I’m writing this because I don’t understand the attacks on Bernie, though some are so ludicrous as to be easily dismissed (and appear to be mostly motivated by a fear of losing ill-gotten tax cuts), so if you are against Bernie but not for policy reasons, I want to hear from you (that is, the presentation of a reasonable argument). If you think Democrats need to be “moderate” to win, then I want you to explain the polling to me (see below). Who is your candidate of choice and can you explain what that person has said, when it comes to policy, that you agree with (and that is clearly distinct from Bernie’s positions)? Or do you not mind voting for someone who is evasive and/or has “flip-flopped” in recent years?
I can't remember ever seeing the MSM (and even some who call themselves progressives) go after a Democratic candidate like they have Bernie, with laughable claims such as "he makes my skin crawl" (Mimi Rocah/MSNBC) or Chris Matthews comparing him to McGovern in 1972. But let's get some reality here to begin things, with the Quinnipiac poll of Feb 5-9:
Bloomberg beats Trump 51-42
Sanders beats Trump 51-43
Biden beats Trump 50-43
Klobuchar beats Trump 49-43
Warren beats Trump 48-44
Buttigieg beats Trump 47-43
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/donald-trump-versus-democrats-2020-poll
I have yet to hear anyone in the MSM cite this or previous, similar polls, yet so many pundits and celebupundits think that "everyone" is going to vote against Bernie if he is the nominee except for some imaginary "radical base." And to be clear, I supported HRC in 2016 (I'll not go into details as to why here, to keep this concise). To me, this is akin to a kind of sabotage. Why? Do they want to keep their ill-gotten tax cuts that badly? At the very least, they need to make an argument that is reasonable, but so far there is no argument, other than perhaps, "Americans won't vote for a socialist," but again, the polling does not bear this out, as he has been called this (and worse) in the past and is not an “unknown.” If any of the analysis seems to be erroneous, I’d like responses that make an argument (with data, not feelings) to the contrary.
Now if a "moderate" is the nominee, there could be a Jill Stein type candidate that takes 2 or 3 points from the Democrat, which could be crucial in the key states. But aside from the polling, there are the 2016 primary results. Bernie won Wisconsin and Michigan, for example, and Iowa was a near tie, with Bernie winning independent voters overwhelmingly. Overall, he did much better with independent voters in the key states (many of whom, including a couple of people I know, then decided to vote GOP in the general), and overall. Bernie is even quite popular in West Virginia (take a look at how he did against HRC there). Also, I wonder how well the polling reflects the youth vote, many of whom do not answer calls from unknown phone numbers (I know I don’t, and I’m not a millenial). How often has the MSM mentioned this:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/11/sanders-crushes-trump-18-points-among-independent-voters-new-national-general
And how many pundits mention that he did about forty rallies for HRC in 2016, so there is no reason to think he won't be quite an active and intelligent campaigner, and his ability to articulate policy positions led to him doing quite well when he went on FoxNews in recent years to tell people what his vision for the country is.
The idea that he is terrible candidate does not seem to be related in any data or metrics available at this point, and apparently is based on the notion that if GOP operatives call him a socialism or communist voters will then flock to Trump. The same people said Trump wasn't going to win in 2016. I remember telling people who said they were leaning towards Trump in 2016 that HRC is incredibly qualified, yet those HRC supporters who are telling us to vote for Buttigieg rather than Bernie won't address the difference in qualifications between the two; why? For those who don't know much about Bernie's political background, you might want to take a look at:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
http://occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/04/a-list-of-bernie-sanders-accomplishments/
And why is Bernie being criticized for putting forth an aggressive agenda that might mitigate to some degree the massive disparity of wealth that has developed since around 1980? He is with the majority or vast majority, yet someone that is wrong, or bad, or unrealistic? When did politics in the USA become disconnected from socio-economic realities? "Hope and change"' was a dozen years ago, and what did "we the people" derive from that? I want concrete details now; I am no longer willing to support people who refuse to tell us anything about what they intend to do as President (or have "flip-flopped" in recent years). Don't you think you should require more from the people you vote for? I am certainly no "Bernie Bro" (and Bernie has more support among women than men, for those who don't know), but I have noto seen anything from the other Dem candidates that seem to have a chance of obtaining the nomination that suggests we would see anything more than we got from 2008 to 2016, and since the ACA has been partially dimantled, at the very least, shouldn't a Dem candidate talk about how to get insurance back to the people who have lost it?
Is Bernie an "ideologue?" I've heard that one, even on the "liberal" cable news network; what does that even mean? I haven't heard him talk about his political notions other than when he was explicitly asked; otherwise, I hear him talk about specific pollicy positions, which is the opposite of what ideologues do! Ideologically, he seems clearly in the Western European democratic tradition (which also includes non-European nations like Canada); when did that become so horrible? What I suspect is occurring is that many if not most highly-paid pundits, columnists, and celebupundits (such as the women of "The View") are concerned about paying much higher taxes. Why? Just pure greed?
Or do they not understand how our government works? Do they not realize that aside from Republicans in the House and Senate, there will be plenty of "corporate" and "moderate" Democrats who won't go along with what they see as "going too far left," and so there will be compromise. If not, the other likely possibility (if the GOP holds the Senate), is more obstruction from McConnell, and that is something all Democratic candidates should address! If I were the nominee, I would say that if we can't take the Senate, then we have to do what Trump has done, which is to issue executive orders and fight those out in court, since a term is four years and these cases can drag out for long periods of time; unfortunately, that is what may be the only way forward to get anything done, temporarily or not, in the nation these days.
It also may be worth reading chapter 18 of the book, "Secrecy World," because I suspect some if not many of the wealthy donors to candidates other than Bernie are part of this new global system that includes tax evasion, money laundering, etc. They want a President who won't do anything substantial to interfere with the status quo, or perhaps will reverse any kind of oversight and/or prosecution of law breaking in that context. But considering the polling, how well Bernie does with independents, especially in the key states, and the lack of a third party threat, what could stop Bernie? The punditocracy? That could be, but then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy rife with conflicts of interest; the average person should be outraged at this! Otherwise, the Democrats, who outnumber Republicans, would have to stay home and not vote for Bernie in order for him to lose (that is, a fair election, without Vlad's "help" to the GOP). If there is any evidence they will stay home (or vote Trump), please cite this or stop bashing him already! If you don't like his “army,” fine, but that’s no reason for you to refrain from voting for him if you otherwise would have; unlike Trump, he hasn’t done anything like suggest the media should be targets of mob wrath, has he?
Voters who think Bernie as President will wave his hand and Stalin’s Soviet Union will be recreated are so stupid as to not be worth courting; who do you think such people will vote for? And wouldn’t that already be reflected in the polling? Remember all the populist things Trump promised? Why would anyone think that a person like Bernie, with a long track record of such proposals, would not be much more popular among those independents (as polling demonstrates)? Or could it really just be an issue of personality? We seem to have a “cult of personality” presidency, so perhaps that is the way things are going, which suggests we are in big trouble! Sure, Bernie can be blunt, and while I like people who “get right to the crux of the matter,” it’s likely a whole lot of people do not. It also may be that I became accustomed to such people, since I studied under a couple of professors who were like this, whereas others expect “niceness,” regardless of what the stakes are. To such people I can only ask if they have ever put personal preferences aside for a greater good. If you have never done that before, now would be the time to start, it would seem...
UPDATE: I should have added that I fear some of the anti-Bernie pundits are DNC shills (formally or not), and if he gets the nomination, the DNC is out of their control, along with the direction of the party. And what about those wealthy donors? Do they stop giving the “moderate” and “corporate” Democrats donations? I think this is likely a key factor, but not for the “average voter.”
And in 2016, I told quite a few people HRC was highly qualified, so please put your notions about her personality aside and don’t let a person like Trump get elected, because she won the popular primary vote. Thus, my main point here is that if Bernie has more delegates and more popular vote than the other Dem candidates, it would be outrageous if the nomination went to someone else, such as Bloomberg (who I have read is hiring people who might make such decisions to be on his campaign!), and that is a recipe of four more nightmare years. I (and probably a whole lot of others) would think there is no good reason to do this, and I could only assume it was related to “insider” corruption or irrational hatred.