My detailed take on why NOT Bernie Sanders

[basselope]

179. Some answers...

"1. The "revolution" lacks any practicality and details which Sanders has had over a half a year to outline... such as

- How is Sanders going to make doctors, hospitals and pharma accept half of what they're being paid now under his SP plan... otherwise we just keep the high HC cost and switch who were paying HCI premiums to. "

This one is fairly easy. Doctors and Hospitals get all they can now, because they can. Once you have a single negotiating entity with all the patients they are forced to take what they take. This works its way through the system very quickly. You have drug companies, equipment manufacturers, etc.. all making BILLIONS in profit each year at the cost of YOUR health care. If the entity with ALL the patients say "we are only going to pay X for Y service" then X WILL be offered for Y and the company that makes the items that support X will be forced to lower their prices and make hundreds of millions instead of BILLIONS in profits. I am friendly with my dentist and he tells me all the time about the various equipment costs.. there is one device he uses that requires a small plastic attachment to do its job. It's probably about .20 worth of plastic. However, the company holds a patent on it as an applicator and charges him $25 EACH for it and it can only be used on a single patient and is then thrown away, so he is forced to charge a higher price. So why is this 5 second thing costing me $100, because each component is being overcharged. That can change.

" How is Sanders going to get any of this revolution agenda past congress?! (HRC isn't calling for revolution inside her own party, that's Sanders cross to bear) "

This relies on turnout. Obama lost his coalition from 2008 to 2012 because of his broken promises. We would have held the Senate easily if 13 million less people didn't turn out in 2012 (10 million of these Obama voters). Even with the gerrymandered districts, if we get 2008 style turnout... we take congress back.

"- Sanders Wall Street plan doesn't fix the effects of Sanders horrid CFMA vote, what the hell!!?? Factually HRC is correct, her plan goes further into the root of what hurt America then and is hurting Europe now in regards to the commodities deregulation Sanders Voted for. "

Clinton is very naive on this point. She holds up Dodd-Frank as if it has an impact, but the problem is the same as with her plan... by the time you are resorting to it, it is too late. CFMA was part of an omnibus bill to get the budget passed.. it was crafted by Clinton, signed by Clinton and supported by democrats. CFMA wouldn't have been an issue BUT FOR the repeal of glass steagal. IT was the COMBINATION of these two that (and complete lack of ANY regulation by the bush administration) that led to the collapse.


"2. Sanders wants a "course correction" and sounds like he wants to put asunder generations of democratic progress with his revolution just to start over on a lot of grounds. Tearing down the democratic establishment including Obama himself with his consummate bashing (NOT FAIR CRITICISM). Sanders has been an consummate DNC basher and a consummate Obama basher over the years, Sanders most disingenuous claim is Obama didn't bring the people with him after he got into office... I've gotten so many OFA emails I shut them off... Sanders isn't even rational in his bashing sometimes. His bash's even himself for taking Wall Street money or lobbying for it, but so has 99% of people who are involved in DNC... "

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't see much "democratic progress" over the last 30 years.. more like democratic regression. Democrats have become what the GOP used to be. Not only didn't Obama bring the people with him, but he completely failed to fight for the things the people wanted. He took single payer "off the table" INSTANTLY, despite the fact the majority of the American people wanted it. Then, when he had the chance to AT LEAST get the public option via reconciliation, the WHITE HOUSE pulled the public option from its plan and didn't push top get the simple majority they needed to include the public option. In that moment Obama lost MILLIONS of supporters because WE knew he didn't have our backs. Thus, Sanders' criticisms are 100% fair. To steal a line from Michael Moore's description of Bill Clinton... Obama is the best republican president we have ever had.

3. Sanders "revolution" has too many asterisks by it that leaves out the supposed near instant equalization of marginalized groups (native Americans, Blacks, women) that he claims his revolution of changes could bring to SP to free college and to {free something else next week}. Sanders doesn't even try and reduce the horrid military spending.... he's "authentically" closed mouth with regards to his revolution on that issue. Look, Go hard or go home...or just stop calling it a revolution.

This is fundamentally untrue. Free public college is actually quite easy to do with a FTT (Financial Transaction Tax). Keep in mind the US USED TO HAVE free public colleges in many cities and it also had a FTT (from 1918 to 1966). Studies have shown that the FTT he is proposing of .5% will have exactly 0 impact on trading volumes and will raise 40B, which EASILY pays for free public college and you don't have to worry about what Scott Walker does or doesn't do. And yes, Sanders has spoken often about our bloated military budget, so he has gone hard on that as well... saying he hasn't simply isn't true.

"4. Sanders focus is narrow, he doesn't make any qualms about it. A total lack of foreign policy INTEREST ... not just experience... he isn't even interested... not by the least bit. I'm thinking what else is Sanders not interested in in regards to governing this historically powerful country? "

Well.. to be honest, I'm not really interested either. Foreign policy is pretty much the EASIEST part of the job, unless you choose to make it complicated by starting conflicts or sticking your nose into other people's business. All you can do with foreign policy is screw it up if you try to interfere.

"*** Sanders is calling for revolution not Clinton, she wants t build on top of what Obama has incrementally... that's at least proven to work... slowly but surely. "

I'd like to tear up much of what Obama has "built". He made the bush tax cuts permanent. Our healthcare is now entirely in the hands of insurance companies, so now people have INSURANCE, but not health care. Corporations have MORE POWER now than they did when we took office. The rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class is vanishing. Our trade policies continue in the wrong direction, he has deported more people than any previous president. If backing Obama is what it means to be a democrat, then I am not a democrat... and I wasn't until Sanders chose to run for the nomination. The democratic party left me in the 1990s when they put Clinton in office. I have voted for one Democrat in my life.. Al Gore in 2000. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, didn't vote for Kerry or Obama. I think it is sad that we have to kiss the ring of people like Bill Clinton who did so much damage to the spirit of the democratic party.. "The era of big government is over" did more to affirm the talking points of republicans than support the concept that government actually CAN WORK. Luckily, however, I live in California so my vote doesn't matter on a national level.. if I lived in a swing state I would hold my nose and vote for the democrat.. even if they are just leading us down the slow road to hell.


"1. Sanders came to this primary with an establishment mindset; that groups of marginalized people would join his revolution if they just heard about it vs building a relationship and finding out what said people needed...aka, taking even imperfect relationships with people for grated. Sanders had months to get out of the Northeast TYPE environment and into others environments where there was different TYPES of people but choose to stay were he was at and now his message is reaching the very people Clinton lost her 08 bid with. Recent polls have him in GOP. territory with his numbers in some marginalized groups.... This looks like he had good marketing to a narrow group of people.....not a revolution."

This is untrue. Sanders has been making HUGE STRIDES in those marginalized groups. Nevada is now polling even. Where South Carolina was a 40-50 point lead, latest poll has it at 20 with Sanders making up HUGE ground in the AA vote. No, Sanders doesn't PANDER to specific groups.. his message is consistent, which is why he is gaining ground so quickly.

"2. Sanders purity test is something even he can't pass. Instead of going hard against the DEM establishment he could've proposed his direction is better by proposing legislation or actions that would progress his revolution. No, it's mostly personal attacks on Hillary and others in the establishment for not being pure for something(S) he's done even in small measures in comparison. From the CFMA to his 94 vote to his gun immunity vote etc etc... don't just be slightly better while bashing everyone else.... propose something that actually works.... and no, 2 trillion people standing outside of Mitch McConnell's windows doesn't work, McConnell will just shut the blinds. "

Mitch McConnell can shut the blinds, but he can't shut down the vote. Low voter turnout by democrats kept him in office in 2014. If he fears high voter turnout and the loss of his cushy little job, he will be forced to do things.. however, it won't matter b/c if we can get 2008 turnout numbers (instead of 2012 turnout numbers) we EASILY take back the Senate and McConnell becomes a voice shouting in the wind. As for the purity test... he hasn't suggested one. It isn't rocket science to prove that Clinton is NOT a progressive.. unless you use her definition which is anyone who makes progress, under which bush would have been a progressive as well.

"3. Sanders overall has never been the person he's bashed others for not being... Sanders doesn't have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD for revolution (aka big sweeping change by leading hoards of people towards a direction)... not in the least bit. John Lewis had a small point the other Day... "where his ass was at!?" (recited in same cadence as "where yah at" by future) all this time?!

Where Sanders ass was at when the left needed his revolution for

- Cops to stop murdering Americans for minimal causation of being sKeered?!
- Getting medicare for all past congress during the ACA fight
- Reducing military spending and pegging our resourses for relative little gain
- Reducing the threat gun manufactures and gun attitudes placed on this country
and last but not least
- Getting Single payer passed in VT..........................VT!!! "

Exactly why he is running. He has been there the whole time, fighting an uphill battle because he is in one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. Where was he in the ACA fight... BEGGING for the President to force the public option via reconciliation, because Obama HAD THE VOTES IF HE WANTED IT (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation)

A single Senator cannot stop cops from murdering Americans for being Skeeered.. A single Senator cannot reduce military spending (he can rally against it as he has), but cannot control it. A Senator can also not get single payer passed in a single state. IT WON'T WORK IN A SINGLE STATE... EVER. Why? See above. The drug companies and equipment manufacturers aren't going to alter their profit margins for a single state. It takes an ENTIRE COUNTRY to do it. Go into your local supermarket and demand they lower the price of bananas and see how far it gets you... get EVERY SINGLE SHOPPER to demand it and watch the price drop fast.

And finally, this nonsensical gun argument. While I am not personally for immunity for industries and would LOVE to see strict liability on gun manufacturers for ANY misuse of their products, let's try and be honest... this immunity didn't change anything. It was making assault weapons available, which Sanders consistently voted against. It is not having instant background checks, which Sanders has consistently voted for. Also Gun Manufacturers are not the ONLY industry that has legal immunity.

In short, while I would love for Bernie to be tougher on guns.. he actually has practical solutions to the problems we face that can get passed and if this is the ONE NEGATIVE I have to accept with Bernie vs the 1000s of negatives I would have to stomach under Clinton.. i will take it.