to the color palette. "

.....................................

"There will be more primary and caucus “surprises,” except the only people who will be surprised are you suckers. If it gets as far as the convention, your masters will adjourn to the un-smoke-filled rooms and decide for you who you will vote for. And you’ll whine and winge and ultimately obey like the good little suckers you are.

See, you bought into the idea that another four years of prosperity and peace under Donald Trump is much, much worse than reinstalling the party apparatus that has screwed you over in the last two cycles. You’ll ignore the economy, the lack of new wars, the trade rebalancing, and all the other stuff and instead focus on what your masters have commanded you to focus on: that Trump tweeted something mean. Oh, and Russians.

And here’s why you will let the Democrat puppetmasters succeed. It’s because you are stupid. Now, you could stop being stupid. You could refuse to play along. You could even insist Bernie run as a third-party candidate. I like that because it guarantees Trump II: Fossil-Fuel Generated Electric Boogaloo. But it would serve your interests too by forcing the party to recognize and respect you instead of assuming you’ll fall into line once again. But you won’t. You’re all talk and no revolution. Take off that Che t-shirt and put on one with Mini Mayor’s pouty little mug on it. He’s your man. You’re all Bloomberg Bros. Just give it time.

You’re saps, and you’ll take whatever you’re given and tell yourself you like it."
Capitalism can't survive without some socialist elements. We already have some in place, but there has to be a balance. Universal healthcare is one of those needed elements.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Democrats took the House in 2018 in large part by winning affluent suburbs. I think with Bernie, they will lose those districts. Affluent suburbanites have decent employer health insurance, and they aren't going to be excited to be forced to give it up for Medicare. Also, they themselves are doing well economically, why rock the boat? They don't like Trump, but they are not going to go for a Socialist either.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Bernie and Trump are essentially campaigning against the same thing, the entrenched Washington establishment, and the message obviously resonates with the voters. If you trend right then Trump is your guy, you go left, it is Bernie. And the established government is just shitting their pants. Because it looks like it's going to be one or the other who is the next president, and neither will follow the expectations of the bureaucrats.

Trump was a message that the populace hates Washington so they threw a grenade in there. Bernie Sanders is the left's version of that grenade. What the political parties should take-away from this is that the populace fucking hates all of them with a passion. They are less popular than hemorrhoids, Nickleback and herpes. But their jobs depend on not fixing that so we are left with this mess.

But Bernie is the left's version of a disruptive grenade. In a country that's predominantly center right by global standards and by Bernie's standards. In a country in which the performance of the stock market and the robustness of the job market are valued above all things, both of which are currently doing OK under Republican policies. And in America, uniquely in the industrialized world, the job market is inextricably interlinked with access to health care, which Bernie has promised to totally gut.

There's capitalist societies which have a strong social safety net (e.g. the touted "Scandinavian socialists", or, I suppose "Democratic Socialists") and the socialist societies that take over the means of production (the "Socialists Socialists", or, as Republicans say "Commies"). It's not difficult at all to get behind the former, but unfortunately Bernie has a long record of getting behind both. While he may not be singing the latter's praises lately, I have not heard any strong repudiation of his past remarks and associations. He generally is dismissive, with comments like "Why don't you bring up my 3rd grade book reports?" This in spite of the fact that he was grown man at the time. Yes, I do think that will be a problem for him if he wins the nomination, because Trump and the Republicans are going to bash Sanders and the electorate over the head with it.

The main line of attack will be "Bernie is a socialist who will destroy the economy and take away your private health insurance". It will be highly effective. A secondary line of attack will be that "Bernie hates America and has palled around with left-wing communist dicators for decades" It will be moderately effective with older voters. I hope he can overcome this with crossover messaging. So far I haven't seen it. We''ll see if his messaging changes if he wins the nomination. I will be behind Bernie if he wins

There's an important distinction beyond the left/right ideologies: unlike Trump, Sanders actually has tangible ideas for what he'll do and a willingness to rely on radical concepts like "experience" and "data." Trump's strategy has involved little else besides opposing whatever Obama did and making vague promises about jobs and xenophobia that he had no real strategy for.

This is why it's frustrating that some would-be Bernie supporters (probably not many, but some) jumped to Trump in 2016. They were so short-sighted that they wanted to smash the system, but didn't stop to think what that system would be replaced with. With Sanders, you'd at least have a functional government that values truth, competence and compassion; Trump really does just want an oligarchy where he and a few other wealthy buddies get to rob the country and scapegoat immigrants.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Capitalism can't survive without some socialist elements. We already have some in place, but there has to be a balance. Universal healthcare is one of those needed elements.

Not really. I would say Capitalism can't survive with crony-capitalism.

For example, the problem at hand with healthcare is that it resembles nothing like a free-capitalist environment currently. If you can't go to a hospital and ask "How much is it to get an MRI?" or "How much is it to fix a broken leg?" - then that isn't capitalism by definition.

Sure - people will bring up things like "Well in an emergency you can't go out and compare prices".... Yeah, sure - but 90%+ of our healthcare industry isn't emergencies.


This logic is flawed, as is the understanding of the word capitalism: Capitalism isn’t to blame for the woes in our current health-care conundrum. Capitalism is simply an economic framework where private actors own the means of production. The problem with our health-care system is that it lacks key characteristics of a healthy, competitive and free marketplace.

First, consider how much consolidation is currently taking place among health providers. Gone are the days of the quaint, small physician practice.

Most doctors are employed by large hospital systems now. In fact, the number of physician practices owned by hospitals and health systems increased by 86 percent over the span of just three years (2012-2015). Running your own practice is simply too complicated for many of today’s doctors, who are overwhelmed by the administrative burdens associated with billing, electronic medical records, legal compliance and liability insurance.

And large health systems are now gobbling up smaller hospitals like Pac Man: From 2013 to 2017, about 1 in 5 of all the nation’s hospitals was acquired or merged with another hospital. This means more power concentrated in the hands of fewer sellers in the market — not good for consumers. The data bear this out: According to a study from Carnegie Mellon, prices are 12 percent higher at monopoly hospitals than at hospitals with four or more local competitors.

We all know that competition is key to holding down costs, but there’s little competition among health providers in the U.S. today. This is not just true because of a trend toward consolidation (driven by ever-increasing bureaucracy), but also because most Americans, when given a choice in health-care providers, will simply choose those covered “in-network” by their insurance plan. And relatively few Americans actually choose their own insurance plan — most accept the plan (or very limited choice of plans) offered by their employers.

This is not capitalism. This is all the result of bad government policy that has limited individual choice and competition in favor of standardization, market distortion, and regulation. All of this government action favors bigger actors (who have the resources to weather the storm) over the little guy — the small physician practice, the community hospital and the patient.

Second, in order for capitalist markets to be truly competitive and healthy, consumers must have the right information. This information is often restricted in health care, especially when it comes to pricing. Patients often want to know “How much will this cost me?” But the answers in health care are opaque.

For example, Reuters recently studied how Medicare patients might have saved money on their prescription drugs if they had paid out of pocket rather than using their insurance plan. Twenty-five states have enacted laws banning “gag clauses” that prohibit pharmacists from telling patients when this is the case. This lack of transparency is an unfair disservice and a betrayal of one of the key elements that make markets work: reliable information for consumers.

Without competition, choice, and price transparency, our current health sector is hardly an example of free-market capitalism. Rather than moving further in the wrong direction and further consolidating health care in to one mammoth government program such as “Medicare for All,” we should move to reinvigorate competition by removing bureaucratic burdens, restoring meaningful individual choice and empowering patients with the best information about their care and the costs.

 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,634
8,521
136
Not really. I would say Capitalism can't survive with crony-capitalism.

For example, the problem at hand with healthcare is that it resembles nothing like a free-capitalist environment currently. If you can't go to a hospital and ask "How much is it to get an MRI?" or "How much is it to fix a broken leg?" - then that isn't capitalism by definition.

Sure - people will bring up things like "Well in an emergency you can't go out and compare prices".... Yeah, sure - but 90%+ of our healthcare industry isn't emergencies.






Meh - that's "actual existing capitalism". It's no good invoking some mythical 'ideal capitalism'. This is how capitalism actually works in reality.

And blaming it on 'the government' and 'regulations' misses the point that that government is a product of a capitalist society - it's the government you get when you have capitalism.

Are you suggesting those with money who lobby for the regulations you don't like, should altruistically decide to not pursue their self-interest? You want capitalists to act more like socialists in order to make capitalism work better and so avert socialism?
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
He's certainly favored to win the nomination at this point barring a set of really unusual events, which is possible but not super likely based on the polling.

I doubt M4A will pass congress. Much of Sander's more radical agenda will certainly be tempered in the Senate (should the Dems win it) by people like Manchin or Sinema. However that doesn't mean that we could not secure more reform than somebody like Bloomberg/Biden/etc might. There is also a possibility that Sanders could pivot somewhat in the general on this issue like Warren did in the primary.

I'm getting a lot of 2016 deja vu when Trump started to emerge as the GOP candidate and widespread doom was predicted for the down ballot. Didn't exactly work out that way. Lets see what happens after the convention which is when the party generally rallies around it's candidate. Anyway people who are predicting precisely what's going to happen should be in front of a roulette wheel somewhere instead of commenting on politics if there are that convinced of the outcomes.

Krugman echoes my thoughts well on this

 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Meh - that's "actual existing capitalism". It's no good invoking some mythical 'ideal capitalism'. This is how capitalism actually works in reality.

And blaming it on 'the government' and 'regulations' misses the point that that government is a product of a capitalist society - it's the government you get when you have capitalism.

Are you suggesting those with money who lobby for the regulations you don't like, should altruistically decide to not pursue their self-interest? You want capitalists to act more like socialists in order to make capitalism work better and so avert socialism?

Yes, you do have a valid point - A lot of our problems exist in government, but it's through some of the problems in our capitalist society. Government should simply be a check on the power of the corporations. That's it. And those checks should be based on SPECIFICALLY DEFINED formulas.... Not based on tons of congressmen lobbying for one side - and another lobbying for another side. One that stands out to me is mergers/acquisitions.

It really is simple - if there isn't an economically advantage reason to allow a merger (for the whole of the country) - then it shouldn't be allowed. Period. End of story.

The majority mergers result in
1) Consolidation of employment (e.g. only need 1 HR department instead of 2, etc.)
2) Less to compete with - thus prices can be set higher.

There are only a select few mergers/acquisitions where-in a company is on the hinge of falling apart and would be better off if acquired. Those are few and far though, and the majority can likely be saved if it weren't for hindrances at the board of directors / CEO levels. Things like retail stores - they got comfortably cushy with their lack of competition, and thus made the business a bloated mess instead of continuing to innovate and adapt to our ever-changing economic system.


Take a look at the definition of crony-capitalism.... If we simply had better ways to curtail government lobbying, that alone would go MILES to fix a shit-ton of our issues.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Yes, you do have a valid point - A lot of our problems exist in government, but it's through some of the problems in our capitalist society. Government should simply be a check on the power of the corporations. That's it. And those checks should be based on SPECIFICALLY DEFINED formulas.... Not based on tons of congressmen lobbying for one side - and another lobbying for another side. One that stands out to me is mergers/acquisitions.

It really is simple - if there isn't an economically advantage reason to allow a merger (for the whole of the country) - then it shouldn't be allowed. Period. End of story.

The majority mergers result in
1) Consolidation of employment (e.g. only need 1 HR department instead of 2, etc.)
2) Less to compete with - thus prices can be set higher.

There are only a select few mergers/acquisitions where-in a company is on the hinge of falling apart and would be better off if acquired. Those are few and far though, and the majority can likely be saved if it weren't for hindrances at the board of directors / CEO levels. Things like retail stores - they got comfortably cushy with their lack of competition, and thus made the business a bloated mess instead of continuing to innovate and adapt to our ever-changing economic system.


Take a look at the definition of crony-capitalism.... If we simply had better ways to curtail government lobbying, that alone would go MILES to fix a shit-ton of our issues.

But regulating lobbying which is constitutionally guaranteed would be socialism or certainly labeled as such, something like that monster Sanders would try to do, but never a single Republican on earth.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,864
8,280
136
Democrats took the House in 2018 in large part by winning affluent suburbs. I think with Bernie, they will lose those districts. Affluent suburbanites have decent employer health insurance, and they aren't going to be excited to be forced to give it up for Medicare. Also, they themselves are doing well economically, why rock the boat? They don't like Trump, but they are not going to go for a Socialist either.

You forget why people voted Trump?

To rock the boat.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Seems Bernie, has quite the following. If this still holds in SC, then his appeal is much broader than I thought. The youngsters have to show up if this is going to work.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Democrats took the House in 2018 in large part by winning affluent suburbs. I think with Bernie, they will lose those districts. Affluent suburbanites have decent employer health insurance, and they aren't going to be excited to be forced to give it up for Medicare. Also, they themselves are doing well economically, why rock the boat? They don't like Trump, but they are not going to go for a Socialist either.
So basically FYGM Nimbyists who occasionally virtue signal to rationalize their materialism, and who largely shifted blue because they were butthurt over losing their SALT deductions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57