6 ms·

That seems like a weirdly specific comment. The majority of the electorate rejects the idea of a socialist as president. That sentiment isn't specific to "folks

That seems like a weirdly specific comment. The majority of the electorate rejects the idea of a socialist as president. That sentiment isn't specific to "folks like Bloomberg".

wolco 7y ago
Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. Let people vote for whoever they want. Whoever you have in mind to replace him will probably not live up to expectations. Beside, I think he has a shot. Usually when votes goes hard right they usually go hard left next time.
- gwright 7y ago
  > Let people vote for whoever they want. What does this mean? Is there someone suggesting that people can't vote for whoever they want?
  - Jasper_ 7y ago
    The democratic party, up until 2016, used a system of "superdelegates": hand-picked people who had way more sway in choosing the party nomination. Sanders won the primary vote, but superdelegates widely picked Clinton. So, no, direct democracy was not an option in 2016. After lots of complaints, the process was completely redesigned in 2018. Now, the candidate to get the majority of delegates becomes the party nomination. Since Bernie has been clear as an actual candidate with potential to win, some democratic members have been caught speaking about returning to the superdelegate system [0]. Some believe Bloomberg's surprise entry in the race are an attempt to "crack the vote", that is, ensure that enough people vote for Bloomberg that Sanders does not win the majority, in which case the superdelegates are the tiebreakers to pick the nomination. This theory is very loosely backed up somewhat by an overheard phone call with John Kerry advocating him to join the race, to stop Sanders. [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-overheard-discussing-possible-2020-bid-amid-concern-sanders-n1128476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-ov...
    - dlp211 7y ago
      I didn't read past your first paragraph because it is patently false. Hillary won with our without the superdelegates, received more than 3 million more votes than Sanders, and the race was never close past New Hampshire.
      - celtain 7y ago
        Also, the superdelegates would not have voted for her if she had lost among the pledged delegates. How can we know that? Because that's precisely what happened in 2008. Hillary had tons of superdelegates lined up behind her when the primaries started, but then Obama got more votes, so the superdelegates switched.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - freepor 7y ago
      And thus the final step in the handover of the nomination process is complete, from the pre-17th Amendment wisdom that the people’s judgment is only useful when applied to their local leaders in their town and city, and are patently unqualified to evaluate things like presidential candidates.
- imron 7y ago
  > Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. If you recall the last election, almost every poll said Clinton would beat Trump. I wouldn't put much faith in the polls, especially this far out.
cyphar 7y ago
First, Bernie is a democratic socialist (or more accurately, a social democrat, but the distinction has been lost in recent years) not a socialist. His policies have overwhelming support by Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters -- for instance, Medicare for All had 70% approval nationwide and 52% approval by registered Republican voters in late 2018[1]. And the poll you're likely referring to[2] shows him with a double-digit lead. Now, I'd hope it'd be pretty obvious what kind of bias MSNBC has by running a poll that asks questions such that you get a result like: > while also finding that the most unpopular candidate qualities in a general election are being a socialist, being older than 75 years of age and having a heart attack in the past year Oh gee, I wonder what possible candidate they might be referring to (in an article which is titled "Sanders opens double digit national lead"). I don't know what the question in the poll was, but it should be fairly obvious how easily you could phrase the question to come up with that result. If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states? [1]: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe... [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-sanders-opens-double-digit-national-lead-n1138191 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj...
- gwright 7y ago
  > If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states? So what? Why does that statistic mean anything in a highly fragmented contest? Bernie got 26% of the vote in Iowa, about the same in New Hampshire and just shy of 50% in Nevada. So in all three states more people voted against Bernie than for him.
  - jamie_ca 7y ago
    Welcome to first-past-the-post elections with more than one candidate. Canadian here, more of our elections nationwide are won with less than 50% of the vote than with more (last federal election had 124 candidates with >50%, of 338 seats).
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist.
- atlantacrackers 7y ago
  *think you mean Communist.
- gwright 7y ago
  Doesn't matter to me. It seems clear to me that his policies are socialist regardless of what he calls himself.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    We have Medicare and Social security, which are socialist policies. If you've ever voted for any serving member of Congress, you've voted for someone who socialist policies. Instead of fearing or causing a panic over a label, consider concretely articulating your concerns with Sanders' (or any candidates) policies.
    - gwright 7y ago
      I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more. Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution. Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking. As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.

That seems like a weirdly specific comment. The majority of the electorate rejects the idea of a socialist as president. That sentiment isn't specific to "folks like Bloomberg".

wolco 7y ago

Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. Let people vote for whoever they want. Whoever you have in mind to replace him will probably not live up to expectations. Beside, I think he has a shot. Usually when votes goes hard right they usually go hard left next time.

gwright 7y ago
> Let people vote for whoever they want. What does this mean? Is there someone suggesting that people can't vote for whoever they want?
- Jasper_ 7y ago
  The democratic party, up until 2016, used a system of "superdelegates": hand-picked people who had way more sway in choosing the party nomination. Sanders won the primary vote, but superdelegates widely picked Clinton. So, no, direct democracy was not an option in 2016. After lots of complaints, the process was completely redesigned in 2018. Now, the candidate to get the majority of delegates becomes the party nomination. Since Bernie has been clear as an actual candidate with potential to win, some democratic members have been caught speaking about returning to the superdelegate system [0]. Some believe Bloomberg's surprise entry in the race are an attempt to "crack the vote", that is, ensure that enough people vote for Bloomberg that Sanders does not win the majority, in which case the superdelegates are the tiebreakers to pick the nomination. This theory is very loosely backed up somewhat by an overheard phone call with John Kerry advocating him to join the race, to stop Sanders. [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-overheard-discussing-possible-2020-bid-amid-concern-sanders-n1128476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-ov...
  - dlp211 7y ago
    I didn't read past your first paragraph because it is patently false. Hillary won with our without the superdelegates, received more than 3 million more votes than Sanders, and the race was never close past New Hampshire.
    - celtain 7y ago
      Also, the superdelegates would not have voted for her if she had lost among the pledged delegates. How can we know that? Because that's precisely what happened in 2008. Hillary had tons of superdelegates lined up behind her when the primaries started, but then Obama got more votes, so the superdelegates switched.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - freepor 7y ago
    And thus the final step in the handover of the nomination process is complete, from the pre-17th Amendment wisdom that the people’s judgment is only useful when applied to their local leaders in their town and city, and are patently unqualified to evaluate things like presidential candidates.
imron 7y ago
> Do they? I've seen polls where he beats trump. If you recall the last election, almost every poll said Clinton would beat Trump. I wouldn't put much faith in the polls, especially this far out.

cyphar 7y ago

First, Bernie is a democratic socialist (or more accurately, a social democrat, but the distinction has been lost in recent years) not a socialist. His policies have overwhelming support by Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters -- for instance, Medicare for All had 70% approval nationwide and 52% approval by registered Republican voters in late 2018[1]. And the poll you're likely referring to[2] shows him with a double-digit lead. Now, I'd hope it'd be pretty obvious what kind of bias MSNBC has by running a poll that asks questions such that you get a result like: > while also finding that the most unpopular candidate qualities in a general election are being a socialist, being older than 75 years of age and having a heart attack in the past year Oh gee, I wonder what possible candidate they might be referring to (in an article which is titled "Sanders opens double digit national lead"). I don't know what the question in the poll was, but it should be fairly obvious how easily you could phrase the question to come up with that result. If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states? [1]: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe... [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-sanders-opens-double-digit-national-lead-n1138191 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj...

gwright 7y ago
> If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states? So what? Why does that statistic mean anything in a highly fragmented contest? Bernie got 26% of the vote in Iowa, about the same in New Hampshire and just shy of 50% in Nevada. So in all three states more people voted against Bernie than for him.
- jamie_ca 7y ago
  Welcome to first-past-the-post elections with more than one candidate. Canadian here, more of our elections nationwide are won with less than 50% of the vote than with more (last federal election had 124 candidates with >50%, of 338 seats).

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist.

atlantacrackers 7y ago
*think you mean Communist.
gwright 7y ago
Doesn't matter to me. It seems clear to me that his policies are socialist regardless of what he calls himself.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  We have Medicare and Social security, which are socialist policies. If you've ever voted for any serving member of Congress, you've voted for someone who socialist policies. Instead of fearing or causing a panic over a label, consider concretely articulating your concerns with Sanders' (or any candidates) policies.
  - gwright 7y ago
    I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more. Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution. Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking. As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.