|
The way the questions in the debates have been framed have served the "People just support Bernie because they want free stuff" narrative. They have spent an INSANE amount of time on health care- like 25% of every debate at least (it seems). Why do they do this? My (berniebro) theory is that, more than other issues, it might make Bernie look unwilling to compromise, bring in the "S" word, and be all about higher taxes.
Hard to imagine Medicare for All passing, given the situation in the Senate. The people who I know who support Bernie (most people in my circle) do so because they perceive him as less corrupt, less entangled in the military industrial complex, willing to make correct decisions that are unpopular (Iraq War), his positions on criminal justice reform and the war on drugs, environmental policy, labor rights, and corporate accountability.
Why have the questions in the debates been so consistently about healthcare policy which is unlikely to pass regardless of who wins the Presidency? Why has so little been spent on foreign policy, judges, executive orders, etc?
Bloomberg invoking "communism" and Pete saying Sanders wants to "burn it down" is getting a little ridiculous. I realize that I inhabit a bit of a leftist bubble, but Bernie's positions are definitely mainstream within that bubble (18-39 liberal arts/artsy/music/literary communities) and it's laughable to see the other candidates try to deride him as a radical.
Ultimately, the challenge is going to be working with Republicans in the Senate to get anything passed. The debates have done a poor job of framing it that way. They have also done a poor job of asking about foreign policy (probably because Bernie's general worldview including having been against the Iraq War will resonate too much /conspiracy).
Politically, would it eventually make sense for 2 of Klobuchar/Biden/Pete to drop out to support the other?
|