Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Um, how many presidents have been PhD economists or even MA economists or even BA economists? I would say Sanders understands economics well enough. Do you feel confident that the people who have been running our country to date had a good sense for economics? Greenspan himself APOLOGIZED to congress for his economic "supply side" economic policies and deregulation. Sanders had been on top of this years before, and there's footage of that. Honestly Sanders has a better grasp of economics than anyone who has or is threatening to be president of the US.

Here's one example. But there are several others, with Sanders grilling people on budget proposals, economic policies, and confirmation hearings. He's pretty spot on. You can youtube them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Um, how many presidents have been PhD economists or even MA economists or even BA economists? I would say Sanders understands economics well enough. Do you feel confident that the people who have been running our country to date had a good sense for economics? Greenspan himself APOLOGIZED to congress for his economic "supply side" economic policies and deregulation. Sanders had been on top of this years before, and there's footage of that. Honestly Sanders has a better grasp of economics than anyone who has or is threatening to be president of the US.

Here's one example. But there are several others, with Sanders grilling people on budget proposals, economic policies, and confirmation hearings. He's pretty spot on. You can youtube them.

Oops, this is what I meant to add: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alan+greenspan+apology+sanders&view=detail&mid=660E88E8CD1BC0A0811F660E88E8CD1BC0A0811F&FORM=VIRE6

[Anonymous]

The commonality in the victory of Sanders and Trump is that neither is beholden to special interests and lobbyists to fund their campaign.

Despite Hillary's multiple protestations that she is not influenced by the money she receives from the likes of GS and others, the electorate is savvy enough to know that large contributions to political candidates always come with the expectation of special treatment and access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The commonality in the victory of Sanders and Trump is that neither is beholden to special interests and lobbyists to fund their campaign.

Despite Hillary's multiple protestations that she is not influenced by the money she receives from the likes of GS and others, the electorate is savvy enough to know that large contributions to political candidates always come with the expectation of special treatment and access.

M
The funny thing is that they probably are beholden to some special interests. We just don't know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

His plans for implanting his policies are simplistic and well cost way more than he has acknowledged. While affordable college is a worthy goal free college for all is not. Single payer healthcare in the US will be a disaster. I could go on. For example, widely expanding social security is not feasibl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The commonality in the victory of Sanders and Trump is that neither is beholden to special interests and lobbyists to fund their campaign.

Despite Hillary's multiple protestations that she is not influenced by the money she receives from the likes of GS and others, the electorate is savvy enough to know that large contributions to political candidates always come with the expectation of special treatment and access.

Skeptic would say they are both populists and the demographics of their supporters would support that. Aside from students, both bases are low income whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

So agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Um, how many presidents have been PhD economists or even MA economists or even BA economists? I would say Sanders understands economics well enough. Do you feel confident that the people who have been running our country to date had a good sense for economics? Greenspan himself APOLOGIZED to congress for his economic "supply side" economic policies and deregulation. Sanders had been on top of this years before, and there's footage of that. Honestly Sanders has a better grasp of economics than anyone who has or is threatening to be president of the US.

Difference between a lack of a PhD in economics and fundamentally misunderstanding basic economics. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't vote for the R's either. Also incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The commonality in the victory of Sanders and Trump is that neither is beholden to special interests and lobbyists to fund their campaign.

Despite Hillary's multiple protestations that she is not influenced by the money she receives from the likes of GS and others, the electorate is savvy enough to know that large contributions to political candidates always come with the expectation of special treatment and access.

M
The funny thing is that they probably are beholden to some special interests. We just don't know it.

Unlike Clinton, Sanders also doesn't have industry dark money and SuperPACs. He is far less beholden to large donors.

[Anonymous]

...but the moment Bernie sits down with Al Sharpton to broker a deal to get the AA vote, Bernie's lofty morals are out the window and he's just as beholden as anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The commonality in the victory of Sanders and Trump is that neither is beholden to special interests and lobbyists to fund their campaign.

Despite Hillary's multiple protestations that she is not influenced by the money she receives from the likes of GS and others, the electorate is savvy enough to know that large contributions to political candidates always come with the expectation of special treatment and access.

Skeptic would say they are both populists and the demographics of their supporters would support that. Aside from students, both bases are low income whites.

Not according to the turnout statistics from NH: Sanders won male and female, progressive and moderate, across income levels!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

His plans for implanting his policies are simplistic and well cost way more than he has acknowledged. While affordable college is a worthy goal free college for all is not. Single payer healthcare in the US will be a disaster. I could go on. For example, widely expanding social security is not feasibl

That is not the case. Virtually every modern industrialized nation has some form of universal healthcare - except for the United States. Germany has had universal healthcare since Otto von Bismarck put it in place in 1898. Your flat-out dismissals and suggestions that it's unfeasible are not backed up by actual historical evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nader/Gore/Bush = Sanders/Clinton/Rubio.

Or sanders drops out but had pulled Clinton so far left before the general that she can't win.
I'm becoming so hopeless I am now wondering if the best possible outcome is trump getting the R nom and then Bloomberg jumping in. I could live with him. At least he probably wouldn't ruin the country.

Don't be afraid of Sanders. What's so scary about him? Do you like his positions? Do you think he's advocating for a kinder, smarter, fair-er America that invests in its families, children, young people? Are you afraid of your taxes going up? What exactly is it that is so scary about Sanders' campaign?

I think he's not competent to do the job. I'm an economist (a very lefty one) and I think he doesn't understand macroeconomics. From what he's said. I also think he's a great rabble rouser and a good person. But competence matters.

Um, how many presidents have been PhD economists or even MA economists or even BA economists? I would say Sanders understands economics well enough. Do you feel confident that the people who have been running our country to date had a good sense for economics? Greenspan himself APOLOGIZED to congress for his economic "supply side" economic policies and deregulation. Sanders had been on top of this years before, and there's footage of that. Honestly Sanders has a better grasp of economics than anyone who has or is threatening to be president of the US.

Here's one example. But there are several others, with Sanders grilling people on budget proposals, economic policies, and confirmation hearings. He's pretty spot on. You can youtube them.

Oops, this is what I meant to add: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alan+greenspan+apology+sanders&view=detail&mid=660E88E8CD1BC0A0811F660E88E8CD1BC0A0811F&FORM=VIRE6

+1

The person trying to suggest that Sanders doesn't understand basic economics is off base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...but the moment Bernie sits down with Al Sharpton to broker a deal to get the AA vote, Bernie's lofty morals are out the window and he's just as beholden as anyone else.

Can someone explain to me why this is not pandering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
+1

The person trying to suggest that Sanders doesn't understand basic economics is off base.

The pp who suggested that is her/himself an economist. I'd like to hear their reasons, but for you to suggest they're off base is a little basic.