Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C.

Among Obvious Endorsements


We ought not be surprised, in the wake of Bernie Sanders' disastrous interview↑ with the Editorial Board of the New York Daily News, that the paper has endorsed his rival, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Nor should we be surprised that the endorsement paints a devastating portrait of Sen. Sanders.

The explanation opens with ten paragraphs about employment, including criticism of President Obama for his administration's participation in "monthly White House celebrations" of jobs reports that "mask the transformation of the United States into a land of shrinking opportunity for all but the wealthiest and most highly educated":


And while we might, as NYDN explains in the eleventh paragraph, blame whomever we might, the grim outlook, as noted in the first, "highlights the urgency of a Hillary Clinton victory in the New York Democratic presidential primary". Framing the substance of the Clinton endorsement, those eleven paragraphs are the least unkind toward Bernie Sanders; what follows is brutal:


NYDN slams Mr. Sanders, arguing that his proposed tax increases include the effect of "hammering average middle-income earners to the tune of $4,700 a year". And then the paper tells us what its editors really think of the Vermont socialist:


There are additional criticisms, pertaining his discussions of the Israel/Palestine issue and how to deal with Daa'ish. Of all the possible vagaries, "Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot", seems about the least useful option. It's an easy enough question to slip; just say he'll pick a fight with Republicans about it because we need something better than we have; not only does he get to slip a specific answer, he also gets to put the heat on Republicans. But, no. "Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot", apparently seems to Mr. Sanders a useful, presidential answer. Clearly, the editorial board disagrees.

The endorsement also recalls a 2014 push to raise the minimum wage for airport workers and the movement's growth into the $15/hr. target signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. "The necessary elements were justice, political smarts and pragmatism", the editors write, "the qualities that shine the brighter in Clinton's economic agenda." Considering her policy agenda, NYDN looks to business and employment growth proposals, including spending for infrastructure as well as scientific and medical research. They consider her tax hikes aimed at the wealthy, as well, noting, "Each of her plans is calibrated to achieve a specific result".


To the one, it's an endorsement; big freakin' deal, you know? To the other, it is a devastating critique of Bernie Sanders and his presidential run.

The underlying problem with the 1 April interview is that it really does read like an April Fool prank. While it is generally unwise for any number of reasons to assert exact plans, the problem for Mr. Sanders is being eleven months into his campaign and purporting to have not studied the legal implications of a central campaign plank like breaking up banks, nor giving much thought to inevitable considerations of actually being president such as how to deal with Daa'ish.

Here's an analogy about the banking question: It was not any particular genius of mine to identify Amendment XIV and Article IV as the central issues of the Gay Fray. And were I pressed in such an interview, say, in 2008, on gay rights, I would not have been able to predict course or period; I certainly did not see the Tenth Amendment Gill decision coming in 2010. But I could have argued Four and the Fourteenth; I could have mocked the fact that the First wasn't in play. I could have talked about supremacism and equality. I could have answered, if the interview asked, the odd comparisons from the right wing, and charged with the point about how these conservatives are ignoring consent in sexual relations.

The only real question is whether I would have dared make marriage equality a central plank in my platform; it was a tremendous political danger at the time.

But just from my armchair and barstool collection, I could have rattled off a pretty solid outline of how I saw the law. Yes, the banks are a more complex issue, but Sanders didn't even have a scrap to offer.

The endorsement of Hillary Clinton is the endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The scathing critique against Mr. Sanders is the price for revealing himself utterly unprepared for the presidency.
____________________

Notes:

Daily News Editorial Board. "Daily News Editorial Board says Vote Hillary Clinton: Her plans to give working- and middle-class Americans a fighting chance at rising incomes are far superior to Bernie Sanders'". New York Daily News. 12 April 2016. NYDailyNews.com. 12 April 2016. http://nydn.us/1qPG4SE

nydn said:

She possesses the strength and the shrewdness to confront the tough politics of advancing an ambitious Democratic agenda in the White House.

Still more, she is a cauldron-tested globalist who had the spine to give Obama a thumb's up for taking out Osama Bin Laden and who is far the wiser about the use of American power, having served as secretary of state and seen the consequences of the war in Iraq.
- - -
On April 19, New York Democrats will have unusual say over the party's nominee. They have in Clinton a superprepared warrior realist.
- - -
Clinton’s proposals are shaped for the world in which we live, not the world in which we might wish to live. By any stretch of the imagination―except that of Sanders―they stand as the highflying progressive wish list of a results-driven candidate.

Click to expand...

And these people say Bernie's a fantasist.

The wisdom she acquired after seeing the consequences of the War she voted for, in the face of excellent advice and accurate information from more than 130 of her fellow Congressmen, the entire Left, and most of the more intelligent and reliable Liberal community; at the age of 53 after twenty years of first hand experience with the fuckwits who wanted to fight it ? She used it to bomb Libya and make another mess there, to endorse regime change in Syria with results everywhere visible, to cozy up with Netanyahu and pledge undying US support to the inventors of the "Palestinian Chair" and the creators of the original Muslim refugee problem, and so forth.

That is a pattern going back thirty years now. The money says it's not going to change on inauguration day.

Y'know, if this

nydn" said:

The endorsement also recalls a 2014 push to raise the minimum wage for airport workers and the movement's growth into the $15/hr. target signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. "The necessary elements were justice, political smarts and pragmatism", the editors write, "the qualities that shine the brighter in Clinton's economic agenda."

Click to expand...

were the go-to big accomplishment - the only actual and completed accomplishment worth mentioning - in Sanders's NYDN bio, at least you could say he actually had something significant to do with it.

Communicable Bern


Walter Shapiro↱ on being "Late to Discern the Bern":


The Roll Call columnist with a long résumé of his own―the Brennan Center fellow polisci professor at Yale, with prior credentials for USA Today and the Washington Post is covering his tenth presidential election―opens with an observation of political journalism and reportage, that "Few aspects of political reporting are as ridiculed as drawing sweeping conclusions from the sentiments of friends".

And true as this might be, Shaprio seems to feel he somehow missed a point about the Bernie Sanders campaign and movement. He recalls a thirty-two year-old Sanders supporter from Jackson Heights who said the U.S. Senator from Vermont initially "seemed too good to be true". Chanel Mone explained to Shapiro, "The things that he is saying are the things that I have believed since I was a child."


What follows is some manner of waxing historical, which really is important. For Shaprio, it's a general sketch recalling Eugene Debs, who "representes the triumph of political persistence and patience". Some of the jailed socialist presidential candidate's policy proposals eventually found their way into law under FDR.

There is even what sounds like a jab―"As the oldest major presidential candidate in American history, the 74-year-old Sanders is entitled to lapse into nostalgia"―except the point is that the Vermont socialist is, in fact, recalling an historical notion: "At the heart of his stump speech," writes Shapiro, "is a longing for the time when America seemed fairer and more welcoming to hard work than it is today."


And like so many other aspects of American history and politics, there seems some inevitable tendency toward apparent paradox. The romanticized past, as Shapiro notes, was firmly ensconced within an unjust superstructure. Within that context, it seems especially unfortunate that part of the Sanders campaign's pitch in recent days has involved writing off black voters because the campaign could not figure out how to pitch to them. (Hint: It's an inherent characteristic of the hole Team Sanders has been digging↱ when trying to diminish the importance of Hillary Clinton's victories in the South.)

Still, though, Chanel Mone is not wrong; many liberals experience a powerful connection 'twixt our conditioned beliefs and our politics. It feels a little strange, sometimes, to suggest the same is true of conservatives, but it is also easy enough to believe that many parents proactively taught supremacism.

We need not hang Sanders for romantically recalling misty memories of prosperity and promise while forgetting about those who were excluded. After all, he will build momentum, and everybody else will account for the rest; as cynical as that sounds there's no reason we can't rediscover that shimmering myth of American pride, and open its potential to everyone, so that at least this time our society has a fighting chance of making good on that great promise from our shining city on the hill.

Nor need we hang him for denigrating Wyoming after learning of his win; if Wyoming had a larger population, maybe the sleight would rise to proper gaffe valence.

Nor should anyone complain that Sanders isn't being tacked to the wall over little details like this. Pretty much everyone either laughed or simply passed over the Wyoming joke, and that includes Wyomingites. I read a version of it earlier this week in which there are only four people in Wyoming and three of them are Cheneys. And we can certainly take the moment for futility, reminding that passing over these little appearances that can be construed as having an offensive context really are generally useless; then again, that and a mustard jacket gets you all manner of grief tomorrow morning.

And as we're finding out from other aspects of the Sanders performance, the question of once-upon-a-time and its exclusivity probably won't percolate to any significance in part because it's more likely the senator hasn't thought about it a whole lot.

Neither does Shapiro bother with such assessments; they are beside his point. He might be late to discern the Bern, but the veteran political reporter offers a straightforward analysis:


And, yeah, you know, he's pretty much right.

Sen. Sanders, should he somehow find his way to the nomination, can pretty much count on the support of Democratic pragmatists currently backing Hillary Clinton. To hear his supporters tell it, though, Democrats cannot count on their support if Clinton locks up the nomination. Whether Sanders has the courage to lead his movement to do the right thing for the nation if he fails to win the nomination might well be a moot point; there rises an arguable question of whether he is even capable of doing so.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "The relevance of the South in the Democratic presidential race". msnbc. 11 April 2016. msnbc.com. 13 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22oHnTK

Shapiro, Walter. "Late to Discern the Bern". Roll Call. 13 April 2016. RollCall.com. 13 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1qRG98j

Communication Breakdown



There are plenty of statements in American politics that are true enough despite themselves. In a context by which "having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality", the question of what wouldn't similarly distort reality begs attention.

Sen. Sanders' response to Larry Wilmore's inquiry about whether the primary process is "rigged" represents the latest iteration of an ongoing issue for the Vermont socialist's campaign.

Sam Frizell↱ of Time reported yesterday:


The question of the South has taken on some strange dimensions. To the one, there is a strategic question:


And left to itself this is largely an understandable outcome. The underlying theme seems to be that Sanders' southern decision, like other "missteps", as some call them, derive from a slow transformation out of protest candidacy and into proper contention; Patrick Healy and Yamiche Alcindor also note in their New York Times article:


The problem isn't necessarily the decision; it is a huge risk to write off influential delegate sums in the South, but its logic comes from a context of protest candidacy―log some wins, show that this argument can carry Democrats in a state, and then another, and then another. At the point contention proper became realistic in Sen. Sanders' outlook, it seems, it might well have been too late.

Team Sanders now finds itself not so much justifying its decision as trying to complain about the process. Steve Benen↱ yesterday considered the Vermont socialist's interview with George Stephanopolous; the host of This Week on ABC pointed out that while Sanders touted himself as the stronger candidate, Hillary Clinton was getting more votes. Sanders responded, "Well, she's getting more votes. A lot of that came from the South." Benen noted:


To the one, there is the diversity of the South; while Alabama won't be voting Democratic in the presidential election, Benen reminds of Florida and Virginia, and suggests North Carolina and Georiga could be in play. The Georgia question is always interesting; Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008.

To the other, there is also a diversity about how the states are shaking out; Mr. Sanders has found some success in conservative states, and Mrs. Clinton has won in some liberal states.

And then there is the Southern decision:


And while it is easy enough to jab at the implication↑, it should be fair enough to note nobody really wants to see it that way. The problem is significant enough to wrestle with; as Benen reflects today↱:


And there are, as the msnbc blogger then demonstrates, any number of possible explanations for the strangeness of the Sanders playbook, but it really is a difficult speculation. Nonetheless―


―the Sanders campaign needs to stop digging long enough to get its head out. The Southern decision is what it is, and doesn't really need any specific justification; yes, it put Sanders well behind before he recognized he actually had a legitimate chance, but alienating Southern voters in order to suggest unfairness verges toward disaster.

Notes for #124 Above↑

Benen, Steve. "Sanders says Southern primaries 'distort reality'". msnbc. 14 April 2016. msnbc.com. 14 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22wKdWZ

—————. "The relevance of the South in the Democratic presidential race". msnbc. 11 April 2016. msnbc.com. 14 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22oHnTK

Frizell, Sam. "Bernie Sanders Says Democratic Primary Schedule 'Distorts Reality'". Time. 13 April 2016. Time.com. 14 April 2016. http://ti.me/1Xy0dGZ

Healy, Patrick and Yamiche Alcindor. "Early Missteps Seen as a Drag on Bernie Sanders's Campaign". The New York Times. 3 April 2016. NYTimes.com. 14 April 2016. http://nyti.ms/1Xy5rCC

Sen. Sanders, should he somehow find his way to the nomination, can pretty much count on the support of Democratic pragmatists currently backing Hillary Clinton. To hear his supporters tell it, though, Democrats cannot count on their support if Clinton locks up the nomination. Whether Sanders has the courage to lead his movement to do the right thing for the nation if he fails to win the nomination might well be a moot point; there rises an arguable question of whether he is even capable of doing so.

Click to expand...

And yet another media hack misses the point.

The Roll Call columnist with a long résumé of his own―the Brennan Center fellow polisci professor at Yale, with prior credentials for USA Today and the Washington Post is covering his tenthpresidential election

Click to expand...

His tenth Presidential election, and he doesn't have a clue what's wrong with Clinton. My guess is that Trump surprised him too. The gig at WaPo and USA Today doesn't surprise me.

Guys, if you didn't see Sanders coming, if you didn't see Trump coming, the least you can do is ask the people who did what's going on. Sanders didn't create a whole bunch of people who are going to have a hard time voting for Clinton. He just gave them somebody else to vote for. Clinton's problems have essentially nothing to do with Sanders. If Sanders gets beat, as seems likely, the voting decision his supporters face in November hasn't changed from what it was this time last year: hold your nose and pull the lever, this is the best you can do, we can't have nice things.

Because this - this incredible sentence - is what's wrong with Clinton's candidacy:

For Sanders, that why-not idealism produces air-castle oratory about the dream of tuition-free college and Medicare for all.

Click to expand...

Imagine the dream - the impossible, air-castle, idealistic why-not dream - of something every bum sleeping in a Paris bus station takes for granted.

Useless


Among the practical considerations, of course, is the question of selling the platform.


And this is pretty much why I didn't jump on the first revolutionary bandwagon to roll through. It's hard enough to sell that platform, and I've long suspected Bernie Sanders' supporters simply aren't capable of making the pitch.

But this?

This is the kind of stupid fucking embarrassment that makes me wonder if these people are conservative provocateurs trying to capitalize on the long stereotype of liberals as vapid morons, or the actual real thing. Plenty have spent decades struggling to ward off that stereotype; we're not thankful for the latest affirmation.

We've got Bernie burning his reputation, blaming Hillary Clinton by bawling↱ that she's beating him up. His supporters can't actually pitch the platform, have taken to harassing delegates, and now they're stomping on dollar bills in the street as if it makes some kind of point.

No, really. Once upon a time a bunch of pagan protesters staged die-ins outside nuclear facilities, including bizarre demonstrations of holding up mirrors to reflect the evil back at the power plants. And, you know, I get it. But there's also a reason nobody cared at the time except to laugh at the airhead hippies playing protest games.

The substantial difference on this occasion is that society is expected to take Bernie Sanders and his supporters more seriously than it did a bunch of women holding mirrors outside a nuclear plant.

But that's the thing. If we want people to take the Spiral Dance more seriously, we should go about it with greater reverence. But the Craft isn't stoic; you're supposed to stumble and laugh and sing and generally look weird as you wind your way in and out.

Maybe someday something similar will be true about presidential politics.

Meanwhile, no, we will not be thanking Bernie Sanders and his crew for embarrassing the hell out of American liberalism and leftism.
____________________

Notes:

Hellmann, Jessie. "Sanders tired of 'being beaten up' by Clinton campaign". The Hill. 17 April 2016. TheHill.com. 18 April 2016. http://bit.ly/20PwUS9

Merica, Dan. "Sanders supporters shower Clinton motorcade with dollar bills". CNN. 17 April 2016. CNN.com. 18 April 2016. http://cnn.it/1XEaDVi

We've got Bernie burning his reputation, blaming Hillary Clinton by bawling↱ that she's beating him up. His supporters can't actually pitch the platform, have taken to harassing delegates, and now they're stomping on dollar bills in the street as if it makes some kind of point.

Click to expand...

My initial support of Sanders was simply that he was the only non-Republican running for President, and I think it's time we had something besides Reaganomics and rightwing authoritarian foreign policy in the White House. I want a four year break from Goldman Sachs executives on sabbatical in charge of my country's economic policy and Wall Street oversight, for starters. I didn't need Sanders's numbers to add up better than anyone else's, as they do, or his take on foreign policy to sound so much more nuanced and reality based than the Secretary of State's.

But after the last month of so of this kind of cluelessly hostile reaction from Clinton backers, it's settling down to serious. It's not just a President we're electing, but their pals. I've had it to here with that bullshit - or to put it another way, anyone who can't see the obvious media context of the wide publicity given to childish antics by self-proclaimed Bernie supporters, or the source and nature of the Daily News interview, or the emptiness of a campaign by someone ostensibly running on their competence and mastery running instead that, and instead posts this:

This is the kind of stupid fucking embarrassment that makes me wonder if these people are conservative provocateurs trying to capitalize on the long stereotype of liberals as vapid morons

Click to expand...

is not too far from vapid, and squarely centered in the moronic. And that is, increasingly, her constituency and their notion of what this campaign is about.

Put it this way: Anybody that easily embarrassed is going to be in trouble pretty quick here - really, what's more essentially embarrassing than having the candidate running on their record of mastery and experience, specifically on that, dragging Clinton's record of fuckup and complicity around behind them ? Are people not supposed to look, or what?

iceaura said:

My initial support of Sanders was simply that he was the only non-Republican running for President, and I think it's time we had something besides Reaganomics and rightwing authoritarian foreign policy in the White House. I want a four year break from Goldman Sachs executives on sabbatical in charge of my country's economic policy and Wall Street oversight, for starters. I didn't need Sanders's numbers to add up better than anyone else's, as they do, or his take on foreign policy to sound so much more nuanced and reality based than the Secretary of State's.

But after the last month of so of this kind of cluelessly hostile reaction from Clinton backers, it's settling down to serious. It's not just a President we're electing, but their pals. I've had it to here with that bullshit - or to put it another way, anyone who can't see the obvious media context of the wide publicity given to childish antics by self-proclaimed Bernie supporters, or the source and nature of the Daily News interview, or the emptiness of a campaign by someone ostensibly running on their competence and mastery running instead that, and instead posts this: is not too far from vapid, and squarely centered in the moronic. And that is, increasingly, her constituency and their notion of what this campaign is about.

Put it this way: Anybody that easily embarrassed is going to be in trouble pretty quick here - really, what's more essentially embarrassing than having the candidate running on their record of mastery and experience, specifically on that, dragging Clinton's record of fuckup and complicity around behind them ? Are people not supposed to look, or what?

Click to expand...

Said the pot to the kettle..... Something about, "there are none so blind as those who will not see," applies here.

Tiassa said:

... For Sanders, that why-not idealism produces ... the dream of tuition-free college and Medicare for all. ...

Click to expand...

Yes in US we have a nightmare {No tuition-free college and Medicare for all}, not a dream. You and many brainwashed Americans think that "tuition-free college and Medicare for all" is an impossible dream; YET it is the reality in ALL OTHER advanced economies. As Joepistole just said: "there are none so blind as those who will not see." {How others, much less wealthy than the US, give their populations free college and medical care.}

Billy T said:

Yes in US we have a nightmare {No tuition-free college and Medicare for all}, not a dream.

Click to expand...

"Not enough free stuff" != "nightmare."

You and many brainwashed Americans think that tuition-free college college and Medicare for all" is an impossible dream; YET it is the reality in ALL OTHER advanced economies.

Click to expand...

It is not impossible, nor would it make the US into a "dream." Indeed, many people in many states already have access to free medical care (Obamacare guarantees plus Medicare expansion) and close to free education through primary schools and community colleges.

"Not enough free stuff" != "nightmare."

Click to expand...

The current situation is not a nightmare, but it it's a long way from First World standard. And the fact that the ordinary, routine, daily provisions of most Western countries are being described as "why-not idealism", "air castle oratory", impossible "dreams" in America reveals how far we have slid, as a civilization.

We never used to be last on the measure of civilization in any category, let alone big ones like medical care and schooling.

Take a look at the grade school and high school buildings your town put up in the old days - they look like palaces, now. They had entire ball fields, with grass, for everyday recess and "phy ed". That's because the people paying for them did not calculate the monetary return to themselves, as the primary factor in deciding what to build. Job training was not their sole purpose in educating their children.

billvon said:

Indeed, many people in many states already have access to free medical care (Obamacare guarantees plus Medicare expansion) and close to free education through primary schools and community colleges.

Click to expand...

"Many people" is not even most people, let alone everybody. Obamacare is not free. Medicare is not expanded much. Community colleges are good deals by comparison, but they are a long way from no cost - loans have to be paid back, and student loan terms are unusually onerous, not like normal debt.

Americans are paying more per capita in taxes to buy medical care than the French - and on top of that, Americans have to buy health insurance. It's a bizarre situation.

Sanders is not talking about wild and crazy stuff here. It's pretty middle of the road, First World standard policy.

iceaura said:

The current situation is not a nightmare, but it it's a long way from First World standard. And the fact that the ordinary, routine, daily provisions of most Western countries are being described as "why-not idealism", "air castle oratory", impossible "dreams" in America reveals how far we have slid, as a civilization.

We never used to be last on the measure of civilization in any category, let alone big ones like medical care and schooling.

Click to expand...

Oh....and where is the basis for your assertion? The US is the 6th most socially advanced country in the world. So again, your assertions are just not consistent with known facts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-socially-advanced-countries-2013-4?op=1

iceaura said:

Take a look at the grade school and high school buildings your town put up in the old days - they look like palaces, now. They had entire ball fields, with grass, for everyday recess and "phy ed". That's because the people paying for them did not calculate the monetary return to themselves, as the primary factor in deciding what to build. Job training was not their sole purpose in educating their children.

Click to expand...

I don't know where your live, but in the places where I have lived and currently live, schools look like palaces. When I lived in Ohio, they built a new sports palace for the local school district and they are doing the same where I live now. The schools are among the newest, biggest and fancy looking buildings in the area, complete with their own police forces. Most of the older school buildings have been destroyed or re purposed. One of the local schools were I live is building an Olympic sized swimming pool for students.

I have a cousin who is a high school teacher and a coach. There aren't too many openings for professional basketball, baseball, or football players or historians for that matter. High school students are not being trained for specific jobs. They aren't vocational schools.

iceaura said:

"Many people" is not even most people, let alone everybody. Obamacare is not free. Medicare is not expanded much. Community colleges are good deals by comparison, but they are a long way from no cost - loans have to be paid back, and student loan terms are unusually onerous, not like normal debt.

Click to expand...

Well, Billvon didn't say everyone. He said "many people". If Obamacare was implemented as intended, it would have provided near universal coverage. But thanks to Republican partisanship, Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented.

Community colleges are low cost by comparison and are therefore much more affordable. Loans aren't the only way people can finance their college education. There is no law that says students must take out loans to finance their education. Additionally, there are several kinds of loans. The most common loans, the Stafford Loans, are very affordable. They are subsidized by the federal government. Borrowers pay no interest on the loans while studying and once they matriculate, they pay a very reasonable interest rate of about 4.2% for undergraduates and not much more for graduates.

"Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans. The government pays the interest while the student is in school, in deferment (if applicable), and during the grace period before repayment begins. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans are not based on income and not all students are eligible for the maximum loan amount." https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/student-loans/stafford-loans/

iceaura said:

Americans are paying more per capita in taxes to buy medical care than the French - and on top of that, Americans have to buy health insurance. It's a bizarre situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Americans are paying about twice as much as other advanced economies for healthcare. It's a sad situation. But it is what it is, and fixing it will not be easy. There are no magic bullets. The reasons why the US healthcare system is so expensive are many and deeply ingrained in American politics. There are no magic wands here. Hillary understands that, Bernie doesn't.

iceaura said:

Sanders is not talking about wild and crazy stuff here. It's pretty middle of the road, First World standard policy.

Click to expand...

Sanders is talking wild and crazy stuff here. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions Sanders's numbers don't add up. Kurgman has called Sander's economic plans "disturbing" and you know that is a fact.

Billy T said:

Yes in US we have a nightmare {No tuition-free college and Medicare for all}, not a dream. You and many brainwashed Americans think that "tuition-free college and Medicare for all" is an impossible dream; YET it is the reality in ALL OTHER advanced economies. As Joepistole just said: "there are none so blind as those who will not see." {How others, much less wealthy than the US, give their populations free college and medical care.}

Click to expand...

No country has 'free' medical care or university. Japan has the most doctors per population, invent most of the technology they use, and the drugs they need AND are quite healthy. Health insurance costs around 800 dollars per month per family (up to 10). I just spoke to a German on Sunday about this, he thought it was crazy Americans don't have 'free' medical care. I asked him, does Germany have free medicine? Oh yes, universal care. Really I said, and how much does it cost? Big surprise, around 800 per month per family. That's not 'free'. That's close to 9000 a year! Just like Japan.

My guess is, in a hard working, honest, inventive free market society with ingenuity, this price is probably as efficient and as low as the State-run universal medical care will get. But get this, it's not 'free'.

And both Japan and Germany have massive public obligations that they will not be able to afford (minus an engineering AI miracle) because they no longer produce enough children. Why? I think THAT is the price of so called 'free' Medicine and 'free' University. Society itself is the price that will be paid.

While Germans seem happy to go extinct, Japanese are adjusting their future expectations. This is the truth. Most Japanese no longer expect anything or any support in retirement (which will probably never happen anyway).

As for 'free' University. (A) It's not free. (B) Most Americans would never graduate from a German university. Hell, 20% of high school graduates cannot read and write competently, let alone successfully attend a German University. The average in comeing American University student reads at a 7th grade level.

7th GRADE.

Come on!

Further, do not think Germany has this benevolent University system. I'd like to see some good data on social mobility in Germany, because I've been told by Germans, that the German educational system is structured in such a way as to perpetuate the three tiers it's modeled on. If you come from a white collar professional family, you'll probably proceed through the German educational system into "free" University where you will go on to a good professional career making good money. Whereas, if you come from the working class, you probably will go into a skilled trade and never have a chance to attend University - although your tax will pay for it for some rich kids.

Of course, if you are smart, then you will attend German University - and the same it true in the USA. No American is turned away from University. The State lends all Americans the money to attend.

As for Japan, most Americans wouldn't have been allowed to attend High School let alone University. They'd have ended their education at 16 and went to work. Though, with the demographics, that is somewhat beginning to change.


In short, there is no free. We have the system we have, because it suites our society. Can it be better? Of course, much better. Making it free isn't going to make it better. It will make it worse. Soon we'll have K-14 that cannot read or write!

Getting rid of regulatory capture and removing University rent-seeking through licencing scams - THAT will go a long ways towards providing quality education to the most people, particularly those that have an academic leaning. That's what's needed. It'd all be good to end the Federal Reserve so that what little money Americans do make, might actually afford them an education.

iceaura said:

We never used to be last on the measure of civilization in any category, let alone big ones like medical care and schooling.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And we are still not.

Take a look at the grade school and high school buildings your town put up in the old days - they look like palaces, now.

Click to expand...

Not so much. I spent my grade school days in "portables" - mobile homes they rolled in as a temporary measure. In 1960. In 1975 we had classes in them. They didn't get rid of them until the 2000's.

I compare them to Jonas Salk elementary, a school that just opened in my old neighborhood. It's pretty nice. Very open plan, lots of open space; much more of a campus than a typical elementary school. The front is shaded by a 100kW solar array. I'd much rather have gone to Salk than to Roosevelt.

"Many people" is not even most people, let alone everybody. Obamacare is not free.

Click to expand...

It is if you can't pay for it.

Medicare is not expanded much.

Click to expand...

Obamacare contained a provision that expanded Medicare to cover the gap between what the ACA and what Medicare covered. 32 states, so far - about 2/3 - have expanded Medicare to cover this gap. In those states, people are fully covered.

Community colleges are good deals by comparison, but they are a long way from no cost - loans have to be paid back, and student loan terms are unusually onerous, not like normal debt.

Click to expand...

The opposite is actually true. My wife is still carrying her student loans from her medical school days, simply because the interest is so low that it's crazy to pay them off while we have "standard" debt (like a mortgage) to service. And she didn't even qualify for the really low interest loans.

Sanders is not talking about wild and crazy stuff here. It's pretty middle of the road, First World standard policy.

Click to expand...

I agree. He's not wild and crazy.

joepistole said:

Oh....and where is the basis for your assertion? The US is the 6th most socially advanced country in the world. So again, your assertions are just not consistent with known facts. ...

Click to expand...

You challenged iceaura, but I think he was "right on." Here is part of how US got rated 6th, quoting in blue from your link:

"The U.S. lags in Basic Human Needs, ranking 13th in Air, Water, And Sanitation as well as Personal Safety, but improves in Shelter, where it's ranked 5th. (Ranking 48th in Ecosystem Sustainability does not help any of this.) The Land of the Free ranked FIRST in Opportunity by having the top Access to Higher Education, 4th-ranked Equity and Inclusion, and 6th-ranked Personal Rights. However, it falls a little short in Personal Freedom and Choice at 7th."

Yes "first in opportunity" if you can pay for it (or win a full scholarship as I did). In several countries, England included, which unlike the US give free college education, not all have the opportunity to go to college - You must pass a "qualifying exam." If you fail, you have no "opportunity" - you go to trade school.

What would be a better measure would be the US's standing in quality of education achieved. US is not first in that, It is way down the list, especially if they focus on math and science, but it is true that opportunity is not denied to any one (with money). Dummies are not denied going to college in the US, if they can pay. Why entrance standards are falling in all but the top universities. Why there is "grade inflation" etc. Most of the upper middle class do go to college in the US because that is expected of them and with student loans, they can pay.

Michael said:

No country has 'free' medical care or university.

Click to expand...

Of course not. That's something wingnuts have invented to put into the mouths of health insurance reformers. What they have is nonprofit, taxpayer subsidized (or paid completely), universally available health insurance. Likewise, many finance university education in a similar way. And in both cases, they find themselves paying around half what US citizens pay, for universal availability of what many cannot afford in the US.

billvon said:

We never used to be last on the measure of civilization in any category, let alone big ones like medical care and schooling.
Agreed. And we are still not.

Click to expand...

Of the 34 First World medical care systems on the planet, the US ranks 34th measured in outcome after diagnosis (my nomination for the best single measure).

We aren't last among the First World countries in any schooling measure yet, that I know of - but we continue to drop. Or maybe you could look at it as other countries getting the hang of things and rising? Either way, if current trends are not reversed it's a matter of time - and that is not traditional in the US. It's been a long time developing, but it's kind of new.

billvon said:

Not so much. I spent my grade school days in "portables" - mobile homes they rolled in as a temporary measure.

Click to expand...

The Baby Boom did strain the postWar economy. But drive around and look at the school buildings put up in American towns for white kids before the civil rights hassles - imagine replacing them. Compare them to the houses the kids were living in.

billvon said:

I compare them to Jonas Salk elementary, a school that just opened in my old neighborhood. It's pretty nice. Very open plan, lots of open space; much more of a campus than a typical elementary school.

Click to expand...

Tangent, but while "open plan" buildings are cheaper to put up and maintain, they are strongly suspected of lowering educational achievement. Like open plan offices buildings. The key to a "campus" for kids is windows and playground room - lots of outdoor exercise, a lot of time not under fluorescent lighting. Available?

billvon said:

"Many people" is not even most people, let alone everybody. Obamacare is not free.
It is if you can't pay for it.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. You pay for some of it, if you can't pay for all of it. By law - it's mandatory wherever it is available. And it's not available to everybody.

billvon said:

Obamacare contained a provision that expanded Medicare to cover the gap between what the ACA and what Medicare covered. 32 states, so far - about 2/3 - have expanded Medicare to cover this gap. In those states, people are fully covered.

Click to expand...

And 18 have not. And it's Medicaid, not Medicare - there's a difference. And it only covers about half the uninsured - let alone the underinsured, which is an even more serious problem in the US. And it's going to stop covering them when the States don't pick up the tab. And so forth.

There's nothing there remotely similar to an expansion of Medicare.

billvon said:

The opposite is actually true. My wife is still carrying her student loans from her medical school days, simply because the interest is so low that it's crazy to pay them off while we have "standard" debt (like a mortgage) to service.

Click to expand...

Good for you. Talk to recent graduates unable to make that kind of money, those with higher interest loans, etc. You can buy a house on top of your student loan debt? Wow.

Student loans cannot be relieved by filing bankruptcy, regardless of employment status. Many are fairly high rate, and cannot be consolidated or refinanced at lower rates. They replaced grants, which were the normal manner of financing college for poor people until fairly recently. And so forth.

joe said:

Well, Billvon didn't say everyone. He said "many people".

Click to expand...

That's why I quoted him as saying "many people".

joe said:

If Obamacare was implemented as intended, it would have provided near universal coverage -

Click to expand...

So even implemented as intended, it would not have provided universal coverage. Implemented as reality enforced, it doesn't come close - and that's without considering the under-coverage problem that is being universally ignored.

And it will never provide cost control - the best it can do is slow the rise, which means it cannot remain solvent for long and will cause economic hardship in short order. Then what?

joe said:

I don't know where your live, but in the places where I have lived and currently live, schools look like palaces. When I lived in Ohio, they built a new sports palace for the local school district and they are doing the same where I live now.

Click to expand...

Sports palace? All the old schools had ball fields and the like - big ones.

joe said:

Loans aren't the only way people can finance their college education.

Click to expand...

Of course not. They can pay cash, for example. Or their parents can pay. And the US can continue to rely on more intelligently set up foreign systems to provide the educated people it needs for its modern industrial economy - because the children of the rich for some reason don't seem to be smarter and harder working than everybody else.

joe said:

Yeah, Americans are paying about twice as much as other advanced economies for healthcare. It's a sad situation. But it is what it is, and fixing it will not be easy. There are no magic bullets. The reasons why the US healthcare system is so expensive are many and deeply ingrained in American politics. There are no magic wands here. Hillary understands that, Bernie doesn't.

Click to expand...

One of those reasons is the key and successful past efforts of Hillary Clinton to obstruct and prevent needed reforms of the absurd US health insurance system. Another is her current refusal to work for those reforms now, even from positions of power and influence. People like Clinton are deeply ingrained in American politics, true. But there's no point in celebrating the fact.

Part the First

Billy T said:

Yes in US we have a nightmare {No tuition-free college and Medicare for all}, not a dream. You and many brainwashed Americans think that "tuition-free college and Medicare for all" is an impossible dream; YET it is the reality in ALL OTHER advanced economies. As Joepistole just said: "there are none so blind as those who will not see." {How others, much less wealthy than the US, give their populations free college and medical care.}

Click to expand...

So, hey, Billy: How come all you intelligent people who aren't brainwashed and therefore are so much more perspicacious and capable than everybody else are so exactly clueless when it comes to policy advocacy?

No, seriously, you guys are just as incapable of making the case for Bernie Sanders as anyone else.

You want to start making sense, then by all means do. If, however, all you have is vapid self-superiority, well, see, that's what people who pay attention to history already know doesn't work. And, you know, hey, if this is the year you think corrosive, self-denigrating hubris is going to break out and carry an election, please do explain in some coherent, useful way, just how you expect that to happen.

If Sen. Sanders had a platform he could sell without taking passes for his own ignorance about his own key issues, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the platform. If Sanders' supporters could pitch the platform at all, could offer anything other than childish temper tantrums and self-gratification, I'd be a lot more comfortable about the prospect of pitching in the general.

There is, actually, something incredible going on right now, something we hope to be able to thank Mr. Sanders for when all is said and done. But y'all don't want to hear it because it involves considerations you don't want to deal with. There is actually a narrative that explains Sanders' tack into vice and incoherence; his supporters don't want to hear it, though, because it inherently reminds that he won't win the nomination.

And that's because he wasn't trying to. Now, before you go get all indignant about that idea, he said so himself. And along the way, somewhere between December and Nevada, Sanders figured out a pathway existed. But that's the thing. Conceding the South? I don't disagree with his campaign's analysis that they were going to lose the South. But since then Sanders has gone on to try to downplay and discredit the Southern vote. And you know those establishment voices you criticize? They're bending over backwards to give him cover. To wit, Steve Benen↱ last week:


I've already covered that point↱, but since Mr. Sanders has chosen to dig in, people are on eggshells. To wit, Mr. Benen↱, again giving cover this week, after Sanders dug in:


And again, while deliberately presuming around dangerous rhetoric that Sanders has not yet had to answer for, the basic analysis doesn't support any part of the Sanders Southern Excuse. Benen points to Nate Silver↱, who also made a point of giving Sanders cover:


Even Charles M. Blow↱ of the New York Times got in on it: "It also must be pointed out that there is a racial dimension to Sanders’ dismissal, however inadvertent it is." He, too, points to Silver before offering his own analysis:




The tragedy of all this is that there really was no reason for the senior U.S. Senator from Vermont to pitch the line in the first place; the Southern Decision itself makes perfect sense. But instead of their own rhetoric and simply pointing out that they weren't going to win and were still coming to grips with the rise of their campaign on the efforts of this incredible movement, Mr. Sanders has chosen instead to attempt to delegitimize the Southern votes. It's one thing to acknowledge, as Team Sanders did, that they didn't have a good inroad to black voters; it's quite another to demonize their contribution as some manner of distorting reality, especially when the available facts don't support any aspect of that contention.

Silver, for his part, considers a question of which states look most like the Democratic Party; you know, the Party sponsoring the nomination Mr. Sanders seeks?

Part the Second


There is an issue here worth considering, that the "Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on" includes a lot of more conservative voters; we need them. But this is the warm-up. Consider another aspect of the reality we've seen in the returns, the heart of Silver's inquiry about which state is closest to being "maximally representative of the broader Democratic electorate as it stands today":


There are problems in any "Establishment", be it politics, religion, academia, business, or even more nebulous assertions such as family. Traditional ways are compressed with each transmission unto a new generation; all data compression, strictly speaking, includes data loss. Each generation adapts to the changing iterations; some adaptations are exploitative, some are reinforcing, some are inspired and actually new. Estalishments always corrupt; they must perpetually adapt and evolve.

To the one, there is a fairly obvious argument that we have reached some threshold at which that corruption, adaptation, and evolution is being necessarily challenged.

To the other, though, is Pontius Pilate. Among the discontented on every side of every aisle are people who contributed to what they complain about. You know, we're all tired; the Democratic establishment in my lifetime has played a long, oft-discouraging hand―we're reluctant to go all-in, even to a fault, but the point is to stay at the table.

And those who have been around long enough to remember what it looks like when Democrats implode to full meltdown have no excuse for ignoring the reasons we play this game. It was taxing in the eighties and under the first Bush presidency, and we got our chance through skillful opportunism. No liberal remembers Bill Clinton as a liberal president; the best Republican president ever was the price we paid for our chance. We didn't get much, but we didn't outright lose, either, and what we got counts. The Notorious RBG, for instance. DADT. Liberal strength fending off the conservative siege against civil rights. In all your idealism you seem to forget the marketplace; there was a time when Democrats backed international trade partnerships because that's what voters wanted. We have superdelegates specifically to protect against the mistakes that led to all this.

And it's not that the Establishment, the System, the Way Things Are, doesn't need to change. But the Democratic Establishment does not exist in a vacuum.

As Silver's analysis reminds, when you thrash and rail against the Establishment, you are also denouncing and abusing the Democratic voters who have long carried it, who have thrown in with this gamble and, quite frankly, yes, become accustomed to it. And these people are also invested in it. True, we can disdain the market reality: One Sanders supporter caught up in the California mess↱, for instance, got sick of the Democratic Party because of the advertising overload. It's not that she doesn't have a point; I signed a marriage equality petition once and eventually found it necessary to drop pretty much the entire Democratic Party into my spam filter. Still, though, while we might disdain the market reality there is no wisdom found in disregarding it.

Because this is a marketplace, and say what we will about becoming too devoted to getting elected instead of simply doing one's job while in elected office, but voters supporting both parties―and also those calling themselves "independent"―have repeatedly endorsed and rewarded this behavior. Certes, there is a Prisoner's Dilemma in effect, and everyone is afraid to be the first to break. But here's the thing: If it is time to put our collective foot down, the least we owe ourselves is to keep our heads on straight when we do.

And that, sir, is where you, Mr. Sanders, and so much of this rather quite astounding movement fail. This is the part that keeps me at arm's reach; I really can't figure out how to clean up this incoherent mess enough to pitch it in the swing bloc, and I certainly can't figure a way to scrub all the scorch where the Bern has left its mark. Still, though, in the end the problem is turning out to be Sen. Sanders himself. If it was just the Southern Excuse as a gaffe, that would be one thing. Digging into these holes is never wise. And there is also the bit about being eleven months into the campaign and having exactly no clue how to explain a signature plank.

You know, she was expected to criticize him for the gaffe; instead she simply made the same point he did, and Bernie gaffed up trying to complain. And the result of that tumble, that damage to his credibility as the nice guy who is above the grotesque mudslinging, would be whatever it turns out to be, except then he went and made it worse complaining about getting "beaten up"↱. And the sad thing is that he knows damn well how hard Republicans would beat on him should he manage to win the nomination.

And, you know, for those of us accustomed to American politics, the idea that Bernie Sanders is Just Another Politician isn't an especial problem. Indeed, while the movement can be a bit annoying for its self-righteous vapidity, neither is the self-righeousness necessarily a problem; that, too, happens in politics, so, you know, big freakin' deal.

The problem is the vapidity. The clueless excuses for a Southern Decision that needs no special justification because it already makes sense. The buckling under policy and horserace scrutiny. And especially the utter inability to project his policy vision beyond air-castle oratory.

In the end, it's no wonder you can't actually pitch the platform; neither can Bernie Sanders.

So, you know, keep on congratulating yourself for not being brainwashed. Keep on insulting the voters Bernie Sanders is going to need if he somehow manages to achieve the nomination. Then again, they're Democrats; they know how to compromise and vote for things and people that aren't their favorites.

So what's more important to the movement? Electing someone who isn't a Republican, or standing down in hopes that the Republican wins so you can feel smarter?

I already told you: This isn't our year.

And it's about time you stopped working so hard to make sure it never is.

Find an affirmative argument in support of your candidate. Please.

____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Sanders says Southern primaries 'distort reality'". msnbc. 14 April 2016. msnbc.com. 20 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/22wKdWZ

—————. "Which states best represent Democratic politics?" msnbc. 18 April 2016. msnbc.com. 20 April 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1S68Jg7

Blow, Charles M. "Sanders Dismisses the Deep South". The New York Times. 18 April 2016. NYTimes.com. 20 April 2016. http://nyti.ms/1SqQO2F

Myers, John, Christine Mai-Duc and Ben Walsh. "Are you an independent voter? You aren't if you checked this box". Los Angeles Times. 17 April 2016. Static.LATimes.com. 20 April 2016. http://bit.ly/269BDSD

Silver, Nate. "Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party". FiveThirtyEight. 15 April 2016. FiveThirtyEight.com. 20 April 2016. http://53eig.ht/23HAZNs