7 ms·

Bernie also said, "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." [0] While his policies and voting record may tell a different story, that comm

by _iyig 7y ago

Bernie also said, "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." [0] While his policies and voting record may tell a different story, that comment left a lasting impression on a lot of people. I have yet to see him speak directly to poor white people as Yang did, and I suspect he (Bernie) is afraid of alienating his younger, left-learning base. To see who I mean, check out those replies to Yang's tweet. [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-poverty-debate-white-people-220405 https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-povert...

claudeganon 7y ago
This kind of laughable “gotcha” politics actually has no impact on his support. I’m from a poor white family in Michigan, Bernie is tremendously popular here, as he was in 2016 when he won the primary. Working class people understand completely that Bernie and what he advocates for, things like Medicare for All, are what are in their interests. And likewise that Yang’s plans to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a check that will get eaten up by all the landlords and insurance companies that have always preyed them will accomplish nothing. It’s why Bernie has the largest donor base of any candidate and especially among donations from working class people.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- _iyig 7y ago
  I'm not interested in comparing Bernie's policies vs. Yang's. I highlighted Yang's tweet specifically because it singles out the suffering of rural whites by name. In a U.S. presidential election, I think perception is at least as important as policy. Most Americans aren't policy wonks, and they don't scrutinize all aspect of a candidate's platform. They simply choose the candidate who they feel will best represent their interests. When one candidate addresses them and their suffering by name but the other one doesn't (or even minimizes it, a la Bernie 2016), that second candidate's a tougher sell.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    “The Vermont senator is the top recipient among farmers, servers, social workers, retail workers, photographers, construction workers, truckers, nurses and drivers, among several other groups. Each of those professions — which don’t typically provide much campaign cash — earn near or below the median income, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.“ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/09/sanders-vs-warren-who-has-more-working-class-donors/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/09/sanders-vs-warren-w... I’ll just restate that all of this pointing at Yang’s Twitter account is nonsense.
    - _iyig 7y ago
      I don't disagree with you about Bernie's fantastic support in the heartland. I think it stems from the strengths (EDIT: and consistency!) of his policies, despite the lack of attention paid by name to the largest American ethnic group. For the other candidates with weaker policies, or less name recognition, I think my point is even more important. Intersectional politics have put race at the top of everyone's mind. When a candidate mentions every race by name but yours, and when yours is facing the steepest decline in life expectancy of nearly all of them (I haven't checked, but I assume life's worse as always for American Indians), folks tend to notice.
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  But isn't there understanding that should Bernie win the fight he will never be able to implement one tenth of his policies? There will be another four years of mutual accusations between "the idiots in the Senate" and "the idiot in the White House" with a bunch of policies implemented as executive orders adding to the mess.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    A politics of surrendering before the fight or selling out the working class to your wealthy donors is not something people rally behind.
    - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
      Nobody is talking about surrendering. Quite the opposite: big wars are won in small battles. There are a lot of small changes which can improve US healthcare: untie health insurance from employers. Make hospitals responsible for the billing, do that people don't get separate bills from anesthesiologists and surgeons. Make catastrophic plans accessible for everyone. Give free health insurance to children under 5. All these are small things, but they are doable. Once done, let's pause and reconsider.
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all still here while the incrementalism of the ACA is being torn to shreds. Big battles won, incrementalism undone. That’s exactly what surrender and defeat looks like. Thousands upon thousands are being denied care, bankrupted, and killed each year by the American healthcare system. This is the status quo you’re defending. People going broke because they have a disabled child, rationing care and medicines they can’t afford at great harm to themselves. These people, the people being ground up by this system, aren’t interested in pausing things so you can get more comfortable than you already are with this state of affairs.
        AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Working class people understand completely that Bernie and what he advocates for, things like Medicare for All, are what are in their interests. And likewise that Yang’s plans to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a check that will get eaten up by all the landlords and insurance companies that have always preyed them will accomplish nothing. We know the mechanisms that cause these things to happen. Landlords lobby the government for restrictive zoning to constrain supply and cause rents to rise and absorb more of the tenants' income. Insurance companies lobby for laws against catastrophic-only plans so that people have to buy more expensive plans with higher premiums. These are their own battles and we should try to win them. But they're the same in kind as things like certificate of need laws that make medical services more scarce and therefore more expensive. What I don't think you've explained is how that will happen less if the government is cutting checks directly to drug companies and the other government contractors/unions than if people are given cash to spend on whatever they choose and then at least have the possibility that there exists a substitute good which competes and thereby limits how much of the money can be captured by drug companies/landlords, which would leave the rest the money as surplus to actually improve their lives.

by _iyig 7y ago

claudeganon 7y ago

This kind of laughable “gotcha” politics actually has no impact on his support. I’m from a poor white family in Michigan, Bernie is tremendously popular here, as he was in 2016 when he won the primary. Working class people understand completely that Bernie and what he advocates for, things like Medicare for All, are what are in their interests. And likewise that Yang’s plans to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a check that will get eaten up by all the landlords and insurance companies that have always preyed them will accomplish nothing. It’s why Bernie has the largest donor base of any candidate and especially among donations from working class people.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
_iyig 7y ago
I'm not interested in comparing Bernie's policies vs. Yang's. I highlighted Yang's tweet specifically because it singles out the suffering of rural whites by name. In a U.S. presidential election, I think perception is at least as important as policy. Most Americans aren't policy wonks, and they don't scrutinize all aspect of a candidate's platform. They simply choose the candidate who they feel will best represent their interests. When one candidate addresses them and their suffering by name but the other one doesn't (or even minimizes it, a la Bernie 2016), that second candidate's a tougher sell.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  “The Vermont senator is the top recipient among farmers, servers, social workers, retail workers, photographers, construction workers, truckers, nurses and drivers, among several other groups. Each of those professions — which don’t typically provide much campaign cash — earn near or below the median income, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.“ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/09/sanders-vs-warren-who-has-more-working-class-donors/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/09/sanders-vs-warren-w... I’ll just restate that all of this pointing at Yang’s Twitter account is nonsense.
  - _iyig 7y ago
    I don't disagree with you about Bernie's fantastic support in the heartland. I think it stems from the strengths (EDIT: and consistency!) of his policies, despite the lack of attention paid by name to the largest American ethnic group. For the other candidates with weaker policies, or less name recognition, I think my point is even more important. Intersectional politics have put race at the top of everyone's mind. When a candidate mentions every race by name but yours, and when yours is facing the steepest decline in life expectancy of nearly all of them (I haven't checked, but I assume life's worse as always for American Indians), folks tend to notice.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
But isn't there understanding that should Bernie win the fight he will never be able to implement one tenth of his policies? There will be another four years of mutual accusations between "the idiots in the Senate" and "the idiot in the White House" with a bunch of policies implemented as executive orders adding to the mess.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  A politics of surrendering before the fight or selling out the working class to your wealthy donors is not something people rally behind.
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    Nobody is talking about surrendering. Quite the opposite: big wars are won in small battles. There are a lot of small changes which can improve US healthcare: untie health insurance from employers. Make hospitals responsible for the billing, do that people don't get separate bills from anesthesiologists and surgeons. Make catastrophic plans accessible for everyone. Give free health insurance to children under 5. All these are small things, but they are doable. Once done, let's pause and reconsider.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all still here while the incrementalism of the ACA is being torn to shreds. Big battles won, incrementalism undone. That’s exactly what surrender and defeat looks like. Thousands upon thousands are being denied care, bankrupted, and killed each year by the American healthcare system. This is the status quo you’re defending. People going broke because they have a disabled child, rationing care and medicines they can’t afford at great harm to themselves. These people, the people being ground up by this system, aren’t interested in pausing things so you can get more comfortable than you already are with this state of affairs.
      - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Working class people understand completely that Bernie and what he advocates for, things like Medicare for All, are what are in their interests. And likewise that Yang’s plans to dismantle the welfare state and replace it with a check that will get eaten up by all the landlords and insurance companies that have always preyed them will accomplish nothing. We know the mechanisms that cause these things to happen. Landlords lobby the government for restrictive zoning to constrain supply and cause rents to rise and absorb more of the tenants' income. Insurance companies lobby for laws against catastrophic-only plans so that people have to buy more expensive plans with higher premiums. These are their own battles and we should try to win them. But they're the same in kind as things like certificate of need laws that make medical services more scarce and therefore more expensive. What I don't think you've explained is how that will happen less if the government is cutting checks directly to drug companies and the other government contractors/unions than if people are given cash to spend on whatever they choose and then at least have the possibility that there exists a substitute good which competes and thereby limits how much of the money can be captured by drug companies/landlords, which would leave the rest the money as surplus to actually improve their lives.