Bernie Sanders finally makes a smart decision: Drops Out

Author: Imabench ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 13
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    Even though in 2016 Bernie stayed in the race damn near all the way to the end of the race, this time in 2020 he has decided to pull out before officially being eliminated. 


    Statistically Bernie was in a spot where he would have to win 75% of all contests to win the nomination over Biden, which was damn near impossible to do with Biden polling well in many parts of the country. Statistics never stopped Bernie in the past though, so to see Bernie actually realize he was numerically fucked, and then be forward-thinking enough to actually drop out of the race based on that realization, is a commendable development on his part. 

    Rather then make this a giant circle jerk/celebration thread though, I'd like to break down why i think Bernie lost the nomination 

    .
    .
    .

    Reason 1) Bernie banked on something that never materialized. 

    The youth vote, as volatile as it is, launched Bernie into contention in 2016 and has kept him viable in the national arena ever since.... In 2020 it was expected that the youth vote would have a large turnout, which would be beneficial for Bernie in a race as packed as it was when it first started. This was an acceptable observation to make since Trump is a very polarizing force, and there was a surge in the youth vote during the 2018 midterm elections that saw the Democrats regain the House of Representatives. Midterms always saw lower turnout than general election primaries, so it looked like the youth vote would be out in force for Bernie from the get-go. 

    The problem was it never did. 

    https://www.axios.com/youth-vote-2020-democratic-primaries-db5dbbf3-1295-44ae-9d2a-2283c06fbf02.html

    Levels of youth voters stagnated or declined from their 2016 numbers in nearly every early state primary that took place by Super Tuesday when Biden launched into the lead. By banking his campaign on the one voter bloc that failed to materialize, let alone expand from previous levels in 2016 to 2018, Bernie was effectively launching his campaign in a rowboat while others were using wave-runners. 

    .
    .
    .

    Reason #2) Bernie didn't bother actually looking around at the surroundings 

    Bernie had the youth vote on lockdown, there's no question of that, but it takes a bigger coalition than just one segment of the population to win the nomination, so candidates have to expand their base to other segments in order to build a voter bloc. Bernie far and away failed to accomplish this.... Rather then temper down some of his campaign platforms to appeal to more centrist and moderate Dem voters and expand his base, Bernie instead embarked on a campaign to try to convince moderates to move further to the left into his camp and refused to compromise on anything..... Biden did better with female voters, black voters, older voters, and non-college educated voters than Bernie did, which makes up a vast chunk of the American electorate, and he accomplished this mainly by staying as a centrist and letting Bernie push undecided voters closer to him..... Biden was able to built the coalition of voters that Hillary tried to build in 2016, Bernie just repeated 2016 of dominating the youth vote and trying to convince voters to come to his side rather then alter his platform to appeal to more voters. 

    .
    .
    .

    Reason #3) His platform wasn't practical. 

    Medicare for All, free college education, massive Wall Street Reform..... Bernie's biggest campaign cornerstones were very leftist ideas popular among his base, but the simple truth is that none of these things are even remotely able to be enacted into law.... No Republican will green light a single payer healthcare system, free college tuition, massive banking reforms, etc, and in all likelihood the GOP will still hold the Senate going into 2021.... Bernie's platform simply isnt obtainable because of the entrenchment of the GOP in the Senate, and anyone who values legislation actually getting passed and changes being made can see that Bernie was incapable of making that happen.

    The only way Bernie could pass a fraction of his legislation would be if the Democrats acquired a massive super-majority in the Senate that could override GOP votes. That was not something that was going to happen if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't happen no matter who was the nominee. Yet Bernie acted and campaigned as if it was almost a guarantee that he would walk into office with full legislative capability, and the vast majority of voters who figured out that wouldnt likely be the case therefore would conclude that Bernie would largely fail to accomplish any of the things he was campaigning on, which definitely pushed voters away and more towards the middle where Biden was. 

    .
    .
    .

    Reason #4) Bernie couldnt even win Progressive voters. 

    Let me pose this question. In early October, Warren registered at 26.8% while Biden was at 27.0% When Warren began sliding all the way down to 14% two months later in early December, most of her voters did not go to Sanders, they went to Buttigieg

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

    Why, in the actual fuck, would left leaning Warren supporters who ideologically have more in common with Sanders supporters than any other candidate, decide to support the campaign of a Gay Mayor of South Bend Indiana who is nearly in the exact same camp as Biden?

    Warren and Sanders were buddies throughout much of the early days of the primary, in part because their voters had so much in common, yet when Warren lost half her base and Bernie was looking to expand his to stay viable, they went to Buttigieg instead. If Bernie couldnt expand his base to moderate and centrist voters, that's one thing.... Its an entirely bigger and more problematic issue if Bernie couldnt expand his base to include other leftist leaning liberals already within the Democratic Party. If you argue that Warren supporters weren't 'True' progressives and are closer to the center than Bernie's platform, then that there arent enough voters Bernie could EVER convince to support his platform. 

    .
    .
    .

    Those are the main reasons why Bernie lost the nomination. He banked on the youth vote that never materialized, He failed to expand his base further outward past a fraction of latino voters, almost no part of his platform could have made it through Congress and arrive at his desk for him to sign, and he couldnt bring in Warren supporters to join his base when he desperately needed to. 
  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 10,722
    5
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    Biden would perform better in the general election. I think he wins Michigan, but still wont turn out in key states like Florida.

    The Democratic Party is divided, and Bernie is not the progressive candidate they need. He doesn't associate with the DNC, yet still runs. Main reason why he lost
  • WaterPhoenix
    WaterPhoenix avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,791
    3
    3
    10
    WaterPhoenix avatar
    WaterPhoenix
    well shitaki mushrooms looks like dementia joe's gonna be our next democratic candidate

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,183
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    Rather than make this a giant circle jerk/celebration thread though,

    Oh please, don't be modest. Show us your best Biden.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,702
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Imabench
    Reason #3) His platform wasn't practical. 

    Something else to add is that the Bernie crowd likes to tout the idea that "Medicare for All" is a popular policy based on opinion polls. However, when they actually get into the specifics of the plan, by mentioning things such as raising taxes and elimination of private insurance, the support for the plan is well below half. The most popular plan once informed of what M4A actually means is a public option, which Biden is running on. So, Medicare for All likely wouldn't even pass with a Democrat majority. As a conservative, I would honestly not be too opposed to a public option, although I would need it to come with private insurance reforms to make them more competitive, therefore making it a viable alternative to government healthcare.

    That being said, partisanship would likely lead to Republicans blocking a public option just because no party likes the other party's president getting anything done. Nothing will likely change by much no matter who is elected in November barring some landslide.
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 900
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @bmdrocks21
    . As a conservative, I would honestly not be too opposed to a public option, although I would need it to come with private insurance reforms to make them more competitive
    Im firmly in the camp that a Public Option is as far as the US needs to go in order to reach a happy medium regarding healthcare. A public option would give high-risk poorer people an avenue to get decent coverage, which means private industry providers wouldnt have to put costs very high in order to cover the higher risk portion of the population. At the same time because the US only needs to breakeven with such a program rather than achieve max profit, the buy-in for the public option could be low enoughthat it would keep the private healthcare providers form making their costs too high otherwise people would just keep opting for the public option. 

    This wouldnt necessarily solve issues with drug pricing and all the problems from the pharmaceutical side of things, but a public option is a hell of an improvement that would leave the better aspects of the private market intact while still helping out Americans the most
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,183
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @bmdrocks21
    The government currently isn't stopping any state from implementing Romneycare in their state.

    Why hasn't California, far more in Democrat control than Massachusetts, developed their own State healthcare plan?

    Why does this have to be managed at the Federal level over so many people when it could be much more efficient governed locally?




  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,183
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @WaterPhoenix
    Clearly what happened is that people on the left focused so much energy and capital into Orangemanbad that they didn't have much left to support a proper candidate and do the things to get essential name recognition out of many of the more competent candidates. Those candidates never broke 5% in recognition, some never broke 1%.  The end result being digging up a fossil everyone can still recognize from history books. 

    This is what happens when there is no <insert_Democratic_Candidate>_person_good.exe program running in the foreground instead of Orangemanbad.exe hogging all the oxygen.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,702
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Imabench
     At the same time because the US only needs to breakeven with such a program rather than achieve max profit, the buy-in for the public option could be low enoughthat it would keep the private healthcare providers form making their costs too high otherwise people would just keep opting for the public option. 
    With our current borderline-monopolistic system, the max-profit model is certainly hurting us. However, firms have an incentive to keep costs low and prices high to maximize profits. With competition, they have an incentive to undercut their competitions' prices as well, making it great for consumers. Bureaucratic institutions have an incentive to maximize costs to expand their budgets, so I'm not sure if it this may cost us more in the long-run.

    And while I certainly hope this reaches the happy medium as outlined above, I hope that this doesn't just continue to do what Medicaid/Medicare have done in the past. Historically, they have underpaid hospitals, which has shifted the bill to private insurers, which is also part of the reason that private insurance is so costly. This may just be another nail in the coffin for private insurers if the public option continues this trend.

    Regardless of what we do, we need to make insurance more affordable for everyone, and the Republican party is unfortunately making this a secondary-issue it seems.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,702
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    I really think it would be ideal for each state to have their own plans. They generally control costs better than the federal government and they can tailor their coverage to meet the needs of their people. Some states have more air pollution, so they will need to cover respiratory issues more broadly, for instance. Only issue I could see with that is making sure that out-of-state hospitals would accept your insurance if you had a heart attack, car crash, etc. out of your home state. A federal plan would aid in solving that particular issue.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,183
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @bmdrocks21
    With competition, they have an incentive to undercut their competitions' prices as well, making it great for consumers. Bureaucratic institutions have an incentive to maximize costs to expand their budgets, so I'm not sure if it this may cost us more in the long-run.

    Private insurers are by far the best entity at holding Hospitals accountable for finances. Far better than ANY government-run institution, as long as the government is not restricting competition as they are often paid handsomely to do by lobbyists.


    If there was ever a need for anti-trust reforms, the healthcare industry is the one that needs trust busting now more than ever.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,422
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Imabench
    Reason #2) Bernie didn't bother actually looking around at the surroundings Bernie had the youth vote on lockdown, there's no question of that, but it takes a bigger coalition than just one segment of the population to win the nomination,
    You are aware that bernie had the most diverse coalition right? He was leading among young voters, hispanic voters, black voters under 49. these vary be state obviously. The idea that bernie only appeals to young people is a silly argument that MSNBC pundits like to say, but that simply wasn't true. 

    Reason #3) His platform wasn't practical. 

    Medicare for All, free college education, massive Wall Street Reform..... Bernie's biggest campaign cornerstones were very leftist ideas popular among his base, but the simple truth is that none of these things are even remotely able to be enacted into law.
    This is kind of one of america's biggest problems though. People consistently saying that horrible problems can't or shouldn't be fixed. It isn't practical to keep millions from going bankrupt. It isn't practical to keep banks from preying on the poor. This kind of thinking is why Biden can't beat trump. 

    Reason #4) Bernie couldnt even win Progressive voters. 
    Let me pose this question. In early October, Warren registered at 26.8% while Biden was at 27.0% When Warren began sliding all the way down to 14% two months later in early December, most of her voters did not go to Sanders, they went to Buttigieg
    You seem to misunderstand though. the people who switched from Warren to Butigieg weren't progressives. They were upper middle class neo-liberals. They liked the wonky, technocratic plans of warren. They were never progressives though.


  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,702
    4
    6
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    Well, yes. The ideal solution would be to make the monopolistic insurance companies more competitive because a competitive private sector has the best incentive structure. So, I would personally like to see actions to make that happen from a Republican president and then anyone who truly cannot afford it after that could perhaps get a voucher to a private company or something of that sort.