11 ms·

I don't follow politics at all, but the more I read and hear about Bernie Sanders the more I like him. I'm sure we've got a few political experts on Hacker News

I don't follow politics at all, but the more I read and hear about Bernie Sanders the more I like him. I'm sure we've got a few political experts on Hacker News so I'd love to hear if you guys think he actually has any chance of winning the presidency.

alwaysAttending 11y ago
It's funny because that's a general sentiment among Sanders supporters. They like the way he sounds but don't really follow politics. The reality is his policy isn't all that good. It's just very utopian sounding so people love it. Take his Free College For all Bill. It sounds nice doesn't it? Free College for all! I can support that! But in reality it's quite flawed. Beyond the fact that it's just a new 50 billion dollar tax (and the expectation that States will cover the other 20 billion) applied wholesale over the current 70 billion dollars in tuition paid by public college school students, it's got some really questionable clauses that would undoubtedly raise prices. Here are some choice requirements put on the schools: (6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by 10 tenured or tenure-track faculty; (B) Increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty. (C) Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as pro- 9 fessional development opportunities, office 10 space, and shared governance in the institution. (D) Compensating part-time faculty for work done outside of the classroom relating to instruction, such as holding office hours. (E) Strengthening and ensuring all students have access to student support services such as academic advising, counseling, and tutoring. On top of that it actually states states must: ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the expenditures for the previous fiscal year; Even if the 70 billion dollars in taxes comes, how are states supposed to support all of this 10+ years down the line? There are absolutely no cose saving measures in his plan. It is all just utopian fluff. Source (worth the read): http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline...
- MrJagil 11y ago
  I'm wondering how this compares to countries who actually has his "utopia" implemented, to a certain degree at least. I mean, in Denmark, the government pays you $1000 a month to study college/university. In the implementation stage they must've had similar problems to the ones you're describing. Is it a hockey-stick graph and are these obstacles just necessary for future prosperity?
  - alwaysAttending 11y ago
    The European model is somewhat different than the American one even at public universities. It would require some compromise even from the left. I'm not sure exactly but I think there are more Lecturers and fewer Profs in Europe, for instance. In Denmark, the avg Prof only makes $70,000. Adjuncts make around $50,000. I imagine professors (actual tenured Professors) are paid much better in the US.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      Positions corresponding to "Lecturer" do exist in the American university system. Tenure is more about job-security than about high pay, so actually "real" professors aren't that expensive[1]: $65k/year for a starting assistant professor, and $95k/year for a full professor (and most tenured professors only make Full Professor towards the end of their career, if at all). [1] -- https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=24 https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?Survey...
    - learc83 11y ago
      Here's what I can find. Doesn't really look much better. Full professors are making 94k, but associate and assistant professors are making around or below 70k. Keep in mind that there are usually only a small handful of full professors per department. https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=24 https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?Survey...
- thisisdallas 11y ago
  > The reality is his policy isn't all that good. It's just very utopian sounding so people love it. Take his Free College For all Bill. It sounds nice doesn't it? Free College for all! This is what you get when people think with their emotions instead of logic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
matwood 11y ago
I'm genuinely curious why you like him. I don't really understand the appeal because whenever I listen to him speak it is along the lines of 'we have people starving and oh we have millionaires.' Okay, great so what? Should we not have either? How does one fix the other? Anyways, I've been asking people who like him to really explain because I don't get it and often just see 'he speaks truth, you are an idiot if you don't get it'. Um okay.
- hyperbovine 11y ago
  He favors European style social democracy. His whole point is that there actually exist functioning countries where health care is universal and free, college is accessible to all, gay people have rights, etc etc., and that America could be one of those countries if we wanted to. Btw I learned this by spending five minutes last night reading about him and watching a short interview, so I think your comment gives him the short shrift.
  - oluwie 11y ago
    The problem with the U.S. and why universal health care potentially wouldn't work is in terms of scale. The U.S. has over 300M people living in it, over 8x as much as the most populous European country. We also have a history of hating and evading taxes at all costs (Boston Tea Party). I'm not saying it can't work but the economics gets truly tricky when you're dealing with a country that big.
    - jules 11y ago
      What does size have to do with it? If anything, size should be beneficial because of economies of scale.
      - ihaveajob 11y ago
        If anything, the EU is larger and more populated than the US, so even in that case it should be easier to implement anything in the US.
acslater00 11y ago
I'll bet we've got a lot of "political experts" but probably not that many political experts.
- Yhippa 11y ago
  What exactly is a "political expert"?
  - ruraljuror 11y ago
    The distinction being made is between an expert in politics and someone who is political and an expert in something else (like tech).
    - adrusi 11y ago
      I interpreted it as the distinction between someone who presents themselves as a political expert and someone who actually is.
      - ruraljuror 11y ago
        I enjoy my interpretation more, but I think you're right. Good call.
philwelch 11y ago
He doesn't. Not even most of the Democratic base will vote for a white male socialist in his 70's over Hillary, and he has no chance of winning the general election even if he were nominated. Even he probably knows this and is only running to make a statement.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Sanders is a social democrat, not a socialist. The differences are nuanced but quite important. https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/ https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social...
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    That doesn't matter to most of America. They hear "socialist", "social something", and they are going to be against it.
    - davis_m 11y ago
      They certainly seem to love their Social Security.
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        They do, and they also hold up signs that state "Keep Government out of my Medicare." I didn't state US citizens as a whole are very bright.
  - voyou 11y ago
    Bernie Sanders is a socialist,[1] and social democracy is a type of socialism.[2] That blog you linked to is, at best, advocating a very idiosyncratic use of terminology. 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401124.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11... 2: http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy
jerf 11y ago
At this phase in the run, the punditariat is greatly, greatly more confident than the facts justify. I don't mean that specific to this year... I mean generically at this phase of the campaign. If the punditariat was correct at this phase, Hillary Clinton would not currently be able to run, because she'd be finishing out her second term, having defeated Rudy Guiliani in the 2008 campaign by a small but significant margin. Note how they would have gotten both candidates wrong. My rule of thumb is that whoever is leading at this phase of the run is not going to be the candidate. It always seems nailbiting at the time but it's been right for all the years I've been paying serious attention to the campaign, which is about since 2004 or so. (I recall paying attention to both Clinton campaigns but not the primary fight; I was in high school for them. I don't quite recall the 2000 primary fight well enough to remember if Bush was always the primary frontrunner; my memory says no but I've learned not to trust it, and I can't name names as to who was.) Someone older than me may be able to recall a counter example. So, yes, I'd say Bernie Sanders is definitely in it. But I won't repeat the errors of the general punditariat and make wild proclamations about how much he's in it. It's still not out of the question another Democratic contender that's little more than rumor right now could pop up and dominate with surprising swiftness... IIRC that's a fair description of how Obama got to the Presidency.
- marktd 11y ago
  In 2000, both Gore and Bush were always the frontrunners, and then they both won the primaries in landslides. I believe they both won every state, except Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain. Also in 2008, you're exaggerating the extent to which the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is. The problem with Bernie is that he has very limited appeal outside of the areas where he's campaigning (overwhelmingly white, also a lot of college towns). He has a chance if he can improve his standing among minority voters somehow, but even then it's a long shot.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is." That is all I was claiming. Hillary is an unusual case; I've not seen this level of "shoo-in" before. Also, just to be clear, I'm not making grandiose claims that I know something about the race, nor am I claiming that this is somehow identical to previous situations [1]... it's more that I know that something isn't true: The punditariat is wildly overconfident, and their current confidence in their beliefs is wrong. Even if they are ultimately correct, they're still overconfident right now. The echo chamber does that. [1]: It never really is, and there's a certain amount of anti-inductiveness to similar situations in politics: http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/ If you see a similarity that favors X, in general, so do X's opponents, and they're likely to do something that will, as a side effect, break the similarity somehow.
javert 11y ago
Not an expert, but I don't see why he wouldn't have a chance. He represents what the left really wants, so he can win the primary, at least.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zxcvcxz 11y ago
Sanders seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution. Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate. I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate. If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them. Bernie's biggest problem is the tax code. I don't see any plan to reform it or make it simpler, big businesses are already evading taxes through tax loopholes because it's so easy to manipulate our centralized tax code. Even if he raises taxes on billionaires he has no way to prevent tax loopholes without complete tax reform. It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies. The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countries dominated by the Soviets who didn't agree with many policies of the government. While the US isn't taking over other countries and making more US states, the states are already similar to small countries. As we concentrate power more and more at a federal level we take away sovereignty from the individual states. This, in my opinion is very similar to what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They spread themselves thin and forced everyone to assimilate under one political ideology. This only works when a large portion of the country agrees with said policies. While the US will probably never suffer the same fate as the USSR, I could easily see us spreading our selves too thin across the globe, mismanaging money, and pissing everyone off, thus leading to economic decline and loss of faith in the political system as a whole (this is already happening). America won't be able to handle monolithic socialism. We want too many things.
TimJRobinson 11y ago
As someone who was born in Australia and now lives in Amsterdam I feel like he's the most sane politician in America. I still don't understand why Americans are so insistent on keeping their "Bad for the people, good for business" policies. If you're in the 1% sure that makes sense, but for everyone else life is so much nicer with free healthcare, good vacation time, maternity leave, good public transport, proper prisoner rehabilitation, and strong welfare safety nets. Having a high GDP country is cool and all but wouldn't you want a much nicer life instead?
- slg 11y ago
  It all comes down to our "freedom" fetish. Why should the government force me to take 4 weeks of vacation when I can make due with 2? Why would I want to build my day around a train schedule when I could just get in my car and drive? And so on.
  - grecy 11y ago
    You missed the point entirely. Just because those things are available, you are not forced to use them. You would have the best of both worlds, because you would have more choices, not less like you have now.
    - slg 11y ago
      You are asking me to defend a point that I disagree with, but as the argument goes, you pay for them regardless. Because these type of things are provided for the government, it means they are funded by tax dollars. I am therefore in a way participating in them because I have to pay for them. If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?
      - grecy 11y ago
        > If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation? You want to pay for things like that because it makes your society stronger and healthier overall. You already pay for everyone to use the police, jails, firemen, roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, courts, etc. etc. even though you probably don't use them, or use them frequently. Why do you pay for other people to use police, courts and jails? Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in the US is so high compared to developed countries? One of the reasons is because people are very desperate. They have low education, no healthcare, so safety net, so they have nothing to lose. If you had "paid" for them to have those things, those people would be happier, healthier, and you wouldn't be 10 times more likely to be murdered than I am. After 10 years in the US I went back to Australia for a few weeks and it slapped me in the face - there are very few desperate people in Australia. Even the lowest paid people have healthcare, education, own their own home and have toys like project cars. That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"
jxm262 11y ago
I would never call myself a political expert, but I do follow pretty closely. I think Bernie Sanders does have a chance, but much less than the media is making it seem. If Hillary's numbers slip too low, I think Biden will probably enter the race and the democratic establishment will attempt to coalesce around him. There's also the possibility that Sanders will run as an Independent which many are saying could fracture the party. Anyway, however it turns out, it will be fun to watch
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Some experts appear to consider it unlikely but plausible: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sander...
gadders 11y ago
I think this was a good summary of Bernie Sanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fspZiT8TdBE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fspZiT8TdBE&feature=youtu.be
noelsusman 11y ago
He has a chance, but not a good one. Hillary has weaknesses that can be exploited but whether or not he's the guy to do it is up in the air. He's had a pretty good surge in the polls recently. His general election numbers are a lot worse than Hilary for the time being. Hillary has the advantage over every GOP candidate in the polls (Bush and Rubio are close) whereas Sanders only has the advantage over Trump (wouldn't that be a hilarious election?). A significant part of that is name recognition, but it's hard to say how much. The conventional political wisdom is that he has little chance, but of course the conventional thought is only right most of the time, not all the time. Be careful when people try to compare 2016 to Obama in 2008. Right now Hillary has double the support she did at this time in 2007. She never once broke 50% in the polls during the entire 2008 primary. She's been riding at a steady 60-65% so far this primary up until this month. With that said, Obama didn't surge ahead of her until February of 2008 so we have a long way to go.
pfooti 11y ago
Sanders could beat Trump in the general. But then again just about anybody beats Trump in the general, and Clinton has had a long time to work on her ground game for the primary. I don't see her losing the primary unless someone really, truly radical appears. The problem is that Sanders has a message that resonates with a lot of disaffected white male progressives. If you dig deeper, you can see he's not really great on issues of race or gender. Sanders has some momentum, but I think Clinton has a marginally better message on race and gender. From where I sit, there's still room for a real progressive to show up - someone who can talk about the economic reforms Sanders is pushing, and also sit down for real with the #blacklivesmatter activists about police reform. Someone who could pull both off could beat both Clinton and Sanders to the democratic nomination, maybe. Still time yet, but I'm not holding my breath. All that said, Clinton possesses a ton of resources for fighting for the primaries in all the important states, and it's hard to ignore that unless her favorables slip underwater, even if a really exciting candidate does throw their hat into the ring.
- ConceptJunkie 11y ago
  Sanders couldn't get elected dog-catcher without the word "free".

alwaysAttending 11y ago

It's funny because that's a general sentiment among Sanders supporters. They like the way he sounds but don't really follow politics. The reality is his policy isn't all that good. It's just very utopian sounding so people love it. Take his Free College For all Bill. It sounds nice doesn't it? Free College for all! I can support that! But in reality it's quite flawed. Beyond the fact that it's just a new 50 billion dollar tax (and the expectation that States will cover the other 20 billion) applied wholesale over the current 70 billion dollars in tuition paid by public college school students, it's got some really questionable clauses that would undoubtedly raise prices. Here are some choice requirements put on the schools: (6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institutions of higher education in the State is provided by 10 tenured or tenure-track faculty; (B) Increasing the number and percentage of full-time instructional faculty. (C) Providing all faculty with professional supports to help students succeed, such as pro- 9 fessional development opportunities, office 10 space, and shared governance in the institution. (D) Compensating part-time faculty for work done outside of the classroom relating to instruction, such as holding office hours. (E) Strengthening and ensuring all students have access to student support services such as academic advising, counseling, and tutoring. On top of that it actually states states must: ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the expenditures for the previous fiscal year; Even if the 70 billion dollars in taxes comes, how are states supposed to support all of this 10+ years down the line? There are absolutely no cose saving measures in his plan. It is all just utopian fluff. Source (worth the read): http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline...

MrJagil 11y ago
I'm wondering how this compares to countries who actually has his "utopia" implemented, to a certain degree at least. I mean, in Denmark, the government pays you $1000 a month to study college/university. In the implementation stage they must've had similar problems to the ones you're describing. Is it a hockey-stick graph and are these obstacles just necessary for future prosperity?
- alwaysAttending 11y ago
  The European model is somewhat different than the American one even at public universities. It would require some compromise even from the left. I'm not sure exactly but I think there are more Lecturers and fewer Profs in Europe, for instance. In Denmark, the avg Prof only makes $70,000. Adjuncts make around $50,000. I imagine professors (actual tenured Professors) are paid much better in the US.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Positions corresponding to "Lecturer" do exist in the American university system. Tenure is more about job-security than about high pay, so actually "real" professors aren't that expensive[1]: $65k/year for a starting assistant professor, and $95k/year for a full professor (and most tenured professors only make Full Professor towards the end of their career, if at all). [1] -- https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=24 https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?Survey...
  - learc83 11y ago
    Here's what I can find. Doesn't really look much better. Full professors are making 94k, but associate and assistant professors are making around or below 70k. Keep in mind that there are usually only a small handful of full professors per department. https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?SurveyID=24 https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/salaryDisplay.cfm?Survey...
thisisdallas 11y ago
> The reality is his policy isn't all that good. It's just very utopian sounding so people love it. Take his Free College For all Bill. It sounds nice doesn't it? Free College for all! This is what you get when people think with their emotions instead of logic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

matwood 11y ago

I'm genuinely curious why you like him. I don't really understand the appeal because whenever I listen to him speak it is along the lines of 'we have people starving and oh we have millionaires.' Okay, great so what? Should we not have either? How does one fix the other? Anyways, I've been asking people who like him to really explain because I don't get it and often just see 'he speaks truth, you are an idiot if you don't get it'. Um okay.

hyperbovine 11y ago
He favors European style social democracy. His whole point is that there actually exist functioning countries where health care is universal and free, college is accessible to all, gay people have rights, etc etc., and that America could be one of those countries if we wanted to. Btw I learned this by spending five minutes last night reading about him and watching a short interview, so I think your comment gives him the short shrift.
- oluwie 11y ago
  The problem with the U.S. and why universal health care potentially wouldn't work is in terms of scale. The U.S. has over 300M people living in it, over 8x as much as the most populous European country. We also have a history of hating and evading taxes at all costs (Boston Tea Party). I'm not saying it can't work but the economics gets truly tricky when you're dealing with a country that big.
  - jules 11y ago
    What does size have to do with it? If anything, size should be beneficial because of economies of scale.
    - ihaveajob 11y ago
      If anything, the EU is larger and more populated than the US, so even in that case it should be easier to implement anything in the US.

acslater00 11y ago

I'll bet we've got a lot of "political experts" but probably not that many political experts.

Yhippa 11y ago
What exactly is a "political expert"?
- ruraljuror 11y ago
  The distinction being made is between an expert in politics and someone who is political and an expert in something else (like tech).
  - adrusi 11y ago
    I interpreted it as the distinction between someone who presents themselves as a political expert and someone who actually is.
    - ruraljuror 11y ago
      I enjoy my interpretation more, but I think you're right. Good call.

philwelch 11y ago

He doesn't. Not even most of the Democratic base will vote for a white male socialist in his 70's over Hillary, and he has no chance of winning the general election even if he were nominated. Even he probably knows this and is only running to make a statement.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Sanders is a social democrat, not a socialist. The differences are nuanced but quite important. https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/ https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social...
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  That doesn't matter to most of America. They hear "socialist", "social something", and they are going to be against it.
  - davis_m 11y ago
    They certainly seem to love their Social Security.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      They do, and they also hold up signs that state "Keep Government out of my Medicare." I didn't state US citizens as a whole are very bright.
- voyou 11y ago
  Bernie Sanders is a socialist,[1] and social democracy is a type of socialism.[2] That blog you linked to is, at best, advocating a very idiosyncratic use of terminology. 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401124.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11... 2: http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

jerf 11y ago

At this phase in the run, the punditariat is greatly, greatly more confident than the facts justify. I don't mean that specific to this year... I mean generically at this phase of the campaign. If the punditariat was correct at this phase, Hillary Clinton would not currently be able to run, because she'd be finishing out her second term, having defeated Rudy Guiliani in the 2008 campaign by a small but significant margin. Note how they would have gotten both candidates wrong. My rule of thumb is that whoever is leading at this phase of the run is not going to be the candidate. It always seems nailbiting at the time but it's been right for all the years I've been paying serious attention to the campaign, which is about since 2004 or so. (I recall paying attention to both Clinton campaigns but not the primary fight; I was in high school for them. I don't quite recall the 2000 primary fight well enough to remember if Bush was always the primary frontrunner; my memory says no but I've learned not to trust it, and I can't name names as to who was.) Someone older than me may be able to recall a counter example. So, yes, I'd say Bernie Sanders is definitely in it. But I won't repeat the errors of the general punditariat and make wild proclamations about how much he's in it. It's still not out of the question another Democratic contender that's little more than rumor right now could pop up and dominate with surprising swiftness... IIRC that's a fair description of how Obama got to the Presidency.

marktd 11y ago
In 2000, both Gore and Bush were always the frontrunners, and then they both won the primaries in landslides. I believe they both won every state, except Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain. Also in 2008, you're exaggerating the extent to which the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is. The problem with Bernie is that he has very limited appeal outside of the areas where he's campaigning (overwhelmingly white, also a lot of college towns). He has a chance if he can improve his standing among minority voters somehow, but even then it's a long shot.
- jerf 11y ago
  "the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is." That is all I was claiming. Hillary is an unusual case; I've not seen this level of "shoo-in" before. Also, just to be clear, I'm not making grandiose claims that I know something about the race, nor am I claiming that this is somehow identical to previous situations [1]... it's more that I know that something isn't true: The punditariat is wildly overconfident, and their current confidence in their beliefs is wrong. Even if they are ultimately correct, they're still overconfident right now. The echo chamber does that. [1]: It never really is, and there's a certain amount of anti-inductiveness to similar situations in politics: http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/ If you see a similarity that favors X, in general, so do X's opponents, and they're likely to do something that will, as a side effect, break the similarity somehow.

javert 11y ago

Not an expert, but I don't see why he wouldn't have a chance. He represents what the left really wants, so he can win the primary, at least.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zxcvcxz 11y ago

Sanders seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution. Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate. I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate. If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them. Bernie's biggest problem is the tax code. I don't see any plan to reform it or make it simpler, big businesses are already evading taxes through tax loopholes because it's so easy to manipulate our centralized tax code. Even if he raises taxes on billionaires he has no way to prevent tax loopholes without complete tax reform. It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies. The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countries dominated by the Soviets who didn't agree with many policies of the government. While the US isn't taking over other countries and making more US states, the states are already similar to small countries. As we concentrate power more and more at a federal level we take away sovereignty from the individual states. This, in my opinion is very similar to what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They spread themselves thin and forced everyone to assimilate under one political ideology. This only works when a large portion of the country agrees with said policies. While the US will probably never suffer the same fate as the USSR, I could easily see us spreading our selves too thin across the globe, mismanaging money, and pissing everyone off, thus leading to economic decline and loss of faith in the political system as a whole (this is already happening). America won't be able to handle monolithic socialism. We want too many things.

TimJRobinson 11y ago

As someone who was born in Australia and now lives in Amsterdam I feel like he's the most sane politician in America. I still don't understand why Americans are so insistent on keeping their "Bad for the people, good for business" policies. If you're in the 1% sure that makes sense, but for everyone else life is so much nicer with free healthcare, good vacation time, maternity leave, good public transport, proper prisoner rehabilitation, and strong welfare safety nets. Having a high GDP country is cool and all but wouldn't you want a much nicer life instead?

slg 11y ago
It all comes down to our "freedom" fetish. Why should the government force me to take 4 weeks of vacation when I can make due with 2? Why would I want to build my day around a train schedule when I could just get in my car and drive? And so on.
- grecy 11y ago
  You missed the point entirely. Just because those things are available, you are not forced to use them. You would have the best of both worlds, because you would have more choices, not less like you have now.
  - slg 11y ago
    You are asking me to defend a point that I disagree with, but as the argument goes, you pay for them regardless. Because these type of things are provided for the government, it means they are funded by tax dollars. I am therefore in a way participating in them because I have to pay for them. If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation?
    - grecy 11y ago
      > If I don't want 4 weeks of vacation, why should I pay for everyone else to get 4 weeks of vacation? You want to pay for things like that because it makes your society stronger and healthier overall. You already pay for everyone to use the police, jails, firemen, roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, courts, etc. etc. even though you probably don't use them, or use them frequently. Why do you pay for other people to use police, courts and jails? Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in the US is so high compared to developed countries? One of the reasons is because people are very desperate. They have low education, no healthcare, so safety net, so they have nothing to lose. If you had "paid" for them to have those things, those people would be happier, healthier, and you wouldn't be 10 times more likely to be murdered than I am. After 10 years in the US I went back to Australia for a few weeks and it slapped me in the face - there are very few desperate people in Australia. Even the lowest paid people have healthcare, education, own their own home and have toys like project cars. That's just one example, but you need to stop thinking about "me, me, me" and think "us, us, us"

jxm262 11y ago

I would never call myself a political expert, but I do follow pretty closely. I think Bernie Sanders does have a chance, but much less than the media is making it seem. If Hillary's numbers slip too low, I think Biden will probably enter the race and the democratic establishment will attempt to coalesce around him. There's also the possibility that Sanders will run as an Independent which many are saying could fracture the party. Anyway, however it turns out, it will be fun to watch

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Some experts appear to consider it unlikely but plausible: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sander...

gadders 11y ago

I think this was a good summary of Bernie Sanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fspZiT8TdBE&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fspZiT8TdBE&feature=youtu.be

noelsusman 11y ago

He has a chance, but not a good one. Hillary has weaknesses that can be exploited but whether or not he's the guy to do it is up in the air. He's had a pretty good surge in the polls recently. His general election numbers are a lot worse than Hilary for the time being. Hillary has the advantage over every GOP candidate in the polls (Bush and Rubio are close) whereas Sanders only has the advantage over Trump (wouldn't that be a hilarious election?). A significant part of that is name recognition, but it's hard to say how much. The conventional political wisdom is that he has little chance, but of course the conventional thought is only right most of the time, not all the time. Be careful when people try to compare 2016 to Obama in 2008. Right now Hillary has double the support she did at this time in 2007. She never once broke 50% in the polls during the entire 2008 primary. She's been riding at a steady 60-65% so far this primary up until this month. With that said, Obama didn't surge ahead of her until February of 2008 so we have a long way to go.

pfooti 11y ago

Sanders could beat Trump in the general. But then again just about anybody beats Trump in the general, and Clinton has had a long time to work on her ground game for the primary. I don't see her losing the primary unless someone really, truly radical appears. The problem is that Sanders has a message that resonates with a lot of disaffected white male progressives. If you dig deeper, you can see he's not really great on issues of race or gender. Sanders has some momentum, but I think Clinton has a marginally better message on race and gender. From where I sit, there's still room for a real progressive to show up - someone who can talk about the economic reforms Sanders is pushing, and also sit down for real with the #blacklivesmatter activists about police reform. Someone who could pull both off could beat both Clinton and Sanders to the democratic nomination, maybe. Still time yet, but I'm not holding my breath. All that said, Clinton possesses a ton of resources for fighting for the primaries in all the important states, and it's hard to ignore that unless her favorables slip underwater, even if a really exciting candidate does throw their hat into the ring.

ConceptJunkie 11y ago
Sanders couldn't get elected dog-catcher without the word "free".