That very well may be, but considering all his policies do[0], the question must be asked, why?
Maybe we should ask ourselves why, when the american majority supported his entire policy agenda, did they not support him?
Could it be perhaps the billionaire owned media misrepresenting him and his positions? His own party conspiring to take him out of the primary running? Or just average voter ignorance? No one has ever contended that americans always vote in their best interest, after all.
They don't support him because he identifies as pro-socialism and anti-capitalism, while in 2019 socialism polled at -13 and capitalism at +32. Sanders is well aware of this, but as he's explained in the past, his goal is to spark a political revolution and he doesn't care if that leads to opposition from wealthy or corporate interests.
Sure, all of that can be true, but it doesn't change my point that Americans by and large support his policy, even if he isn't the best salesman in the country, or scares the boomers and the uneducated by mentioning socialism and triggering the McCarthy region of the brain, and it merits exploration as to why people support his policies but not him.
I agree, part of it may be his extreme language off-putting those who don't really know what socialism even means, ie the average american. Keep in mind the average american has reading comprehension at or below that of an average sixth grader. Try selling any complex idea or radical change (even for the better) to a sixth grader, it's going to be tough.
Why doesn't opposing capitalism count as a policy? It seems entirely reasonable for one of the people in that +32 to say "well, I like a lot of Bernie's proposals, but he thinks we should put fetters on capitalism and I think we shouldn't do that". (Multiple people I know have told me something along those lines, although I should acknowledge it's true they were all boomers.)
>Why doesn't opposing capitalism count as a policy?
Yeah, fair point, I hadn't really thought about it that way. You're absolutely right, that is obviously a policy, and one that people don't agree with, woe unto them...
I guess it's like that author said: "It's easier to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism." I fell in to that trap of assumption, taking that not as a policy prescription, but as a far off amorphous aspiration.
I guess because it's obvious to me that even if he had had a super-majority that "ending capitalism" would still be a decades long reconstruction of the economy, not something one could put in to a bill put to congress. Plus I always saw him more as opposed to unrestrained capitalism in segments of our life that were basic needs, rather than opposition to capitalism as an idea. I must admit I do still hold some rose colored glasses, I guess.
>I should acknowledge, they were all boomers.
haha. unsurprising. I know first hand the type you describe, as someone who campaigned for him twice and is involved in local politics.
It's not that complicated. In 2016 America though Bernie was a crazy leftist, and didn't vote for him. He did pick up more votes than expected as a protest against Hillary, and he was just starting to get buy-in on his policies.
Then he went out and sold America on some social democrat ideas. He did ok in 2020, but lost, partially because Democratic voters were afraid that Republicans would see him as a crazy leftist, and partially because Biden had more support from some demographics.
Yeah, there's some billionaire pushback, but Bernie chaired the budget committee. It's not like he was whacked by some billionaire hit squad, he just wasn't quite popular enough to win the presidential primaries.
Looking all the way downstream, to the end result (voting numbers) is much less valuable vein to mine for insight than how he was portrayed in media, online and in legacy media, before votes were cast. That provides much more insight in to how his campaign failed, in my eyes at least.
I don't have all the historical polling data to say this with certainty, but his policies were pretty much always supported by a majority of the american public from a cursory perplexity search (grain of salt and all that, but seriously, can you think of one policy of his that wasn't popular?)
The more important question, to me at least, than "in 2016 did america think bernie was a crazy leftist?" is, "why, when his policies all had majority voter support, did the candidate himself carry the McCarthy era veil of 'crazy leftist' and 'communist'"?
And I think the answer is the same as in my original comment, a concerted effort from the billionaire class (who own all our media) to do anything BUT accurately portray the guy who vocally wanted to cost them money in favor of those who wanted to enrich them. I think the billionaire class almost always plays a bigger role than we think, but that might just be all the books I read about the machinations of the rich and powerful to manufacture consent. I'm no expert.
Consider how Obama got piled on for a minor tweak to healthcare laws, and gets called a socialist for ever mentioning that maybe the rich aren't helping out enough.
I've gotta be skeptical that Bernie's policies were majority supported at the time, and any investigation would have to look at the evidence, and especially the polling questions, really carefully.
>I've gotta be skeptical that Bernie's policies were majority supported at the time, and any investigation would have to look at the evidence, and especially the polling questions, really carefully.
Wholly agreed, and I'm unfortunately way too lazy to do that. But I did look at and cite one snapshot in time where all his policy positions had a majority support (except 15$ min wage because it was framed with "risk of job losses")
>consider how Obama...helping out enough
Yeah, agreed, which I think is more evidence that reality, unfortunately, holds less water than whatever the tv/ipad/iphone tells you to believe about the world. That plus the average american reading comprehension being at or below sixth grade level makes for a tough sell of anything but very simple language, very simple policy. And just in general, an uneducated populace tends to be more susceptible to voting against their own interests.
That very well may be, but considering all his policies do[0], the question must be asked, why?
Maybe we should ask ourselves why, when the american majority supported his entire policy agenda, did they not support him?
Could it be perhaps the billionaire owned media misrepresenting him and his positions? His own party conspiring to take him out of the primary running? Or just average voter ignorance? No one has ever contended that americans always vote in their best interest, after all.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/25/pete-butti...