Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C.

[Billy T]

Several have noted that US has some low quality teachers, and I agree. That would need to change before the "keep same teacher as you go up the elementary grades" idea would deliver the benefits it does in Norway (and other Scandinavian countries, I think); But ALL teachers must be very good ones.

We can set standards, and pay well for teachers who meet them. We set standards for airline pilots, why not teachers, who shape our future society?

 

[Billy T]

I think Bernie is not a real "alternative" to Clinton, any more. But Clinton may bite the walk street hands that have given her (and Bill) great fortunes. I think she will be more concerned with how she goes down in History.

If she needs funding for a second term try, she could take a page from Bernie's campaign financing plans: Make real progress during her first term, with a supporting congress, in getting nearly free national health care FOR ALL and do something about the growing student debt. (Now 1.3 trillion dollars > greater than all credit card debt.)

For first time in many decades, more young people are living with their parents than with partners (married or just co-inhabiting).

This debt is huge drag on the economy - less new homes, less cars sold, less babies, etc.

If Clinton take her place in history as more important than adding a few dozens of million dollars more to her and Bill income, she may, "bite the hands" that have given her many millions, and finance any try for a second term, as Bernie has done. I hope so. US can not survive much more of the same with wealth concentrating in hands of 1% of the population via wall street mainly.

 

[Billy T]

Bernie may get a slim chance yet IF Clinton Emails, now branded as violations of federal rules, are too easy a gift to Trump:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a State Department audit has concluded.

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service," says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News. "Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

 

[iceaura]

There was a lot of cynicism about our response to 9/11, but saying no because one believed the president was lying was not exactly the sort of thing people did back then.

Really?

- she voted for that travesty out of courtesy? Out of unwillingness to publicly question a propaganda operation that blatant and ugly? Or is it that she lacked the ability to spin a "no" vote into something less directly confrontational?

Are you including Republican politicians and leadership in your body of "people" who didn't do "that sort of thing" - say to a Dem President - or was that kind of refined and ladylike reticence expected of Democratic politicians toward Republican Presidents only? - "back then" so long ago in 2002, I mean, in one of those intervals between Democratic administrations when politics is avowedly genteel.

In other words: Exactly how ridiculous are you guys planning to make yourselves, in this bizarre and mysteriously motivated mission to revise Clinton's political history? Saying no to that kind of legislation was Clinton's moral and patriotic duty as a citizen, as well as being part of her job. It was a horrible, cynical, vote. And all kinds of people knew it, at the time. They didn't know it was going to turn out as badly as it did (Ok, some knew - Molly Ivins, for example), but they knew it was fundamentally wrong regardless. The moral and political ground zero of that vote was being publicly discussed for weeks leading up to it, Clinton's vote in particular (along with Kerry's) was being watched and anticipated, and the disappointment in Clinton's revealed character was significant. She lost a lot of the Left and Liberal intellectual crowd that day - the ones who were looking for evidence that the bad stuff earlier had been Bill's contribution. (Not me. She lost me when she stepped hard on Wellstone's health care proposals).

What it took - and a majority of the Democrats in Congress managed to bring it, don't forget - was sound political judgment regarding the administration involved, along with the political will and courage to vote one's judgment of what was best for the country.

Do you think it crossed Sanders mind when he then went on to vote for expanding the war effort in Iraq?

After all, by this point, it was clear the damage the war was doing to Iraqi civilians and it was clear there were no WMD's. So why did Sanders vote to increase military funding and spending to support the disastrous war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because W&Co manipulated the funding of the war to force that decision. The choice was to back the administration's funding requests, or to refuse to provide ammunition and food and medical car and so forth for soldiers in the field, already at war. Almost everyone who voted against allowing W to invade Iraq on his own tic could be counted on to keep the soldiers in combat armed and fed, of course - and those bills were timed and designed so the votes could be used to undermine criticism, or even as propaganda evidence of support among the gullible, for the Iraq War.

You have suckered for Republican propaganda and media claims, in other words, on the eve of a political campaign in which those claims are crucial to Republicans keeping political power. The financial and intellectual base of W&Co's faction has been spreading the blame, creating a false history of "bipartisan support" and "everybody was duped" and "nobody knew at the time" and in general "both sides", since the war went to hell on them, and if enough people like you buy it, it will work.

I don't call denying funding to study gun violence "principled", just as I don't think refusing to back legislation that called for background checks and a waiting day period of a week and less, "principled". Nor do I think it is principled to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits

Give up on the slander and misrepresentation, and you may come to a clearer view of principle in such matters. If the Clinton supporters don't, the only people they will fool will be themselves.

This is a particularly dangerous issue for Clinton, because her stance is muddled and threatening and highlights her stereotypical nanny-state proclivities without reassuring anyone by making sense. She will lose libertarians of the left and the right both, on her present course - and that's a fairly large chunk of voters.

Some of the things Sanders has voted for, crossing the floor to vote with Republicans and Bush in particular should be concerning. Nuclear waste dumping comes to mind.

Excellent point. It's not hard to actually criticize Sanders for some of his stuff, if you aren't trying to defend Clinton by contrast, or going into one of your gun spasms.

But as Sanders is probably not going to be the nominee, even valid criticism of him nowdays goes only so far - responding to criticisms of Clinton by criticizing Sanders instead is not going to help Clinton.

And she needs help.

 

[iceaura]

We can set standards, and pay well for teachers who meet them. We set standards for airline pilots, why not teachers, who shape our future society?

It's much, much harder to set standards for teaching - for one thing, the outcomes are years in the future. For another, there are no standards for classrooms and students (as there are for airplanes and such).

And teachers are paid via local property taxes, in the US. As long as that is so, we can't pay them well in general.

 

[Tiassa]

¿Bully Train?

​

What's it like to feel the #Bern?

How about intimidating?

Chilling?

Should we try, silencing?

"I get this feeling that many Hillary supporters (at least the younger ones, like me) are just biding their time to publicly display their support once she has the party's nomination," wrote Winkler.

"It's so visceral. The reaction against her," she said when we met up with her in Albuquerque, N.M., where she lives.

Publicly showing support for Hillary Clinton just isn't worth the aggravation for Winkler and her friends Leigh Featherstone and Holly Chamberlin ....

.... Winkler, Featherstone and Chamberlin are in their late 20s and early 30s―a lawyer, a non-profit data manager and an engineer. They all want Hillary Clinton to be president, but you won't see it on their car bumpers or dominating their Facebook feeds.

"I don't have the time and energy and mental toughness to have the whole conversation," Chamberlin said.

Featherstone supported Clinton in 2008, too, and has had many conversations that start out as a debate over issues. "And then it would turn into, 'Be honest. It's just because she's a woman, isn't it.' Ummm. You could have led with that," she said.

"It just feels like I am going to have to hear every reason why I am wrong," says Featherstone. "Over and over and over. And I kind of just want to skip past this part."

For Winkler, it's like all those times she's felt second-guessed because of her gender.

"It feels like it's because I'm a woman who can't properly formulate her own political views, she said.

(Keith↱)​

Here's a proposition for you: NPR wants to interview you, which is great and all, but you're not going to tell any of your friends because you're weary of the existential insults that come with expressing your opinion.

Daily Kos contributor MRules↱ offered her own perspective on this point:

Rather than express our excitement or talk about our candidate, many of us keep quiet when we hear the collective "shut up about it!" that comes from the Right and lately, the Left too when we bring up equality (AKA identity politics). I was a young woman in college, I remember what it was like to open your mouth and disagree with a few dudebros. Ready to shut me down...their fresh-from-lecture intellectual superiority getting in the way of any real discourse. I have heard that type of experience is common for HRC supporters on campuses across this country. Some men don't want to stop talking and open up political space to women. Some women would be great lawmakers but they are turned off by the male-dominated, man-splaining, frat boy feeling of it all. And you're kidding yourself if you think that's only the GOP. The only way to change this is to literally ELECT WOMEN.

I stopped going on FB because I felt the level of Bernie media being shared was over the top. People I know who have every privilege in life are suddenly posting about how oppressed they are by DWS. The young women in my family who support Hillary describe it as a trend to support Bernie, that they would never be loud about their support on social media or among friends. How fucking sad is that? Young women excited to vote for the first female president...young women who donate to PP...volunteer in their communities..decide to keep it quiet because they don't want to get shit on by their friend/family member/coworker/stranger on social media. I can say from experience if I do speak up in support of Hillary I have to first argue for at least five minutes that I have a brain capable of thinking thoughts and I actually don't think Bernie has the skills to be president and I feel she does...that I'm not just "vagina obsessed" as one kind person called me...then I can actually make the point I wanted to make. It gets old fast.​

And then there's Bernie Sanders, hoping to capitalize on the misogyny while telling women to stop moaning about it.

There is to the one a question of degrees and definition; is certain misogyny emerging because these individuals are genuinely so misogynistic, or are they simply myopic fools who don't see any civic obligation to reality? People make whatever calculations they want, and that is what it is. Where this becomes especially problematic, though, is the specific refusal of reality.

It doesn't sound so much like a new voice in politics as a fight to control the old.

The question of the Sanders campaign now goes well beyond Bernie Sanders and presidential potential. Vapid, truculent, self-righteous leftism is supposed to be a right-wing stereotype of liberalism; it would be best if Mr. Sanders and his wrecking crew didn't pile up all the detritus as some manner of exhibit reminding why mainstream liberal politics in these United States―a.k.a., the Democratic Establishment and the millions of voters who empower it―don't trust such volatile idealism.
____________________

Notes:

Keith, Tamara. "Why Some Clinton Supporters Are Not 'Really Ready To Go Public'". Morning Edition. 27 May 2016. NPR.org. 28 May 2016. http://n.pr/24dBx8F

MRules. "It is 2016 and Women Can't Talk About Their Candidate". Daily Kos. 27 May 2016. DailyKos.com. 28 May 2016. http://bit.ly/1TGxcWL

 

[iceaura]

Way back when, as the subject of a female President started to come up as an actual possibility, several public analysts made the point that contrary to liberal conventional thought at the time the first woman to gain such power in the US would very likely be Republican. That was because back then one was Republican if and only if solidly rightwing, authoritarian, and conservative - as the first woman President was likely to be.

We see that the general point was well taken. Only the Party designation has changed.

And then there's Bernie Sanders, hoping to capitalize on the misogyny while telling women to stop moaning about it.
- -
There is to the one a question of degrees and definition; is certain misogyny emerging because these individuals are genuinely so misogynistic, or are they simply myopic fools who don't see any civic obligation to reality?
- - -
Where this becomes especially problematic, though, is the specific refusal of reality.

Keep spewing, sooner or later the Sanders crowd will confess their sins and come around to seeing how they should have been backing Republican Lite and the predictable track record it brings all along - to avoid being associated with misogyny, of course. And they will have no hard feelings about the garbage dumped on them by the deluded, or the apparent condescending obliviousness with which their concerns are met in the arena of compromise and political alliance going forward. And they will of course be the ones doing the work and making the compromises necessary for any rapprochement.

Because the Clinton camp, possibly taking their cue from their candidate, yields in only one direction. Realistic adults understand that.

Because nothing says "realistic" and "civic responsibility" better than voting for a track record of rightwing authoritarian screwup and lame excuses rather than one of accurate perception and description of issues, and nothing says "feminism" and "competence" better than celebrating a series of doormat decisions made under pressure and alliances with obvious hyper-masculine bullshitters in their various follies.

Vapid, truculent, self-righteous leftism is supposed to be a right-wing stereotype of liberalism;

Not really. The typically encountered stereotype runs more to fatuous and futile than truculent, more to self-righteous incompetence than self-righteous leftism.

As Lyndon Johnson put it: The problem with liberals is they don't know how to fight.

 

[joepistole]

Way back when, as the subject of a female President started to come up as an actual possibility, several public analysts made the point that contrary to liberal conventional thought at the time the first woman to gain such power in the US would very likely be Republican. That was because back then one was Republican if and only if solidly rightwing, authoritarian, and conservative - as the first woman President was likely to be.

We see that the general point was well taken. Only the Party designation has changed.
Keep spewing, sooner or later the Sanders crowd will confess their sins and come around to seeing how they should have been backing Republican Lite and the predictable track record it brings all along - to avoid being associated with misogyny, of course. And they will have no hard feelings about the garbage dumped on them by the deluded, or the apparent condescending obliviousness with which their concerns are met in the arena of compromise and political alliance going forward. And they will of course be the ones doing the work and making the compromises necessary for any rapprochement.

Because the Clinton camp, possibly taking their cue from their candidate, yields in only one direction. Realistic adults understand that.

Because nothing says "realistic" and "civic responsibility" better than voting for a track record of rightwing authoritarian screwup and lame excuses rather than one of accurate perception and description of issues, and nothing says "feminism" and "competence" better than celebrating a series of doormat decisions made under pressure and alliances with obvious hyper-masculine bullshitters in their various follies.

Not really. The typically encountered stereotype runs more to fatuous and futile than truculent, more to self-righteous incompetence than self-righteous leftism.

Where do you get all this crap? The fact is the extremes on the left and on the right share much in common. That's evident in no small part with all this discussion about Bernie's supporters voting for Trump who is nothing if not a right wing extremist, if you believe his rhetoric.

As Lyndon Johnson put it: The problem with liberals is they don't know how to fight.

I'd like to see the source on that one.

 

[joepistole]

Bernie attempted a Canadian Ted style move by extending an invitation to The Donald to a debate. After initially accepting, The Donald refused Bernie's offer. I imagine The Donald's advisers counseled him and told him it wasn't a very bright idea. The Donald would have much to lose and little to gain in such a debate. So The Donald canceled the debate.

I was struck that Bernie was so desperate he made the offer. Bernie's debate offer is reminiscent of Canadian Ted's appointment of a running mate just a few days before withdrawing from the race. Time is drawing nigh for Bernie and the stress is showing. Will Bernie be able to withdraw from the race with grace, dignity, and in command of his mental faculties? I have my doubts. Bernie appears to be a very desperate man. His staff may need to key up a psychiatrist.

 

[iceaura]

btw: Anybody think the apparent voting machine fraud in the primaries (exit polls consistently skewing from the declared vote count) is going to stand up against The Donald as easily as it was stood up against Sanders?

Looking down the road, toward electability - - - -

 

[joepistole]

btw: Anybody think the apparent voting machine fraud in the primaries (exit polls consistently skewing from the declared vote count) is going to stand up against The Donald as easily as it was stood up against Sanders?

Looking down the road, toward electability - - - -

Oh, so now it's voting machine fraud. You guys are getting very desperate. Clinton leads in the polls and wins the primary and suddenly its massive voter machine fraud for which you have absolutely no evidence of. At first you were angry because of alleged "rigging" caused by the existence of super delegates, never mind the fact that Bernie was losing the popular vote regardless of the super delegates.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

The fact is you have offered a number of claims about the "system" being rigged against Sanders and you have absolutely no evidence to support any of them, and each successive claim of a "rigged" system gets more and more bizarre, and it's not like the prior assertions weren't already very bizarre. What Sanders and his devotees are doing is destroying whatever credibility he may have once had, and I imagine Sanders supporters will somehow wrap that into a conspiracy as they have with their prior mistakes.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, so now it's voting machine fraud. You guys are getting very desperate.

Now? You just heard about this from me, now?

The exit poll/voting machine statistical oddities have been percolating along for months - they are probably not enough to reverse the results, which depend mostly on the overwhelming wins in the Confederate States rather than percentage shifts in the north, but they are both obvious and significant. The question was simply whether whatever is going on there would work against Trump.

At first you were angry because of alleged "rigging" caused by the existence of super delegates, never mind the fact that Bernie was losing the popular vote regardless of the super delegates.

The rigging of the super delegates for Clinton has been a standard complaint of liberals and lefties and so forth from day one. Before Sanders was even a significant candidate, iirc.

What Sanders and his devotees are doing is destroying whatever credibility he may have once had, and I imagine Sanders supporters will somehow wrap that into a conspiracy as they have with their prior mistakes.

Whether you want to call the obvious strategizing and planning and rigging and so forth of the Democratic Party officialdom a "conspiracy" or not is your own call, but denying its existence and effects is no way to argue credibility for yourself.

Notice that your link to 538.com, in analyzing the popular vote margin for Clinton, ignores the pattern of exit poll/tally discrepancies completely - despite its direct relevance to the argument being made regarding the caucus vs popular vote. It doesn't debunk it, doesn't account for it, nothing.

It also ignores the trend in the voting, over time - the effect of the name recognition issue, which dovetails with the delegate rigging etc.

A bit odd, such omissions, on a site with its purported agenda and role and reputation, no?

 

[joepistole]

Now? You just heard about this from me, now?

The exit poll/voting machine statistical oddities have been percolating along for months - they are probably not enough to reverse the results, which depend mostly on the overwhelming wins in the Confederate States rather than percentage shifts in the north, but they are both obvious and significant. The question was simply whether whatever is going on there would work against Trump.
The rigging of the super delegates for Clinton has been a standard complaint of liberals and lefties and so forth from day one. Before Sanders was even a significant candidate, iirc.
Whether you want to call the obvious strategizing and planning and rigging and so forth of the Democratic Party officialdom a "conspiracy" or not is your own call, but denying its existence and effects is no way to argue credibility for yourself.

Notice that your link to 538.com, in analyzing the popular vote margin for Clinton, ignores the pattern of exit poll/tally discrepancies completely - despite its direct relevance to the argument being made regarding the caucus vs popular vote. It doesn't debunk it, doesn't account for it, nothing.

It also ignores the trend in the voting, over time - the effect of the name recognition issue, which dovetails with the delegate rigging etc.

A bit odd, such omissions, on a site with its purported agenda and role and reputation, no?

Well then, you should have some real serious credible evidence to back up your assertion of this "obvious strategizing and planning and rigging and so forth of the Democratic Party officialdom". So where is it?

You have none, you are once again making stuff up.

 

[wellwisher]

It is not so much that the Democratic party rigs the nomination process with super delegates, but rather the leadership has a contempt for its own electorate, and don't want them making any choices, not already made for them. How can you respect those who will buy anything they are told and never do any fact checking? The fear is others may shear the same sheep, leading to disaster if given too much freedom. Trump knows this and will use the venom of the snake, on the snake.

 

[iceaura]

Well then, you should have some real serious credible evidence to back up your assertion of this "obvious strategizing and planning and rigging and so forth of the Democratic Party officialdom". So where is it?

You posted the link to 538.com. Why do you think he wrote an entire column devoted to the topic of the "rigging" of the nomination process, without even mentioning two or three of the major complaints of "rigging" that have been dominating the discussions of the Sanders supporters?

Such as this site's posting: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...-primaries-426-exit-poll-anomalies-continued/ ; https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...xit-poll-discrepancies-and-win-probabilities/ ; https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democratic-primary-more-frustration/

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

 

[joepistole]

You posted the link to 538.com. Why do you think he wrote an entire column devoted to the topic of the "rigging" of the nomination process, without even mentioning two or three of the major complaints of "rigging" that have been dominating the discussions of the Sanders supporters?

Such as this site's posting: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...-primaries-426-exit-poll-anomalies-continued/ ; https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...xit-poll-discrepancies-and-win-probabilities/ ; https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democratic-primary-more-frustration/

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

What strikes me as odd are people who deny inconvenient facts and even go so far as to invent fictitious "facts" in order to justify their assertions. That strikes me as odd. It's very difficult to claim that someone who wasn't even a member of the party a year ago and is now in the number 2 position in the presidential race was in any way adversely discriminated against. It's also very difficult to claim that he has been adversely discriminated against when he has lost the popular vote regardless of the super delegates he likes to rail about. Even if super delegates magically disappeared, your man Sanders would still lose the election. So you invent these fictions for which you have absolutely zero evidence of in order to rationalize your beliefs.

When your political adversaries are cheering you on (e.g.Wellwisher, Trump, etc), that should give you some pause.​

 

[joepistole]

It is not so much that the Democratic party rigs the nomination process with super delegates, but rather the leadership has a contempt for its own electorate, and don't want them making any choices, not already made for them. How can you respect those who will buy anything they are told and never do any fact checking? The fear is others may shear the same sheep, leading to disaster if given too much freedom. Trump knows this and will use the venom of the snake, on the snake.

That's nonsensical. And let me remind you Republicans have super delegates as well. Actually, the Democratic party is the most democratic of the 2 parties. Republicans only have control of the House and Senate because of the very undemocratic aspects of our government (e.g. allotment of senators and gerrymandering) and Republican leaders are well aware of that fact. That's why they have done their damnedest to prevent people from voting.

 

[iceaura]

It's very difficult to claim that someone who wasn't even a member of the party a year ago and is now in the number 2 position in the presidential race was in any way adversely discriminated against.

It's been very easy. One points to any of several dozen circumstances, is all.

And then watches as de facto acknowledgment bubbles up uncontrollably in the middle of de Nile: Even if super delegates magically disappeared, And let me remind you Republicans have super delegates as well. .

They don't, btw. That is, the Republicans don't have superdelegates, and no delegate to the Republican convention was being advertised as a pre-committed vote for any particular candidate before the primary campaigns had even begun.

Republican leaders are well aware of that fact. That's why they have done their damnedest to prevent people from voting.

Do you think the Clinton Democratic Party establishment forces efforts to prune the Party rolls and restrict voting in the various primaries will end up aiding Trump in November, or will the effects wear off before then?

 

[joepistole]

They don't, btw. That is, the Republicans don't have superdelegates, and no delegate to the Republican convention was being advertised as a pre-committed vote for any particular candidate before the primary campaigns had even begun.

Except, Republicans do by the way have superdelegates... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/article/2580289

Do you think the Clinton Democratic Party establishment forces efforts to prune the Party rolls and restrict voting in the various primaries will end up aiding Trump in November, or will the effects wear off before then?

Unfortunately for you Iceaura, fact and reason do matter. You make these grand emotion laid conspiracies, but you never have any evidence to support any of them. The fact is Bernie is losing fair and square. He competed with Clinton and he lost. He didn't get a majority of the vote.

The irony here is that Sanders is now counting on the very same super delegates he condemned just a few short weeks ago. Because sanders lost the popular vote, his only hope of securing the nomination rests with the Democratic super delegates. Sanders says he can still win if he secures enough of the super delegate votes. In other words, Sanders wants the super delegates to override the will of the people. That's not democratic, and moreover, Sanders is doing exactly what he accused Clinton of doing just a few short weeks ago. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[Tiassa]

The Thing About Hypocrisy

Click for coffee break.​

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

It's the damnedest among risks. So Bernie Sanders turns out to be just another politician. In a really important way, this is no big deal insofar as hypocrisy, as much as we might disdain it, seems requisite in politics. That's the thing; sometimes you do things you would otherwise disdain. And, you know, it seems difficult to pass on an occasion begging to remind of Obamacare; let the Democratic defense of the Republican policy be what it is, but that also requires acknowledging just how far out of balance―some days it feels like nobody notices. Republicans now routinely roll on their own advocated policies; acknowledging this would seem to be significant, but it also interferes with feelgood indictment of the politics of effective compromise voters have demanded for generations.

But seriously, it was this or nothing. Pride sounds great, and all, but tell that to the dead. People can rip Democrats all they want, but they should in doing so at least acknowledge the reality. Sometimes we do things we disdain because there is no better alternative; it seems hard to complain of both sides when the only reason the one had to surrender single payer was the other just wasn't going to let it happen, and we didn't have the movement power to push it through. And then we end up defending what we did, and thus Democrats defend the individual mandate.

I still keep wondering about the marketplace, though: Oh, hey, Republicans are suddenly against what they were advocating yesterday! This must be really, really legitimate, principled, logical opposition!

On the flip side, perhaps more obscurely despite happening in front of us, is the difference between recognizing this market volatility and aiming to exploit it. What is that, a straw man once removed?

Bernie Sanders does things he disdains. But this is the thing about puritanism or fundamentalism of any sort in a society that places high value on the appearance of success and "getting results": Playing along isn't good enough when one is supposed to be better. It's the whole reason capitalism sells; capitalism "gets results". Communism doesn't have a major historical success; it's a tougher sell.

There is a paradox: "I know the way"? Or does that make it top-down? Because this crowdsourcing for policy explanations bit just isn't working. Building a movement is one thing. Building a working model, or proof of concept, are much harder.

Who cares if Bernie Sanders is just another politician? Two points make it important:

(1) He pronounces himself above such vulgarities.

(2) He really needs to get better at it.​

And those are what they are. I'm still sanguine with the proposition that President Sanders wouldn't wreck the place. But I can only wonder how badly the disappointment of his failed presidency would harm liberalism and the left. The numbers are impressive; the show itself, however, is a disaster.