What do the posters that try to undermine Berniecrats fear and why?

[YE]

From an early age, I didn't understand politics and wanted to. I didn't understand society and it made me angered, if not impulsive. Like what causes people to think the way they do? Over the last couple years, as I've gotten older and more serious about learning about politics, I've started to understand why. I think understand why Trump voters and the alt-right feel the way they do; I understand why minorities didn't support Bernie or obviously Trump; I understand why social conservatives think they do. I understand why the jfern-type posters think the way they do and (please correct me if I'm wrong) feel that the Democratic Party establishment are corporate sellouts but generally aren't pragmatic enough, and think that all non-Bernie Sanders Democrats are the same. But there's one group of posters who I don't really understand their minds terribly well, and it's been annoying me more than it probably should. The anti-Bernie wing posters (not gonna mention names in public but not referring to the types that sorta supported him but didn't because he wasn't much of a policy wonk).

Here's just a few examples:

1. Use spellcheck, please.
2. Millennial turnout doesn't mean sh**t.
3. The working class won't vote for the man who chanted death to the yankees.
4. He will lose the primary and would be one of the few democrats who could lose the general. The other is in your sig.
5. Sorry, you're not going to get him.

Feinstein has awful politics and has been to the right of her state's citizens for decades. It blows my mind that anyone would rush to defend her clutching onto this seat when there are many younger women (some of them people of color!) who could represent California's interests in a more just manner.

Kamala Harris is a much more liberal woman of color. Yet that didn't stop you from trashing her as another establishment corporate shill.

Harris's work as a prosecutor is pretty awful, yes, but I don't think I've spent too much on here (if really any) "trashing" her.

The you is in plural, as you Bernie bros. Or have you forgotten the smear campaign that started after a Sanders affiliated publication ran a hit piece against her?

Any form of criticism analyzing a politician's substantive positions, policies, and actions while in office are "smear campaigns" now.

You always sound a bit disturbed, or at least conspiratorial.

I know you have become accustomed from your Dear Leader's presidential campaign, but innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations aren't political criticism.
Neither is condescension and patronizing towards a female politician like the one you bros constantly display.
 

The simple answer that these anti-Bernie posters don't agree with him on the issues, but I'm trying to look deeper. Like what do they think would happen if a Berniecrat takeover would happen? That a Berniecrat (which at this rate is most of the likely 2020 field to some extent) would get blown out in the GE? Do they still believe this whole idea that one should run to the center economically in the GE? Do they not believe in an inevitable left realignment like that listed in TD's BTM timeline and that said figure will have Berniecrat aspects to his or her policies? Or do they believe in what Obama would define as incrementalism? Do they honestly think that the Democrats make strong arguments for their policies as is? Do they honestly think Republicans are willing to compromise with Democrats? Do they not think it's better to negotiate from a position of strength?  Or do they view the Berniecrat wing as a Democratic "Trump?" Do they think the Reaganomics macroeconomic regime is working? Do they realize that the middle class of the country is disappearing? Are they okay that Congress is about to de-regulate Wall Street and speed up the next financial crash?  

Yes, I supported Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general, and supporting the more moderate candidate for NV-GOV and NV-SEN Democratic primaries, and undecided in NV-03, am a registered Democrat, and probably more socially moderate than many Sanders supporters, and have criticized Sanders and Justice Democrats from the right on more than one occasion. So while I think Sanders for now is the best 2020 option, I hope you don't consider me a part of the Bernie Sanders cult. But regardless, this topic has relatively little to do with my political leanings or voting record. I am genuinely trying to understand these sorts of posters on not just this forum but places like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.

I'm posting this in forum community but tbh this could fit a few boards so feel free to move this how you see fit, mods.

[Crumpets]

I was a Bernie fan (if not an actual Bernie supporter) until midway through the 2016 primaries, and I still generally like him, and others on the left wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, I know that I'm probably in the group of posters you're referring to, so here's at least my logic, although I probably can't speak for the likes of Landslide Lyndon.

There is very little about Bernie's proposals for America that I actively disagree with - at least, no more than Hillary or anybody from the establishment wing. I tend to think that on issues like marijuana, financial regulation, and workers rights, I'm probably closer to Bernie than to Hillary. I think the point of departure between me and Bernie supporters is that I am extremely skeptical both of his ability to follow through on his promises and his honesty towards voters in general.

I'll give a metaphor - one of the things we all hate about big corporations is their ability to take massive losses to undersell smaller business, destroy those smaller businesses, and then raise the prices back up to recoup their losses. In 2016, I saw Bernie following a very similar pattern - knowing he wouldn't actually have to govern, he could make all of his proposals look better than Clinton's in contrast. In the end, the only effect it had was to make Clinton's proposals less popular, rather than present another argument.

And sometimes I go back and forth on what exactly the reason is for him to do this - sometimes I'm generous to him, and think that he genuinely thinks - as do many of his supporters - that he can make his plans work. Other times, I think he's really just doing it because he knows that you'll always be more popular sitting in the back of the room lobbing spit balls at the teacher than actually trying to teach. Those are the moments that we make the comments like you outlined.

And one last point I want to make has to do with two of Bernie's favorite words - "political revolution." Bernie has built his entire brand on the notion that, if he and his supporters come to power, it will constitute a "political revolution" wherein we will have an easier time addressing our problems as a nation, or at least that we will move on to a more productive way of governing. That is an appealing notion to much of America that feels left behind. Revolutions by their very nature, however, are not a linear progression from "bad government" to "good government," even if there are selfless people behind them. The revolution in India, despite being lead by Gandhi, resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of deaths. I don't think a Bernie revolution would look like that, but it's because I don't see Bernie as actually ushering in a revolution. I see him as governing the exact same country we live in now with a 51-49 R Senate and a Republican House, but aloof and pretending that he's somehow changed everything just by taking the oath of office. That is not a governing strategy, and it leads to exchanges like this which was to me, was really truly the moment that he lost me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the point of departure between me and Bernie supporters is that I am extremely skeptical both of his ability to follow through on his promises and his honesty towards voters in general.

As opposed to the very honest Hillary Clinton?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not that hard to have better policies than Hillary's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many probably argued that FDR or Reagan wouldn't really change things either.

[junior chįmp]

Because they subscribe to the theories that:

1) Voters are rational. "If we get a white man like Biden, then we'll win white WWC." "If we get a black man like Booker, we'll juice out minority turnout." "If we get a young black woman like Harris, we'll totally turnout Millennials."

2) They are stuck playing by the rules of a failing party system that is becoming irrelevant thus limiting the terms of debate or types of candidates. " Sanders can't win, nobody will vote for a self-described Socialist." "America will only elect centrists like Biden, not some far leftists."

[YE]

I was a Bernie fan until midway through the 2016 primaries, and I still generally like him, and others on the left wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, I know that I'm probably in the group of posters you're referring to, so here's at least my logic, although I probably can't speak for the likes of Landslide Lyndon.

With all due respect, let me make one thing clear, and maybe I didn't make this clear in my original post. I'm more referring to the people that make the 2020 board a mess and lately USGD. Not high quality posters like you (and there's quite a bunch of similar posters - Virginia, JFK, RFKFan68, ect) who make insightful posts on a number of issues.

[Crumpets]

I was a Bernie fan until midway through the 2016 primaries, and I still generally like him, and others on the left wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, I know that I'm probably in the group of posters you're referring to, so here's at least my logic, although I probably can't speak for the likes of Landslide Lyndon.

With all due respect, let me make one thing clear, and maybe I didn't make this clear in my original post. I'm more referring to the people that make the 2020 board a mess and lately USGD. Not posters like you (and there's quite a bunch of similar posters - not gonna name any names) who make insightful posts on a number of issues.

Oh yeah, I don't go anywhere near the 2020 board.

[heatcharger]

I'll try to give a very serious take on this, since I somewhat fit the mold:

Bernie Sanders does not have the same economic worldview as many Democrats. He believes in an old-school labor movement. The problem is increasingly few Democrats have any connection to organized labor whatsoever, and so that’s why he doesn’t connect as well with many Democrats on that front. And on top of that, on most social issues, Sanders is basically an agnostic. I don’t really fault him for that, but the more activist liberal doesn’t really see him as someone who will really fight for them on abortion, guns, etc. Identity wise, he's a stereotypical angry old (white) man. To some people that's part of his charm, to others it's why they can't stand him.

But I suspect this doesn’t really answer your question. The more potent issue is that so-called Berniecrats can be straight up childish and juvenile. Now, jfern and Landslide Lyndon are on the very polar ends of the spectrum, but frankly there are far more people like jfern on the internet. And those people tend to be younger, more digitally savvy, but also probably just as dogmatic about politics. I suspect Lyndon spends a lot of time on Twitter, so he’s probably witnessed the behavior of Rose Emoji Twitter and not liked what he’s seen. Chapo Trap House, Cumtown, Jacobin, etc. just have such limited appeal to people above the age of like 25. And that’s probably where a lot of the resentment comes from.

Now personally, I also have a problem with the organizational apparatus surrounding Bernie. I don’t think I need to explain why I think Justice Democrats is an idiotic organization, but Our Revolution and DSA are also filled with some wildly ridiculous people, and they bring all the stupidity that comes with youth politics.

Plus I guess I resent that Berniecrats buy into the idea that Sanders’ platform is somehow broadly popular with Americans. That’s probably why I’m so averse to primarying Generic Democrat for not supporting Medicare For All or whatever, since I don’t believe it is actually that popular. Most of the country is not nearly as ideological as Bernie and his supporters, so I don't agree that people are clamoring for single-payer. It’s probably a conflation of Bernie’s popularity in general, which I credit more to his personality. And that’s the easiest part for the Right to take down over the course of a presidential election.

So to answer the OP clearly, the fear is that these Berniecrats will forcefully take control of the Democratic Party, and turn it into something amateur, far less competent, and probably less electorally viable.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I think this is a good post, and a discussion worth having, because honestly both sides mischaracterize each other a lot. I am going to post a short response because I need to go to sleep soon but hopefully can come back to this discussion tomorrow.

One major fear (out of several) I have of the Berniecrat wing is they seem to conflate being angry with having good policy. There is a lot to be angry about, and I am willing to concede that there have been several failings of the Democratic party and its associated institutions in the last 30/40 years. I heard Ezra Klein do an interview about a month ago with the founder of Jacobin Magazine, where Klein noted that there are two orthogonal axes to politics: a political axis, and a pragmatic/cooperative axis. Two people can agree on every position politically, but because they have differences along the cooperative axis (e.g., varying trust in other actors in a mult-party bargain, belief in norms in government institutions, etc.) they can often run into opposition of each other. Even though I held many of the same values as Bernie Sanders and his supporters (e.g., support for labor unions, access to higher education for those who want it, higher minimum wage), I viewed him as a horrible agent of change for these causes. I believe fundamentally that every issue is a trade-off, with winners and losers, and that the executive branch in implementing policy is faced with these trade-offs on a daily basis. Someone with the rigidity of Sanders's pure ideology does not lend itself well to decision making like that. Furthermore, I didn't believe that Sanders had the political instincts to implement his policy when in office. I had a lot of trouble envisioning a Sanders administration in 2020 which had accomplished its political goals. So, I went with Hillary, who aligned with me on a more pragmatic axis. I think Sanders did a great job of bringing certain issues like Medicare for All into the public discourse (especially on the left) and I think as a voice for an ideological wing, he is playing a very important role in the Senate. But that role (policy cheerleader) belongs in the Senate, not in the Oval Office.

I understand why Bernie was popular -- there were people who are fed up with institutions, with the left getting bested in political maneuvering by the right, people who saw many difficult compromises that Obama and others made and felt betrayed. I totally understand that and I feel a lot of that. But fundamentally I'm not going to give up my belief in those institutions because have already seen half of the ideological spectrum face an intellectual rot and throw its support behind the angriest, nastiest, most aggressive voices it has. There are many many ways in which the Berniecrat movement is not like the Tea Party (or other forces on the right) at all, but at its core, there is a similar aspect of placing virtue signaling above a pragmatic vision of implementation that makes me very worried. Both because I don't think it will lead to the best possible outcomes for the causes that I find important, and because as a general principle I do not think it is the best way to govern.

Finally, in my experience, some (but not all) of the Berniecrat voters on this board and in my circle of friends in real life not only believe that anger is sufficient for having good policy, but believe a weird form of the contrapositive: that disagreeing with a policy means that you don't share the values. Take free college tuition: I think access to higher education is going to be key for people entering a rapidly changing workforce, for developing valuable critical thinking skills, and for producing intellectual and leaders to push forward a lot of frontiers of society (technology, industry, science, public policy, etc.). But I am very skeptical of a 4 year college free tuition policy because it destroys the funding mechanism where some students pay in full tuition to subsidize the tuition (and other services) of others. However, my experience at a 4 year college showed me that there were many people who did not want to be there and ended up wasting their time there (before anybody pulls the race card, I am talking about rich, entitled white suburbanites who ended up working at their parent's business after graduation). A free tuition system incentivizes these people to go to a 4 year university, potentially degrading the experience of others, while stripping away a source of aid that students who will take school seriously could use. I agree with increased federal aid, more targeted recruiting, and most importantly programs to maximize retention of at-risk students because I am more trusting that they will achieve the outcomes I find desirable.

When I voiced this opinion on this board back in August, I got attacked by a user for being classist, not caring about economic mobility for working class people, blah blah. I don't feel that way at all, but this user saw me dismissive of the policy, he assumed that I did not share the value. I do share the value, I just am skeptical of the proposal here. This is true of a number of Bernie's policies even if I agreed that their ultimate goal was important. On a personal level, it's generally annoying and frustrating for people to asset moral superiority over you (yes, I am aware that people on the left, including the center left, including myself, do this all the time), so it's incredibly exasperating when people who you agree with on >90% of issues tell you that you don't care about poor people, the environment, education, etc. because you didn't vote for Bernie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think this is a good post, and a discussion worth having, because honestly both sides mischaracterize each other a lot. I am going to post a short response because I need to go to sleep soon but hopefully can come back to this discussion tomorrow.

One major fear (out of several) I have of the Berniecrat wing is they seem to conflate being angry with having good policy. There is a lot to be angry about, and I am willing to concede that there have been several failings of the Democratic party and its associated institutions in the last 30/40 years. I heard Ezra Klein do an interview about a month ago with the founder of Jacobin Magazine, where Klein noted that there are two orthogonal axes to politics: a political axis, and a pragmatic/cooperative axis. Two people can agree on every position politically, but because they have differences along the cooperative axis (e.g., varying trust in other actors in a mult-party bargain, belief in norms in government institutions, etc.) they can often run into opposition of each other. Even though I held many of the same values as Bernie Sanders and his supporters (e.g., support for labor unions, access to higher education for those who want it, higher minimum wage), I viewed him as a horrible agent of change for these causes. I believe fundamentally that every issue is a trade-off, with winners and losers, and that the executive branch in implementing policy is faced with these trade-offs on a daily basis. Someone with the rigidity of Sanders's pure ideology does not lend itself well to decision making like that. Furthermore, I didn't believe that Sanders had the political instincts to implement his policy when in office. I had a lot of trouble envisioning a Sanders administration in 2020 which had accomplished its political goals. So, I went with Hillary, who aligned with me on a more pragmatic axis. I think Sanders did a great job of bringing certain issues like Medicare for All into the public discourse (especially on the left) and I think as a voice for an ideological wing, he is playing a very important role in the Senate. But that role (policy cheerleader) belongs in the Senate, not in the Oval Office.

I understand why Bernie was popular -- there were people who are fed up with institutions, with the left getting bested in political maneuvering by the right, people who saw many difficult compromises that Obama and others made and felt betrayed. I totally understand that and I feel a lot of that. But fundamentally I'm not going to give up my belief in those institutions because have already seen half of the ideological spectrum face an intellectual rot and throw its support behind the angriest, nastiest, most aggressive voices it has. There are many many ways in which the Berniecrat movement is not like the Tea Party (or other forces on the right) at all, but at its core, there is a similar aspect of placing virtue signaling above a pragmatic vision of implementation that makes me very worried. Both because I don't think it will lead to the best possible outcomes for the causes that I find important, and because as a general principle I do not think it is the best way to govern.

Finally, in my experience, some (but not all) of the Berniecrat voters on this board and in my circle of friends in real life not only believe that anger is sufficient for having good policy, but believe a weird form of the contrapositive: that disagreeing with a policy means that you don't share the values. Take free college tuition: I think access to higher education is going to be key for people entering a rapidly changing workforce, for developing valuable critical thinking skills, and for producing intellectual and leaders to push forward a lot of frontiers of society (technology, industry, science, public policy, etc.). But I am very skeptical of a 4 year college free tuition policy because it destroys the funding mechanism where some students pay in full tuition to subsidize the tuition (and other services) of others. However, my experience at a 4 year college showed me that there were many people who did not want to be there and ended up wasting their time there (before anybody pulls the race card, I am talking about rich, entitled white suburbanites who ended up working at their parent's business after graduation). A free tuition system incentivizes these people to go to a 4 year university, potentially degrading the experience of others, while stripping away a source of aid that students who will take school seriously could use. I agree with increased federal aid, more targeted recruiting, and most importantly programs to maximize retention of at-risk students because I am more trusting that they will achieve the outcomes I find desirable.

When I voiced this opinion on this board back in August, I got attacked by a user for being classist, not caring about economic mobility for working class people, blah blah. I don't feel that way at all, but this user saw me dismissive of the policy, he assumed that I did not share the value. I do share the value, I just am skeptical of the proposal here. This is true of a number of Bernie's policies even if I agreed that their ultimate goal was important. On a personal level, it's generally annoying and frustrating for people to asset moral superiority over you (yes, I am aware that people on the left, including the center left, including myself, do this all the time), so it's incredibly exasperating when people who you agree with on >90% of issues tell you that you don't care about poor people, the environment, education, etc. because you didn't vote for Bernie.

The idea that Berniecrats and the establishment Democrats agree on 90% is ridiculous. 90% of Senate Democrats looked at our bloated military machine, and decided that they needed another $80 billion a year. These are the same people attacked Bernie for not saying exactly how he'd pay for his policies. They never complain about how we will pay for the bloated military industrial complex. And they also voted to keep the NSA spying.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I think this is a good post, and a discussion worth having, because honestly both sides mischaracterize each other a lot. I am going to post a short response because I need to go to sleep soon but hopefully can come back to this discussion tomorrow.

One major fear (out of several) I have of the Berniecrat wing is they seem to conflate being angry with having good policy. There is a lot to be angry about, and I am willing to concede that there have been several failings of the Democratic party and its associated institutions in the last 30/40 years. I heard Ezra Klein do an interview about a month ago with the founder of Jacobin Magazine, where Klein noted that there are two orthogonal axes to politics: a political axis, and a pragmatic/cooperative axis. Two people can agree on every position politically, but because they have differences along the cooperative axis (e.g., varying trust in other actors in a mult-party bargain, belief in norms in government institutions, etc.) they can often run into opposition of each other. Even though I held many of the same values as Bernie Sanders and his supporters (e.g., support for labor unions, access to higher education for those who want it, higher minimum wage), I viewed him as a horrible agent of change for these causes. I believe fundamentally that every issue is a trade-off, with winners and losers, and that the executive branch in implementing policy is faced with these trade-offs on a daily basis. Someone with the rigidity of Sanders's pure ideology does not lend itself well to decision making like that. Furthermore, I didn't believe that Sanders had the political instincts to implement his policy when in office. I had a lot of trouble envisioning a Sanders administration in 2020 which had accomplished its political goals. So, I went with Hillary, who aligned with me on a more pragmatic axis. I think Sanders did a great job of bringing certain issues like Medicare for All into the public discourse (especially on the left) and I think as a voice for an ideological wing, he is playing a very important role in the Senate. But that role (policy cheerleader) belongs in the Senate, not in the Oval Office.

I understand why Bernie was popular -- there were people who are fed up with institutions, with the left getting bested in political maneuvering by the right, people who saw many difficult compromises that Obama and others made and felt betrayed. I totally understand that and I feel a lot of that. But fundamentally I'm not going to give up my belief in those institutions because have already seen half of the ideological spectrum face an intellectual rot and throw its support behind the angriest, nastiest, most aggressive voices it has. There are many many ways in which the Berniecrat movement is not like the Tea Party (or other forces on the right) at all, but at its core, there is a similar aspect of placing virtue signaling above a pragmatic vision of implementation that makes me very worried. Both because I don't think it will lead to the best possible outcomes for the causes that I find important, and because as a general principle I do not think it is the best way to govern.

Finally, in my experience, some (but not all) of the Berniecrat voters on this board and in my circle of friends in real life not only believe that anger is sufficient for having good policy, but believe a weird form of the contrapositive: that disagreeing with a policy means that you don't share the values. Take free college tuition: I think access to higher education is going to be key for people entering a rapidly changing workforce, for developing valuable critical thinking skills, and for producing intellectual and leaders to push forward a lot of frontiers of society (technology, industry, science, public policy, etc.). But I am very skeptical of a 4 year college free tuition policy because it destroys the funding mechanism where some students pay in full tuition to subsidize the tuition (and other services) of others. However, my experience at a 4 year college showed me that there were many people who did not want to be there and ended up wasting their time there (before anybody pulls the race card, I am talking about rich, entitled white suburbanites who ended up working at their parent's business after graduation). A free tuition system incentivizes these people to go to a 4 year university, potentially degrading the experience of others, while stripping away a source of aid that students who will take school seriously could use. I agree with increased federal aid, more targeted recruiting, and most importantly programs to maximize retention of at-risk students because I am more trusting that they will achieve the outcomes I find desirable.

When I voiced this opinion on this board back in August, I got attacked by a user for being classist, not caring about economic mobility for working class people, blah blah. I don't feel that way at all, but this user saw me dismissive of the policy, he assumed that I did not share the value. I do share the value, I just am skeptical of the proposal here. This is true of a number of Bernie's policies even if I agreed that their ultimate goal was important. On a personal level, it's generally annoying and frustrating for people to asset moral superiority over you (yes, I am aware that people on the left, including the center left, including myself, do this all the time), so it's incredibly exasperating when people who you agree with on >90% of issues tell you that you don't care about poor people, the environment, education, etc. because you didn't vote for Bernie.

The idea that Berniecrats and the establishment Democrats agree on 90% is ridiculous. 90% of Senate Democrats looked at our bloated military machine, and decided that they needed another $80 billion a year. These are the same people attacked Bernie for not saying exactly how he'd pay for his policies. They never complain about how we will pay for the bloated military industrial complex. And they also voted to keep the NSA spying.

I hope you realize that you are, like, 80% of the reason why people on this board hate the Berniecrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think this is a good post, and a discussion worth having, because honestly both sides mischaracterize each other a lot. I am going to post a short response because I need to go to sleep soon but hopefully can come back to this discussion tomorrow.

One major fear (out of several) I have of the Berniecrat wing is they seem to conflate being angry with having good policy. There is a lot to be angry about, and I am willing to concede that there have been several failings of the Democratic party and its associated institutions in the last 30/40 years. I heard Ezra Klein do an interview about a month ago with the founder of Jacobin Magazine, where Klein noted that there are two orthogonal axes to politics: a political axis, and a pragmatic/cooperative axis. Two people can agree on every position politically, but because they have differences along the cooperative axis (e.g., varying trust in other actors in a mult-party bargain, belief in norms in government institutions, etc.) they can often run into opposition of each other. Even though I held many of the same values as Bernie Sanders and his supporters (e.g., support for labor unions, access to higher education for those who want it, higher minimum wage), I viewed him as a horrible agent of change for these causes. I believe fundamentally that every issue is a trade-off, with winners and losers, and that the executive branch in implementing policy is faced with these trade-offs on a daily basis. Someone with the rigidity of Sanders's pure ideology does not lend itself well to decision making like that. Furthermore, I didn't believe that Sanders had the political instincts to implement his policy when in office. I had a lot of trouble envisioning a Sanders administration in 2020 which had accomplished its political goals. So, I went with Hillary, who aligned with me on a more pragmatic axis. I think Sanders did a great job of bringing certain issues like Medicare for All into the public discourse (especially on the left) and I think as a voice for an ideological wing, he is playing a very important role in the Senate. But that role (policy cheerleader) belongs in the Senate, not in the Oval Office.

I understand why Bernie was popular -- there were people who are fed up with institutions, with the left getting bested in political maneuvering by the right, people who saw many difficult compromises that Obama and others made and felt betrayed. I totally understand that and I feel a lot of that. But fundamentally I'm not going to give up my belief in those institutions because have already seen half of the ideological spectrum face an intellectual rot and throw its support behind the angriest, nastiest, most aggressive voices it has. There are many many ways in which the Berniecrat movement is not like the Tea Party (or other forces on the right) at all, but at its core, there is a similar aspect of placing virtue signaling above a pragmatic vision of implementation that makes me very worried. Both because I don't think it will lead to the best possible outcomes for the causes that I find important, and because as a general principle I do not think it is the best way to govern.

Finally, in my experience, some (but not all) of the Berniecrat voters on this board and in my circle of friends in real life not only believe that anger is sufficient for having good policy, but believe a weird form of the contrapositive: that disagreeing with a policy means that you don't share the values. Take free college tuition: I think access to higher education is going to be key for people entering a rapidly changing workforce, for developing valuable critical thinking skills, and for producing intellectual and leaders to push forward a lot of frontiers of society (technology, industry, science, public policy, etc.). But I am very skeptical of a 4 year college free tuition policy because it destroys the funding mechanism where some students pay in full tuition to subsidize the tuition (and other services) of others. However, my experience at a 4 year college showed me that there were many people who did not want to be there and ended up wasting their time there (before anybody pulls the race card, I am talking about rich, entitled white suburbanites who ended up working at their parent's business after graduation). A free tuition system incentivizes these people to go to a 4 year university, potentially degrading the experience of others, while stripping away a source of aid that students who will take school seriously could use. I agree with increased federal aid, more targeted recruiting, and most importantly programs to maximize retention of at-risk students because I am more trusting that they will achieve the outcomes I find desirable.

When I voiced this opinion on this board back in August, I got attacked by a user for being classist, not caring about economic mobility for working class people, blah blah. I don't feel that way at all, but this user saw me dismissive of the policy, he assumed that I did not share the value. I do share the value, I just am skeptical of the proposal here. This is true of a number of Bernie's policies even if I agreed that their ultimate goal was important. On a personal level, it's generally annoying and frustrating for people to asset moral superiority over you (yes, I am aware that people on the left, including the center left, including myself, do this all the time), so it's incredibly exasperating when people who you agree with on >90% of issues tell you that you don't care about poor people, the environment, education, etc. because you didn't vote for Bernie.

The idea that Berniecrats and the establishment Democrats agree on 90% is ridiculous. 90% of Senate Democrats looked at our bloated military machine, and decided that they needed another $80 billion a year. These are the same people attacked Bernie for not saying exactly how he'd pay for his policies. They never complain about how we will pay for the bloated military industrial complex. And they also voted to keep the NSA spying.

I hope you realize that you are, like, 80% of the reason why people on this board hate the Berniecrats.

You weren't going to like him anyways. Funny how hacks like Landslide Lyndon didn't stop anyone from liking Hillary.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

-snip-

The idea that Berniecrats and the establishment Democrats agree on 90% is ridiculous. 90% of Senate Democrats looked at our bloated military machine, and decided that they needed another $80 billion a year. These are the same people attacked Bernie for not saying exactly how he'd pay for his policies. They never complain about how we will pay for the bloated military industrial complex. And they also voted to keep the NSA spying.

I hope you realize that you are, like, 80% of the reason why people on this board hate the Berniecrats.

You weren't going to like him anyways. Funny how hacks like Landslide Lyndon didn't stop anyone from liking Hillary.

Well, thanks for validating my decision not to name you in my post. You did several of the things I mentioned in my post -- you ignored the fact that I said I share several of Bernie's political values, brought up a single issue (my positions about which you know nothing about) and used it with no further context to exaggerate ideological differences between different wings of the party, and told me that I wasn't inclined to support Bernie even though I've stated several times on this board that my ideological favorite candidate is Liz Warren. I'm pretty certain you didn't read any of my post other than the last paragraph, which is a shame, because I think you could use some introspection.

You strike me as a very unhappy man. I have spent enough time with people like you over the course of my life that I can recognize the signs. Your obsessive, narcissistic behavior and need to always be the victim show me that there is something deeply troubling in your life, and that you use this board (and the Bernie-Hillary proxy battle) as a way to vent this dissatisfaction. A dissatisfaction that is much deeper than being frustrated at the 2016 primaries. I hope that you are able to find help, or to find peace from within, and that as time goes on whatever is ailing you is cured, and that you can hopefully go back to living a happy, fulfilling life without the need to call other people neoliberals or to complain about chair-throwing at the Nevada caucuses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

-snip-

The idea that Berniecrats and the establishment Democrats agree on 90% is ridiculous. 90% of Senate Democrats looked at our bloated military machine, and decided that they needed another $80 billion a year. These are the same people attacked Bernie for not saying exactly how he'd pay for his policies. They never complain about how we will pay for the bloated military industrial complex. And they also voted to keep the NSA spying.

I hope you realize that you are, like, 80% of the reason why people on this board hate the Berniecrats.

You weren't going to like him anyways. Funny how hacks like Landslide Lyndon didn't stop anyone from liking Hillary.

Well, thanks for validating my decision not to name you in my post. You did several of the things I mentioned in my post -- you ignored the fact that I said I share several of Bernie's political values, brought up a single issue (my positions about which you know nothing about) and used it with no further context to exaggerate ideological differences between different wings of the party, and told me that I wasn't inclined to support Bernie even though I've stated several times on this board that my ideological favorite candidate is Liz Warren. I'm pretty certain you didn't read any of my post other than the last paragraph, which is a shame, because I think you could use some introspection.

You strike me as a very unhappy man. I have spent enough time with people like you over the course of my life that I can recognize the signs. Your obsessive, narcissistic behavior and need to always be the victim show me that there is something deeply troubling in your life, and that you use this board (and the Bernie-Hillary proxy battle) as a way to vent this dissatisfaction. A dissatisfaction that is much deeper than being frustrated at the 2016 primaries. I hope that you are able to find help, or to find peace from within, and that as time goes on whatever is ailing you is cured, and that you can hopefully go back to living a happy, fulfilling life without the need to call other people neoliberals or to complain about chair-throwing at the Nevada caucuses.

I don't know your position, but I'm saying how 90% of Senate Democrats voted to increased the military budget. Including Warren. Do you stand with them or the handful for actually opposed it? It seems that you establishment types resort to personal attacks rather than address the issues. The Democratic party has pretty clearly made itself be an enemy of progressives. As for your last paragraph, why are you not skeptical of the people actually in political power? Hillary was quite frankly a complete garbage candidate, and yet she seemed to get a pass by many on here.

[YE]

I think this is a good post, and a discussion worth having, because honestly both sides mischaracterize each other a lot. I am going to post a short response because I need to go to sleep soon but hopefully can come back to this discussion tomorrow.

One major fear (out of several) I have of the Berniecrat wing is they seem to conflate being angry with having good policy. There is a lot to be angry about, and I am willing to concede that there have been several failings of the Democratic party and its associated institutions in the last 30/40 years. I heard Ezra Klein do an interview about a month ago with the founder of Jacobin Magazine, where Klein noted that there are two orthogonal axes to politics: a political axis, and a pragmatic/cooperative axis. Two people can agree on every position politically, but because they have differences along the cooperative axis (e.g., varying trust in other actors in a mult-party bargain, belief in norms in government institutions, etc.) they can often run into opposition of each other. Even though I held many of the same values as Bernie Sanders and his supporters (e.g., support for labor unions, access to higher education for those who want it, higher minimum wage), I viewed him as a horrible agent of change for these causes. I believe fundamentally that every issue is a trade-off, with winners and losers, and that the executive branch in implementing policy is faced with these trade-offs on a daily basis. Someone with the rigidity of Sanders's pure ideology does not lend itself well to decision making like that. Furthermore, I didn't believe that Sanders had the political instincts to implement his policy when in office. I had a lot of trouble envisioning a Sanders administration in 2020 which had accomplished its political goals. So, I went with Hillary, who aligned with me on a more pragmatic axis. I think Sanders did a great job of bringing certain issues like Medicare for All into the public discourse (especially on the left) and I think as a voice for an ideological wing, he is playing a very important role in the Senate. But that role (policy cheerleader) belongs in the Senate, not in the Oval Office.

I understand why Bernie was popular -- there were people who are fed up with institutions, with the left getting bested in political maneuvering by the right, people who saw many difficult compromises that Obama and others made and felt betrayed. I totally understand that and I feel a lot of that. But fundamentally I'm not going to give up my belief in those institutions because have already seen half of the ideological spectrum face an intellectual rot and throw its support behind the angriest, nastiest, most aggressive voices it has. There are many many ways in which the Berniecrat movement is not like the Tea Party (or other forces on the right) at all, but at its core, there is a similar aspect of placing virtue signaling above a pragmatic vision of implementation that makes me very worried. Both because I don't think it will lead to the best possible outcomes for the causes that I find important, and because as a general principle I do not think it is the best way to govern.

Finally, in my experience, some (but not all) of the Berniecrat voters on this board and in my circle of friends in real life not only believe that anger is sufficient for having good policy, but believe a weird form of the contrapositive: that disagreeing with a policy means that you don't share the values. Take free college tuition: I think access to higher education is going to be key for people entering a rapidly changing workforce, for developing valuable critical thinking skills, and for producing intellectual and leaders to push forward a lot of frontiers of society (technology, industry, science, public policy, etc.). But I am very skeptical of a 4 year college free tuition policy because it destroys the funding mechanism where some students pay in full tuition to subsidize the tuition (and other services) of others. However, my experience at a 4 year college showed me that there were many people who did not want to be there and ended up wasting their time there (before anybody pulls the race card, I am talking about rich, entitled white suburbanites who ended up working at their parent's business after graduation). A free tuition system incentivizes these people to go to a 4 year university, potentially degrading the experience of others, while stripping away a source of aid that students who will take school seriously could use. I agree with increased federal aid, more targeted recruiting, and most importantly programs to maximize retention of at-risk students because I am more trusting that they will achieve the outcomes I find desirable.

When I voiced this opinion on this board back in August, I got attacked by a user for being classist, not caring about economic mobility for working class people, blah blah. I don't feel that way at all, but this user saw me dismissive of the policy, he assumed that I did not share the value. I do share the value, I just am skeptical of the proposal here. This is true of a number of Bernie's policies even if I agreed that their ultimate goal was important. On a personal level, it's generally annoying and frustrating for people to asset moral superiority over you (yes, I am aware that people on the left, including the center left, including myself, do this all the time), so it's incredibly exasperating when people who you agree with on >90% of issues tell you that you don't care about poor people, the environment, education, etc. because you didn't vote for Bernie.

To some extent, I share your concerns although I think Sanders is less ideologically rigid than people think; he didn't for instance vote against Obamacare (unlike one particular Ohio gubernatorial candidate) since it was not single payer and he's worked with Republicans and Democrats on various issues, and second of all, not convinced that Hilary Clinton in 2016 would be better at pursing their ideas largely because of Congressional obstruction, or not convinced there's anyone better yet in 2020 (although I could get behind Warren and Gillibrand but it's hard to compare those two to Bernie because I've actually seen Bernie campaign at the presidential level and not sure Warren and Gillibrand could - but this isn't what the thread is about).  

Much like what I said to Crumpets, you're not really the type of poster that I'd say is trying to "undermine Berniecrats". This was more targeted to why the posters (or people on say Democratic Underground) want to paint Bernie Sanders as Putin's puppet. Heatcharger seems to have directly answered my question the most of all the replies I've had so far, and his explanation seems fairly plausible.  

[Cold War Liberal]

I'm probably one that you have directly interacted with regarding this issue, so I will respond since you seem to be genuinely interested in my opinions (well not me specifically but you get my point).

Do they not believe in an inevitable left realignment like that listed in TD's BTM timeline and that said figure will have Berniecrat aspects to his or her policies?

No, I don't believe in anything being "inevitable" in politics. I have seen enough "inevitable" things not happen in my relatively short time studying politics (~2 and a half years) that I will believe something will happen when it happens, and not a second sooner. BTM is a great, well-thought-out timeline, but it's just one version of what may happen in the future. Also, having grown up around and lived with members of the WWC for 18 years, I am not at all sold on the idea that any Democrat, especially not Sanders, will win any large number of them after what they perceive as being betrayed by Obama for 8 years. Pretty much any Democrat will do better than Hillary Clinton among them in 2020, but not landslide level, methinks.

I supported Bernie's campaign from the moment he announced through right around when it was clear he didn't stand a chance (~March 2016). Even after that I liked him, a little. I couldn't vote in 2016, but I may have voted for him in May had I had the ability to. I agreed with him on almost all issues. I still hope the things he advocates for get done (except for an issue or two that I will get into in a minute).

I am first and foremost a pragmatic progressive. I want progress, especially on issues regarding healthcare, wealth inequality, and protection of rights and equality for minorities, immigrants, and women. My biggest issue with Sanders and his supporters is that they seem to view progress as "all or nothing;" if we want Medicare for All or single payer (not the same thing), or banking regulations, or free tuition, the attitude is that we must get it in its pure entirety right now. That's great, except that's not how politics work, at all, especially in this day and age.

Right after being a pragmatist, I am a policy wonk. It's not that Sanders's policies didn't make sense, it's that they weren't nearly as fleshed out as I would have liked (especially when he was running against Wonk Extraordinaire, Hillary D. R. Clinton), especially when it comes to paying for it. By far my most conservative position is that I support getting as close to a balanced budget as possible (though I want to get there by cutting the defense budget and raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, not by cutting social programs). I don't believe Sanders would have been able to pay for his programs just by closing a few Wall Street loopholes, and I doubt he would have gotten his tax plan passed, even if he won by a large margin and Senate Democrats rode his coattails.

I guess I'm also something of a technocrat in that I think the most technical and wonkish person should be elected President, which means that Bernie's charisma stopped working on me after 9 months of hearing the same 5 idealistic, somewhat vague talking points over and over and over again. That's also the reason why I don't actually support Oprah 2020, and why I wouldn't support Trump even if he wasn't a racist/sexist/serial sexual assaulter/madman/demagogue.

The only major policy disagreement I have with Sanders is on free trade. I am very much in favor of trade deals like TPP and NAFTA since they promote our interests abroad in a diplomatic and productive way, don't really negatively effect workers, and directly benefit consumers. I view a strong America as vital to maintaining a healthy world order, and see trade deals and military might as the only ways to achieve this. Growing up watching the Irag War play out on live TV, I am extremely averse to using military action unless the US or one of our close allies are directly attacked, so trade deals are the way to go. It's sad that both parties have turned against this. I am someone who is not nationalistic in an age where economic nationalism is the flavor of the day...

I lost a ton of respect for Sanders when he waited three months after it was abundantly clear that he was being steamrolled by Clinton (in the popular vote, not just delegate totals) for him to get behind her. He should have endorsed her much sooner, as while I wasn't crazy about her mostly because of her relative hawkishness, she was very, very, very obviously much better than Donald Trump on literally ever single issue Sanders supporters claim to care about.

I also started to get turned off by the "political revolution" talk, like Crumpets. We do not need a "political revolution." We need to take measured, concrete steps to get money permanently out of politics, but other than that, I really don't get what else needs to be done as far as government reform. Same reason I don't like Trump supporter's rhetoric vis-a-vis the "flight 93 election," or whatever. Hyperbole from all corners of the political matrix tends to turn me off.

With all due respect, let me make one thing clear, and maybe I didn't make this clear in my original post. I'm more referring to the people that make the 2020 board a mess and lately USGD. Not high quality posters like you (and there's quite a bunch of similar posters - Virginia, JFK, RFKFan68, ect) who make insightful posts on a number of issues.

Oh wait just saw this. Thank you. I read 2020 because sometimes I find something worth my time, but it's getting less frequent by the day. USGD seems to be going in that direction too, unfortunately. Also, so does the entire country...

Also peenie's entire post is excellent and represents my view as well as his.

[DINGO Joe]

They fear long excessive posts.  Sweet Jesus.

[YE]

I'm probably one that you have directly interacted with regarding this issue, so I will respond since you seem to be genuinely interested in my opinions (well not me specifically but you get my point).

Do they not believe in an inevitable left realignment like that listed in TD's BTM timeline and that said figure will have Berniecrat aspects to his or her policies?

No, I don't believe in anything being "inevitable" in politics. I have seen enough "inevitable" things not happen in my relatively short time studying politics (~2 and a half years) that I will believe something will happen when it happens, and not a second sooner. BTM is a great, well-thought-out timeline, but it's just one version of what may happen in the future. Also, having grown up around and lived with members of the WWC for 18 years, I am not at all sold on the idea that any Democrat, especially not Sanders, will win any large number of them after what they perceive as being betrayed by Obama for 8 years. Pretty much any Democrat will do better than Hillary Clinton among them in 2020, but not landslide level, methinks.

I supported Bernie's campaign from the moment he announced through right around when it was clear he didn't stand a chance (~March 2016). Even after that I liked him, a little. I couldn't vote in 2016, but I may have voted for him in May had I had the ability to. I agreed with him on almost all issues. I still hope the things he advocates for get done (except for an issue or two that I will get into in a minute).

I am first and foremost a pragmatic progressive. I want progress, especially on issues regarding healthcare, wealth inequality, and protection of rights and equality for minorities, immigrants, and women. My biggest issue with Sanders and his supporters is that they seem to view progress as "all or nothing;" if we want Medicare for All or single payer (not the same thing), or banking regulations, or free tuition, the attitude is that we must get it in its pure entirety right now. That's great, except that's not how politics work, at all, especially in this day and age.

Right after being a pragmatist, I am a policy wonk. It's not that Sanders's policies didn't make sense, it's that they weren't nearly as fleshed out as I would have liked (especially when he was running against Wonk Extraordinaire, Hillary D. R. Clinton), especially when it comes to paying for it. By far my most conservative position is that I support getting as close to a balanced budget as possible (though I want to get there by cutting the defense budget and raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, not by cutting social programs). I don't believe Sanders would have been able to pay for his programs just by closing a few Wall Street loopholes, and I doubt he would have gotten his tax plan passed, even if he won by a large margin and Senate Democrats rode his coattails.

I guess I'm also something of a technocrat in that I think the most technical and wonkish person should be elected President, which means that Bernie's charisma stopped working on me after 9 months of hearing the same 5 idealistic, somewhat vague talking points over and over and over again. That's also the reason why I don't actually support Oprah 2020, and why I wouldn't support Trump even if he wasn't a racist/sexist/serial sexual assaulter/madman/demagogue.

The only major policy disagreement I have with Sanders is on free trade. I am very much in favor of trade deals like TPP and NAFTA since they promote our interests abroad in a diplomatic and productive way, don't really negatively effect workers, and directly benefit consumers. I view a strong America as vital to maintaining a healthy world order, and see trade deals and military might as the only ways to achieve this. Growing up watching the Irag War play out on live TV, I am extremely averse to using military action unless the US or one of our close allies are directly attacked, so trade deals are the way to go. It's sad that both parties have turned against this. I am someone who is not nationalistic in an age where economic nationalism is the flavor of the day...

I lost a ton of respect for Sanders when he waited three months after it was abundantly clear that he was being steamrolled by Clinton (in the popular vote, not just delegate totals) for him to get behind her. He should have endorsed her much sooner, as while I wasn't crazy about her mostly because of her relative hawkishness, she was very, very, very obviously much better than Donald Trump on literally ever single issue Sanders supporters claim to care about.

I also started to get turned off by the "political revolution" talk, like Crumpets. We do not need a "political revolution." We need to take measured, concrete steps to get money permanently out of politics, but other than that, I really don't get what else needs to be done as far as government reform. Same reason I don't like Trump supporter's rhetoric vis-a-vis the "flight 93 election," or whatever. Hyperbole from all corners of the political matrix tends to turn me off.

With all due respect, let me make one thing clear, and maybe I didn't make this clear in my original post. I'm more referring to the people that make the 2020 board a mess and lately USGD. Not high quality posters like you (and there's quite a bunch of similar posters - Virginia, JFK, RFKFan68, ect) who make insightful posts on a number of issues.

Oh wait just saw this. Thank you. I read 2020 because sometimes I find something worth my time, but it's getting less frequent by the day. USGD seems to be going in that direction too, unfortunately. Also, so does the entire country...

Also peenie's entire post is excellent and represents my view as well as his.

Yeah my frustration isn't with posters like you (and of the long response, I'd say I agree with parts of it. Overall, think I'm more populist than you, Crumpters, and peenie's, and less of a policy obsessive wonk, though on a place like this the latter is certainly expected, probably because I think a Democratic Congress is competent enough to not pass a bill not suited to become law and as long as a basic framework is setup by the POTUS, I'm generally good), and kinda feel bad for making you write such a long post. Moral of the story is to read the entire thread though I guess I should have made whom I consider "undermining Berniecrats" more defined.

They fear long excessive posts.  Sweet Jesus.

Fine I'll go back to sh**tposting

[Sumner 1868]

Wanna know what the issue really is? Because they are believers in societal hierarchy. They disagree with the right about how a hierarchy should run itself but they believe one must exist. Present them even the implication of an alternative and you go way beyond what they are willing to contemplate.

[bagelman]

They feel threatened by Bernie's populist rhetoric because they envision themselves, or are, members of the upper classes.

[Grassroots]

Socialism doesn't work. There is a reason why most of his supporters are millennial college kids.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

They feel threatened by Bernie's populist rhetoric because they envision themselves, or are, members of the upper classes.

Have you ever even been on a college campus? Go to a school where the sticker price for tuition is $45K and I can guarantee you will see at least ten Nalgene bottles, twenty Macbooks and two Audis plastered Bernie stickers.

Wanna know what the issue really is? Because they are believers in societal hierarchy. They disagree with the right about how a hierarchy should run itself but they believe one must exist. Present them even the implication of an alternative and you go way beyond what they are willing to contemplate.

What the hell is wrong with you people? You have a thread where several people write out several paragraphs about why they disagree with Bernie's political methodology and all you can do is show up to a thread, refuse to engage with them, and throw out what are essentially ad hominem attacks. I mean, go half way up the page and you will see that I wrote this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly what you guys are doing, to a T. But yeah, because none of those posts can give you a smug sense of self-satisfaction and superiority, you're just going to ignore them. You people are insufferable and this is why you will never win major elections: because you are incapable of engaging with voters in an intellectually honest way.

[YE]

They feel threatened by Bernie's populist rhetoric because they envision themselves, or are, members of the upper classes.

To some extent, and that’s really only if they make 250K a year, but then why don’t they admit it rather than trying to dismiss him anytime they get? And why were they ok with tax hikes on them when Obama tried to do the same thing and when Bill Clinton did it in 1993?

[Goldwater]

Wanna know what the issue really is? Because they are believers in societal hierarchy. They disagree with the right about how a hierarchy should run itself but they believe one must exist. Present them even the implication of an alternative and you go way beyond what they are willing to contemplate.

So Bernie supports are anarchists?

[YE]

Wanna know what the issue really is? Because they are believers in societal hierarchy. They disagree with the right about how a hierarchy should run itself but they believe one must exist. Present them even the implication of an alternative and you go way beyond what they are willing to contemplate.

I mean to some extent I believe in a social hierarchy, but one where there is equal opportunity to move up or down in the hierarchy. I believe in the American Dream. Problem is the American Dream no longer exists. I don’t think it’s as simple as you claim; a majority of the I hate every Bernie/Warren-backed candidate rationale is not rooted in economics largely because pending on precise economic views they could be RINO Tom or The Saint type of Republicans if they did rather than fairly partisan Democrats. I think it’s more rooted in social issues, but it’s not like Bernie’s record on social issues is toxic, nor does that an excuse to attack say Marie Newman or Laura Moser. I think they see it as a threat towards their values, but precisely why I’m not sure, nor why they overlook the Democratic track record (2006-2010 aside) of failure.