- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Sanders's plan would put an additional $5,000 of federal tax liability on households earning $50,000, but in exchange he would nationalize vital services currently in the private sector.
That means at least some of the money we're now paying private companies would be paid to the federal government instead.
But the majority of Sanders supporters in our poll (much less all voters) aren't willing to pay enough to actually support those nationalized services.
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.
Sanders supporters are far and away the most likely to want free public college tuition. Still, 14 percent said they don't want to pay additional taxes for it — and another half said they would only pay up to $1,000 a year:
Not very, it seems.
If the point of Bernie's campaign is to build support for his agenda so that it could actually come to pass someday, he doesn't seem to be succeeding even among his own supporters: Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution.
This is a reality the far left is going to need to address at some point (ironically, Vermont itself was the canary in the coal mine on this one two years ago) and I'm not seeing much of a plan for what to do about it.
New York is almost here. Sanders probably doesn't need to "take" the primary to restore some of the press's faith, but he can't lose by 30 points. I'm not even sure that a margin of defeat in the high single digits would be seen as terribly impressive. But if he can claw to within five points in the popular vote, Sanders can make Clinton appear newly vulnerable again and make himself look more viable than he has seemed in a couple months.
I'm wondering if those replying to the poll were cognizant they would not be paying insurance premiums, in lieu of the higher tax?Not very, it seems.
If the point of Bernie's campaign is to build support for his agenda so that it could actually come to pass someday, he doesn't seem to be succeeding even among his own supporters: Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution.
This is a reality the far left is going to need to address at some point (ironically, Vermont itself was the canary in the coal mine on this one two years ago) and I'm not seeing much of a plan for what to do about it.
Bernie's (and let's face it, Trump's) public support has little to do with pro-socialist idealism and more to do with anti-establishment frustration.
Whether he wins or loses, Bernie is here to stay, along with his revolution.
I'm wondering if those replying to the poll were cognizant they would not be paying insurance premiums, in lieu of the higher tax?
Bernie's (and let's face it, Trump's) public support has little to do with pro-socialist idealism and more to do with anti-establishment frustration.
People are just tired of status quo government full of false promises leading to SSDD (same sh*t different day) policies regardless of which Party is in power.
When was the last time the voters weren't "tired of SSDD"? How often have we seen over the years politicians saying, "Vote for me, I'm the outsider untainted by Washington's corruption!" What has made this time different is the backlash against the ongoing demographic change happening across America...thus the resurgence of white nationalism.
When was the last time the voters weren't "tired of SSDD"? How often have we seen over the years politicians saying, "Vote for me, I'm the outsider untainted by Washington's corruption!" What has made this time different is the backlash against the ongoing demographic change happening across America...thus the resurgence of white nationalism.
This time they have two candidates who are not beholden to either Party's elite, yet have the capacity to run anyway.
Candidates each Party's leadership clearly does NOT wish to see elected.
That was my response to this OP.
White nationalism is a very dangerous phrase to use. To some, it brings back thoughts of lynchings and white only water fountains.
Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, John Anderson...there's quite a list.
Only in the case of Ross Perot was there a valid presumption that he was REALLY not beholden to other elites...he, like Trump, had his OWN money.
People assumed that because of this he was his own man and could be believed when he said something. I supported him back then until he imploded his own campaign.
But the point still stands that people have run as "outsiders" for nearly as long as America's been around...and many - perhaps most - of them were beholden to no one (or at least that's what they would claim).
Yay!!!!!!
But that is still pretty damn close.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?