Why does Bernie appeal to conservatives?

[Shadows]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

[Del Tachi]

Because a lot of Republican voters are actually opposed to tax cuts for the rich, support the universal aspects of the social safety net (read: Social Security and Medicare), and are angry about mass job losses and the overall hollowing out of rural communities from the deindustrialization caused by the same technological advances and trade agreements that have recently been championed by politicians in both major parties - especially, in the case of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and other exemplars of the Beltway "Establishment." When combined with Hillary having over two decades of being a flashpoint for the American Right's hatred of Democrats, liberals, and feminists, as well as Bernie having been the closest thing to an outsider in DC over the same time period (not technically a Democrat, ideologically and politically very consistent, actually disdains the Money Men rather than court their support), this all becomes easier to understand.

Let's not overstate the case, though; A lot of Republicans do indeed see Sanders and his supporters as Loony Leftists or even dangerous Communist and anarchist America-haters, and things like the Scalise shooting along with some of the people associated with Antifa, Black Bloc, etc. certainly haven't helped weaken that perception.

This is the most correct answer.

At its core, Sanders' socialist message is the same story of American Decline that Trump used to bring out his voting base in 2016.  The idea that America's best days are behind it has a very "conservative" appeal to it. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Because a lot of Republican voters are actually opposed to tax cuts for the rich, support the universal aspects of the social safety net (read: Social Security and Medicare), and are angry about mass job losses and the overall hollowing out of rural communities from the deindustrialization caused by the same technological advances and trade agreements that have recently been championed by politicians in both major parties - especially, in the case of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and other exemplars of the Beltway "Establishment." When combined with Hillary having over two decades of being a flashpoint for the American Right's hatred of Democrats, liberals, and feminists, as well as Bernie having been the closest thing to an outsider in DC over the same time period (not technically a Democrat, ideologically and politically very consistent, actually disdains the Money Men rather than court their support), this all becomes easier to understand.

Let's not overstate the case, though; A lot of Republicans do indeed see Sanders and his supporters as Loony Leftists or even dangerous Communist and anarchist America-haters, and things like the Scalise shooting along with some of the people associated with Antifa, Black Bloc, etc. certainly haven't helped weaken that perception.

This is the most correct answer.

At its core, Sanders' socialist message is the same story of American Decline that Trump used to bring out his voting base in 2016.  The idea that America's best days are behind it has a very "conservative" appeal to it. 

I felt everyone was providing good answers to this, but I wanted to emphasize this. There's an instinctively reactionary and appealing aspect of some lone man howling about how America has lost its way and longing for a return to, well, something.

[GoldenMainer]

It helps that Bernie doesn't come across as the typical double talking politician. He's remained consistent and says what he means even if it isn't popular at the time. The fact that he comes across as this crotchety down-to-earth grandfather makes him relatable as well.

[Adam Griffin]

Because he wasn't Hillary. This article is a couple of years old, BTW.

Anyway, it's the same reason that Hillary's numbers in '08 went through the roof as soon as it was obvious Obama would be the nominee and the same reason conservatives back then would often defend her: they hated the alternative even more.

If Bernie is the frontrunner come 2019, expect whatever is left of this conservative love-fest to evaporate quickly. I'm surprised the GOP hasn't already started with the massive smears yet (though the fraud accusations are basically rooted in a GOP operative's attempts to sully his name). Instead of hearing screams about "Benghazi", it'll be "Burlington College", and it'll work.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

Because its a f-ing caucus in one of the least friendly states to Democrats.

(Edit: happy now NOVA?)

[NOVA Green]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

Because its a f-ing primary in one of the least friendly states to Democrats.

You are aware that Utah was a Caucus State and not a Primary I am assuming that was an attempt at humor, sarcasm, irony, or who knows what.....

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

Because its a f-ing primary in one of the least friendly states to Democrats.

You are aware that Utah was a Caucus State and not a Primary I am assuming that was an attempt at humor, sarcasm, irony, or who knows what.....

Ah yes, of course; Mr. Condescending! Great to see you again! Because that couldn't have been a mistake or anything. My whole argument is now invalid because I mistaked Utah for a primary for a caucus. Oh geez, how could anyone who reads my post understand what I'm saying? This is an outrage!

(prepares for lecture complete with lots of *sigh*-ing and a snarkier holier-than-thou attitude)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because a lot of Republican voters are actually opposed to tax cuts for the rich, support the universal aspects of the social safety net (read: Social Security and Medicare), and are angry about mass job losses and the overall hollowing out of rural communities from the deindustrialization caused by the same technological advances and trade agreements that have recently been championed by politicians in both major parties - especially, in the case of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and other exemplars of the Beltway "Establishment." When combined with Hillary having over two decades of being a flashpoint for the American Right's hatred of Democrats, liberals, and feminists, as well as Bernie having been the closest thing to an outsider in DC over the same time period (not technically a Democrat, ideologically and politically very consistent, actually disdains the Money Men rather than court their support), this all becomes easier to understand.

Let's not overstate the case, though; A lot of Republicans do indeed see Sanders and his supporters as Loony Leftists or even dangerous Communist and anarchist America-haters, and things like the Scalise shooting along with some of the people associated with Antifa, Black Bloc, etc. certainly haven't helped weaken that perception.

This is the most correct answer.

At its core, Sanders' socialist message is the same story of American Decline that Trump used to bring out his voting base in 2016.  The idea that America's best days are behind it has a very "conservative" appeal to it. 

I fit the category of a Republican that generally likes Sanders, and for the reasons cited above, for the most part.

The Republican Party of my youth in suburban Long Island was the party of the middle class.  THAT Republican Party had an understanding about how a middle class society was built and maintained.  Much of that involved a safety net and programs that targeted EVERYBODY, and it's been pointed out already here that this is what differentiates Sanders from most of the rest of the Democrats.  Much of Sanders' proposals are not targeted at minorities; they're targeted at all Americans.  The earlier poster who pointed out that there's something in it for Republicans in Sanders' proposals, while this is not always true of the proposals of other Democrats.

The other reason is that Sanders, perhaps because of a legitimate respect for folks who perform manual labor for a living, isn't the polarizing creature Hillary was.  He's also a guy who's willing to talk to people.  Sanders addressed a crowd at the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and was well received.  Few there voted for him, I'm sure, but they listened, and it was a good event for Sanders, because unlike Hillary Clinton, Sanders isn't bent on "transforming" society to suit his own morals.  He's not hostile to the churches, and wouldn't send operatives to infiltrate churches in an attempt to change their doctrines (as, for example, in John Podesta's proposed "Catholic Spring").  Evangelicals loathe Hillary Clinton in ways that exceed by far any negativity they would have toward Sanders.  I can't overestimate this; the loathing Evangelicals have for Hillary is real, and it's based on things she's said, and her allies have said, that reflect hostility toward churches.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

He's not fake and phony like the rest of the Democratic leadership.

[Cynthia]

I asked a few conservatives around me about this:

Most conservatives aren't conservatives per se, but they are attracted to be conservatives because they are pro-Trump. Trump's powerful economic populist message attracted many to be his followers, and Bernie Sanders also has that attraction.

Bernie Sanders is also "outside the Washington establishment", a point that attracts many tea party conservatives.

I can totally see in a Sanders vs Rubio matchup many tea partiers would vote for Sanders just because they are anti establishment without much policy agreements to Sanders.

Ironically I was quite conservative 1.5 years ago.

[NOVA Green]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

Because its a f-ing primary in one of the least friendly states to Democrats.

You are aware that Utah was a Caucus State and not a Primary I am assuming that was an attempt at humor, sarcasm, irony, or who knows what.....

Ah yes, of course; Mr. Condescending! Great to see you again! Because that couldn't have been a mistake or anything. My whole argument is now invalid because I mistaked Utah for a primary for a caucus. Oh geez, how could anyone who reads my post understand what I'm saying? This is an outrage!

(prepares for lecture complete with lots of *sigh*-ing and a snarkier holier-than-thou attitude)

Irritable, you are definitely living up to your avatar name.

Not quite sure where your beef is here, considering I simply my intent was simply to correct the record. Maybe I should have sent a PM instead of posting... my apologies....

Honestly, I am a bit confused about your argument regarding support for Sanders in Utah, since there wasn't much context in your post, so feel free to explain in further detail?

From the information you provided, it appears that you are claiming that the reason for Bernie's success in the Utah caucuses was because it typically it is a heavily Republican State at the Presidential level?

Anyways--- don't want to derail the thread, so feel free to jump in and critique my post to go back to the topic at hand, since I believe I already explained my rationale in extensive detail (Not that my opinions have any more weight than any others), and nobody has yet commented on my post.

[anthonyjg]

Most people aren't ideologues in the way that people like Sanders are.

I suppose this is purely editorial, but this summer I've been doing some volunteer work for the DuPage County Democratic Party. One of the main things that we've focused on is an issue canvas to figure out what is important to people in the area. Recently, I was looking over and summarizing the answers to a few hundred of our surveys and the answer to the final question, what is one thing you want to say to politicians today, is almost universal: work together and help people. Now the respondents skew left, Democrats are just more likely to talk to other Democrats knocking at their door, but even among responses from Republicans the answers to that question were the same.

Sanders was often criticized for being too vague on policy, but the responses from ordinary people tend to be far more vague than those put out by politicians on the stump anyway. In the end people just want what they think will best "help people." Back in 2004, when Obama said "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," he was right for the wrong reason. It's not that the United States is a mix of liberals and conservatives, it's just that "liberal America" and "conservative America" don't exist in nearly the size that some people think.

If the right wants to attack Sanders, they shouldn't attack the reason behind his policy, they should attack the policy itself, i.e. don't attack getting everyone healthcare, attack using the government to do it. I am certain that there are political differences in America and how we best go about achieving equality is up for debate. But, I am far less certain that there are philosophical differences in America. Egalitarianism and meritocracy are universally accepted. While other candidates were out bickering about finer policy points, Sanders was able to gain support by painting with a broad brush and by being the only one who consistently backed up his policies with the principles supported by most Americans.

So, I would say that "conservatives" didn't support Sanders, but a lot of those that identified with the right did. These types of voters have long affiliated with the GOP because the level of political debate and analysis has been so abysmal and team oriented that they've been forced to choose between to awful options that fail to back up they're policy points with significant principles. But finally, with Sanders, there was a mainstream politician who went beyond policy and argued for his platform from a moral standpoint.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Most people aren't ideologues in the way that people like Sanders are.

I suppose this is purely editorial, but this summer I've been doing some volunteer work for the DuPage County Democratic Party. One of the main things that we've focused on is an issue canvas to figure out what is important to people in the area. Recently, I was looking over and summarizing the answers to a few hundred of our surveys and the answer to the final question, what is one thing you want to say to politicians today, is almost universal: work together and help people. Now the respondents skew left, Democrats are just more likely to talk to other Democrats knocking at their door, but even among responses from Republicans the answers to that question were the same.

Sanders was often criticized for being too vague on policy, but the responses from ordinary people tend to be far more vague than those put out by politicians on the stump anyway. In the end people just want what they think will best "help people." Back in 2004, when Obama said "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," he was right for the wrong reason. It's not that the United States is a mix of liberals and conservatives, it's just that "liberal America" and "conservative America" don't exist in nearly the size that some people think.

If the right wants to attack Sanders, they shouldn't attack the reason behind his policy, they should attack the policy itself, i.e. don't attack getting everyone healthcare, attack using the government to do it. I am certain that there are political differences in America and how we best go about achieving equality is up for debate. But, I am far less certain that there are philosophical differences in America. Egalitarianism and meritocracy are universally accepted. While other candidates were out bickering about finer policy points, Sanders was able to gain support by painting with a broad brush and by being the only one who consistently backed up his policies with the principles supported by most Americans.

So, I would say that "conservatives" didn't support Sanders, but a lot of those that identified with the right did. These types of voters have long affiliated with the GOP because the level of political debate and analysis has been so abysmal and team oriented that they've been forced to choose between to awful options that fail to back up they're policy points with significant principles. But finally, with Sanders, there was a mainstream politician who went beyond policy and argued for his platform from a moral standpoint.

Sounds like how Trump got elected.

[anthonyjg]

Most people aren't ideologues in the way that people like Sanders are.

I suppose this is purely editorial, but this summer I've been doing some volunteer work for the DuPage County Democratic Party. One of the main things that we've focused on is an issue canvas to figure out what is important to people in the area. Recently, I was looking over and summarizing the answers to a few hundred of our surveys and the answer to the final question, what is one thing you want to say to politicians today, is almost universal: work together and help people. Now the respondents skew left, Democrats are just more likely to talk to other Democrats knocking at their door, but even among responses from Republicans the answers to that question were the same.

Sanders was often criticized for being too vague on policy, but the responses from ordinary people tend to be far more vague than those put out by politicians on the stump anyway. In the end people just want what they think will best "help people." Back in 2004, when Obama said "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," he was right for the wrong reason. It's not that the United States is a mix of liberals and conservatives, it's just that "liberal America" and "conservative America" don't exist in nearly the size that some people think.

If the right wants to attack Sanders, they shouldn't attack the reason behind his policy, they should attack the policy itself, i.e. don't attack getting everyone healthcare, attack using the government to do it. I am certain that there are political differences in America and how we best go about achieving equality is up for debate. But, I am far less certain that there are philosophical differences in America. Egalitarianism and meritocracy are universally accepted. While other candidates were out bickering about finer policy points, Sanders was able to gain support by painting with a broad brush and by being the only one who consistently backed up his policies with the principles supported by most Americans.

So, I would say that "conservatives" didn't support Sanders, but a lot of those that identified with the right did. These types of voters have long affiliated with the GOP because the level of political debate and analysis has been so abysmal and team oriented that they've been forced to choose between to awful options that fail to back up they're policy points with significant principles. But finally, with Sanders, there was a mainstream politician who went beyond policy and argued for his platform from a moral standpoint.

Sounds like how Trump got elected.

I mostly agree. Trump wasn't as good at it as Sanders because he often relied on less ingrained principles like tradition or nationalism. But, that's not to say that he was completely unsuccessful in playing off of emotions. I doubt that my Grandma had ever supported a Republican for president before, she was even a big McGovern backer in '72. Yet in 2016 she was fully behind Trump, largely because of how he presented his platform and not because of what that platform actually was.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders was often criticized for being too vague on policy, but the responses from ordinary people tend to be far more vague than those put out by politicians on the stump anyway. In the end people just want what they think will best "help people." Back in 2004, when Obama said "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," he was right for the wrong reason. It's not that the United States is a mix of liberals and conservatives, it's just that "liberal America" and "conservative America" don't exist in nearly the size that some people think.

Of all the Presidential candidates, you single out Bernie as the one who is vague on policy?

[anthonyjg]

Sanders was often criticized for being too vague on policy, but the responses from ordinary people tend to be far more vague than those put out by politicians on the stump anyway. In the end people just want what they think will best "help people." Back in 2004, when Obama said "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," he was right for the wrong reason. It's not that the United States is a mix of liberals and conservatives, it's just that "liberal America" and "conservative America" don't exist in nearly the size that some people think.

Of all the Presidential candidates, you single out Bernie as the one who is vague on policy?

Unfortunately, the way a candidate is portrayed can often be more important than the candidate themselves. Now, since you're a fellow Berner, I'm sure you would agree with me when I say that the media had little to no love for Sanders. However, we possibly diverge on whether or not their attacks on him were effective. Personally, I would say that the media this past cycle was so out of touch that their portrayal of Sanders, as a wide-eyed, pie in the sky, do-gooder, did him more good than harm. His principles were covered more than his policies, giving him a larger base because, as I mentioned in my first post, there is more common ground among Americans in ideas than there is in policy.

Also, as much as I love Bernie, he wasn't immune to vagueness. However, not all vagueness is the same and whenever he was vague, it was distinct from that of say, Clinton.

Just look at campaign slogans, "not for sale," "not me, us," and "a future to believe in" are all vague because of course they are, that's what campaign slogans do, they're a microcosm of the campaign's message as a whole. But, these slogans still give off a message of honesty, unity, hope, and egalitarianism. All of these ideas are popular and are going to drum up support.

But if you look at Clinton's slogan, "I'm with her," it's vague and not backed up by universal principles. It's smug, partisan, and devoid of any actual moral argument. This is why Sanders can appeal to "conservatives" while Clinton can't, he actually focused on common American themes.

[AGA]

He doesn't appeal to conservatives because of his political ideology. He appeals to some conservatives because he is perceived as genuine and compassionate and is also seen as less partisan than most Democrats due to him being an independent and often disagreeing with the party's establishment. Also, Clinton was hated by conservatives in 2016.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Bernie did not appeal to "conservatives", he appealed to purists. Please consult the Utah and Mississippi (or Tennessee) Dem primary results for reference.

Yes, the most popular politician in America clearly only appeals to purists.

Why the Utah example given Sanders won 75% or 80% of the vote in Utah? Seems kinda weird !

Because its a f-ing primary in one of the least friendly states to Democrats.

You are aware that Utah was a Caucus State and not a Primary I am assuming that was an attempt at humor, sarcasm, irony, or who knows what.....

Ah yes, of course; Mr. Condescending! Great to see you again! Because that couldn't have been a mistake or anything. My whole argument is now invalid because I mistaked Utah for a primary for a caucus. Oh geez, how could anyone who reads my post understand what I'm saying? This is an outrage!

(prepares for lecture complete with lots of *sigh*-ing and a snarkier holier-than-thou attitude)

Irritable, you are definitely living up to your avatar name.

Not quite sure where your beef is here, considering I simply my intent was simply to correct the record. Maybe I should have sent a PM instead of posting... my apologies....

Honestly, I am a bit confused about your argument regarding support for Sanders in Utah, since there wasn't much context in your post, so feel free to explain in further detail?

From the information you provided, it appears that you are claiming that the reason for Bernie's success in the Utah caucuses was because it typically it is a heavily Republican State at the Presidential level?

Anyways--- don't want to derail the thread, so feel free to jump in and critique my post to go back to the topic at hand, since I believe I already explained my rationale in extensive detail (Not that my opinions have any more weight than any others), and nobody has yet commented on my post.

I mean it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together and find that Sanders performed better in heavily GOP  states (excluding the south, which I'll get to). These states don't have strong Democratic (or minority) populations, making it not hard for Bernie to get votes in his favor. It's easier to win a majority of 5,000 voters than 5,000,000. Hillary appealed to the coastal liberals and minorities (hence the south going in her favor), while Bernie did not.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

He doesn't. He was just running against Hillary Clinton.

[morgankingsley]

Because at least he told the truth unlike Hillary