(Although I can't really imagine Iger would be running for president this election cycle; I think we're well past too many filing deadlines to get on enough party ballots to have even a mathematical possibility of being nominated, and I doubt he's quixotic enough to run as an independent.)
That seems like a weirdly specific comment. The majority of the electorate rejects the idea of a socialist as president. That sentiment isn't specific to "folks like Bloomberg".
The democratic party, up until 2016, used a system of "superdelegates": hand-picked people who had way more sway in choosing the party nomination. Sanders won the primary vote, but superdelegates widely picked Clinton. So, no, direct democracy was not an option in 2016.
After lots of complaints, the process was completely redesigned in 2018. Now, the candidate to get the majority of delegates becomes the party nomination.
Since Bernie has been clear as an actual candidate with potential to win, some democratic members have been caught speaking about returning to the superdelegate system [0].
Some believe Bloomberg's surprise entry in the race are an attempt to "crack the vote", that is, ensure that enough people vote for Bloomberg that Sanders does not win the majority, in which case the superdelegates are the tiebreakers to pick the nomination. This theory is very loosely backed up somewhat by an overheard phone call with John Kerry advocating him to join the race, to stop Sanders. [1]
I didn't read past your first paragraph because it is patently false. Hillary won with our without the superdelegates, received more than 3 million more votes than Sanders, and the race was never close past New Hampshire.
Also, the superdelegates would not have voted for her if she had lost among the pledged delegates.
How can we know that? Because that's precisely what happened in 2008. Hillary had tons of superdelegates lined up behind her when the primaries started, but then Obama got more votes, so the superdelegates switched.
And thus the final step in the handover of the nomination process is complete, from the pre-17th Amendment wisdom that the people’s judgment is only useful when applied to their local leaders in their town and city, and are patently unqualified to evaluate things like presidential candidates.
First, Bernie is a democratic socialist (or more accurately, a social democrat, but the distinction has been lost in recent years) not a socialist. His policies have overwhelming support by Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters -- for instance, Medicare for All had 70% approval nationwide and 52% approval by registered Republican voters in late 2018[1].
And the poll you're likely referring to[2] shows him with a double-digit lead. Now, I'd hope it'd be pretty obvious what kind of bias MSNBC has by running a poll that asks questions such that you get a result like:
> while also finding that the most unpopular candidate qualities in a general election are being a socialist, being older than 75 years of age and having a heart attack in the past year
Oh gee, I wonder what possible candidate they might be referring to (in an article which is titled "Sanders opens double digit national lead"). I don't know what the question in the poll was, but it should be fairly obvious how easily you could phrase the question to come up with that result.
If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states?
> ..for instance, Medicare for All had 70% approval nationwide and 52% approval by registered Republican voters in late 2018.
If you look into this closer, you realize the poll was garbage. If you ask a question in 2018 with no context in the form; "Would support or oppose 'a policy of Medicare for All'"? most respondents are going to think if you're asking if everyone should be allowed to have access to Medicare when you're 65.
When a poll asks about "a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan," only 23% of Republicans were in favor of it. [1]
When you explain that this plan would not only replace private insurance we have today, but in fact make such insurance illegal, Republican support drops by ~50%.
> When you explain that this plan would not only replace private insurance we have today, but in fact make such insurance illegal, Republican support drops by ~50%.
And if you phrase it as "are you in favour of a healthcare system where you are forced to pay for other people's healthcare, without any opt-out, the government decides if you get treatment, and price-fixing the cost of drugs resulting in reduced pharmaceutical profits thus threatening the economy" you would see support drop even lower. Now, you could argue that phrasing is technically accurate but it's clearly biased to get respondents to answer in a particular way.
The way you phrase questions in polls matters -- phrasing it as "making private healthcare illegal" is placing a bias in the question (if it was phrased as "giving everyone the same excellent standard of healthcare as provided by Medicare" it would also be a bias but in the opposite direction).
> most respondents are going to think if you're asking if everyone should be allowed to have access to Medicare when you're 65.
In 2018, a very large number of Americans understood what "Medicare For All" specifically referred to. Sanders had been campaigning on it for more than 3 years at that point (it was one of the major topics of debate in the 2015 Democratic primary), legislation had been drafted and so on. I don't know why someone would think "Medicare for All" would mean anything other than "Medicare for all [Americans]." The vast majority of Americans over 65 are already entitled to Medicare in the US (unless you only recently became a citizen or haven't paid Medicare taxes for the past 10 years, and don't have a disability).
> If Bernie is so unpopular, why is he the only candidate (of any political party) in American history to win the popular vote in the first three primary states?
So what? Why does that statistic mean anything in a highly fragmented contest? Bernie got 26% of the vote in Iowa, about the same in New Hampshire and just shy of 50% in Nevada. So in all three states more people voted against Bernie than for him.
> Why does that statistic mean anything in a highly fragmented contest?
Why does that statistic not mean something in a highly fragmented contest? The 1972 and 1976 Democratic primaries both started with 16 candidates; the 1996 Republican primaries had 12 and the 2000 Republican primaries had 13. Being the only candidate in 11 cycles to win the popular vote in the first three primaries/caucuses isn't an automatic ticket to the White House, no, but it's not nothing.
Assuming Sanders is even a close second in South Carolina, he's going to have tremendous momentum going into Super Tuesday, and historically it's unwise to write that off.
Welcome to first-past-the-post elections with more than one candidate.
Canadian here, more of our elections nationwide are won with less than 50% of the vote than with more (last federal election had 124 candidates with >50%, of 338 seats).
Democratic socialism is not the same thing as social democracy (aka, what Scandinavians have).
Social democrats are staunch believers in liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy, both of which are antithetical in _any_ socialist system, even democratic socialism.
American socialists will lie to you otherwise, or perhaps they just don't know.
Moreover, Bernie has half a century of history praising communism and kissing up to Marxist-Leninists whereas this softer, friendlier, more populist Bernie is less then a decade old and won't address his endorsements. I don't believe it for a second.
We have Medicare and Social security, which are socialist policies. If you've ever voted for any serving member of Congress, you've voted for someone who socialist policies.
Instead of fearing or causing a panic over a label, consider concretely articulating your concerns with Sanders' (or any candidates) policies.
I don't really care what you call it, but Bernie's plans amount to nationalizing as much economic activity as possible, utilizing a command economy approach to provide goods and services, shifting responsibilities from states to the federal government, removing individual responsibility in favor of an endless number of "rights" that are to be provided by a federal bureaucracy, redesigning the thrust of our public policy to guarantee outcomes vs opportunities, and more.
Almost all of this is completely antithetical to our federal system, not supported by any generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution.
Anybody on HN who requires that someone "articulate .. concerns" about these things is terribly uninformed about the historic nature of these types of initiatives. I doubt that anything I could write will affect their thinking.
As for Medicare and Social Security and all the other federal nonsense, yes those existing programs are problematic. Almost every federal program would be better off as a state or private program.
To be fair, your argument does not quantify precisely. At all. Your argument claims Bernie wants to "nationalize as much economic activity as possible". Health care is the first thing that comes to mind. What activities, in particular, are you concerned with nationalizing? Your argument is emotional and lacking in facts. A better argument would be: "Bernie has proposed nationalizing <X> which would have consequences <Y, Z> and those are consequences leave us worse off than <other option>".
Bernie has advocated during his political career for nationalization of health care, energy sector, banks, utilities, drug companies and "major industries". There doesn't seem to be any limiting principle for Sanders re: the proper role for the national government so I see no reason to believe that he thinks any differently about these things now than in the past. He even brags about his consistency of beliefs over time.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationa...
Regarding Social Security and Medicare, the fact that those programs as constructed are not financially sound is well known and health insurance as well as public retirement plans don't have to be national programs. There is no reason that states couldn't fund those programs if they so choose. The advantage of having those programs at the state level is that it introduces competition. People can vote with their feet and move to states that provide a better mix of taxes/services.
And what are your arguments as to the consequences of nationalizing health care, energy sectors, etc.? Your argument hasn't identified a problem with the nationalizing.
Really? I'm sorry but HN is just not the place to educate someone on all the negative consequences of nationalization of industries and the negative effects of command economies. It isn't like this is an obscure concept or point of view for which I can add any useful thoughts to what is already well known.
Every other first-world country on Earth has nationalized health care, so I don't find it unreasonable for me to question if your argument is sound when presented with no accompanying facts.
Asking for facts and being replied to with the effect "Really?" is far from effective persuasion. Emotional appeals won't work. Facts and data will.
Sure it could be even worse, but is that supposed to be a rationale for accepting his approach? Just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
That you are being incredibly hyperbolic and alarmist when you are equivocating what are minor tweaks to what is, and what will remain a mixed public/private market economy... to full-blown-complete nationalization.
Could you please point to any evidence of Sanders plans to replace a market economy with an entirely centrally planned economy? That's essentially been your assertion, and I'm not familiar of any sources making this claim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/our-hi...
(Although I can't really imagine Iger would be running for president this election cycle; I think we're well past too many filing deadlines to get on enough party ballots to have even a mathematical possibility of being nominated, and I doubt he's quixotic enough to run as an independent.)