> It's pretty obvious that the democrats failed to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum

tldr; Republicans did not even attempted to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum. Why is that the democrats are supposed to reach to center both when they won and loose?

I don't think so. When you are closed in right wing bubble, Biden is hardcore socialist, nearly progressive communist about to destroy American capitalism. Literally. He is also sleepy Joe in clear early stage of dementia. This has zero to do with what democrats demonstrated. This is made up, because making it up is good for "our side". It does not matter what Biden is or demonstrates.

Frankly, it is like relationship with narcissist. Dont let him/her gaslight you into thinking you are at fault for whatever was done to you. It is overall unfair and biased toward right wing. You dont fix relationship with narcissist by going out of your way further and further trying to prove made up accusations are false. It does not work, the middle just shifts constantly and abuse just escalates.

Republicans did not demonstrated the Trump along people he appointed, proud boys are not what the party is. You want left to stop pursuing their own policy goals, with threat that right wing will go crazy if they dont. But that is abusive logic, right wing is responsible for right wing does. And left wing is responsible for left wing does.

Trunp didn't, but many other Republicans did. Or let me phrase it a different way: The Democrats made it stick that the right wing fringe = Trump, but they didn't make it stick for down-ballot races. It was the other way around for the Republicans, I think.

So you can either take your ball and go home, or you can try to pierce the bubble. Hoping for them to come out of the bubble on their own seems pointless.

I do agree with ball analogy, but disagree that it has anything to do with trying to move further and further to the right to accommodate people who don't listen to you.

> It's pretty obvious that the democrats failed to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum

IMHO this is just something people say to push Democrats to the center and then further and further right ... because the evidence shows that the current Republican party won't support any Democratic policy, basically.

These folks we're talking about will not be convinced by anything.

It's not an honest argument.

If you read closely, you will notice that I do not make an argument that the Democrats should be more centrist, but that their strategy was to be centrist, and that they failed to sell it as such. That leaves to options for the future: Not be so centrist, because you can't sell it anyway, or be centrist, but actually sell it. But being centrist and looking leftist seems like a lose-lose, whether you prefer a more leftist or more centrist approach.

That being said, it might be interesting to look at Germany, where Merkel moved the CDU left from a center/right position to the center. This secured the CDU a rather long stretch in power, essentially spelled doom for the center/left SPD, but also gave rise to a more hard-left Die Linke and, worse, an ultra-right AfD, whicht started as a conservative party, but essentially was taken over by neo-nazis.

I may have misread your previous comment -- thank you for the clarification.

I do agree with you that it's tricky to try to sell being centrist when you are not, and, in some ways, better to just be out-and-out left.

TBH I'm not sure Biden really tried to sell himself as something he is not. He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.

If anything I'm kind of anticipating him walking back his pledges on those things when in office. Though I hope not.

Let's also bear in mind though that, while we can armchair-quarterback, his strategy succeeded.

I think the question of if moving to a more aggressively Progressive agenda would bring in voters hungry for change who are otherwise turned off by Democrats, or if moving more to the center to bring in voters turned off by a more Progressive agenda, is an extremely vexed question to which I have no answer.

That is interesting about Germany though.

And at the end of the day my own belief is that we are living in a time of change, and that it's important to offer policies I believe to be right (mainly Progressive policies) to address that change.

Or otherwise the void will be filled, as you pointed out about Germany, by something else.

At the same time we haven't seen that approach be successful on a national level in US politics yet. So I don't know.

Curious what your thoughts are.

I do think Biden stayed true to what he believes. I think he might not have pushed the green new deal so hard by himself, maybe. My point is this: For somebody sympathetic to the Democrats, Biden appears as a rather centrist person. He isn't advocating for abolishing private health-insurance for example. But if you ask a Republican voter (not even a Trumpist), I'm not sure they would say the same. Or they believe that the party would force him to be more left.

I'm not so sure with regard to the votes. 2016, yes, I believe many people on the left were not happy with Clinton and did not vote. This time, we had record vote participation, and I believe that's from both sides, so the result should reflect the true political will in America. It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.

I like the picture of the pendulum. While Obama was quite centrist, the USA made great advances in personal liberties. Gay marriage and so on. The world was changing too fast for many. Or they felt that their problems weren't in the focus as much, or at all. So the pendulum swung back, and we had Trump. We need to dampen the swinging to make steady progress, and I think Biden might be good at that, maybe especially because of his age.

Personally, I am somewhat wary of some of the more progressive ideas. I'm not a big fan of single-payer healthcare, seeing the results in England. I generally think that a market-run system is better than a government-run, but that markets need firm rules set by the government. ACA was pretty good, but long term, America has to get away from the employment-coupled insurances. And covering preexisting conditions necessarily means mandate (or mandate through the backdoor).

> It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.

You might be right. Let's also bear in mind, though, that even with all the people voting this year that's still I think less than half of all eligible voters.

Other countries which have national voting holidays or making voting mandatory (which tbh I kind of like; you're a citizen, it's your duty, you can go vote for no one but goddamnit you have to vote) see much higher turnout.

This means that votes alone don't currently present an entirely accurate picture of the view of the country.

There is also the vote surpression which is nontrivial and hard to measure. Probably not a massive difference but perhaps more than a tiny one.

Lastly I'm actually not a fan of Biden's age. I'd like to see more politicians under the age of 50.

By the way although I'm sharing my disagreements I thought your comments were thoughtful and insightful and appreciate our conversation : ).

I, too, enjoyed our discussion. Thoughtful exchange with people who are not of the same opinion is so much more rewarding than the echo chambers we often find ourselves in.

It would be quite interesting to hear from those not voting why they didn't vote. My suspicion is that these people would almost never vote, or maybe only vote for so extremely perfect candidates that it's just not realistic. But yeah, maybe there is a large group of people who would vote if the candidate would just be a little bit more progressive. But honestly, in a situation like this, with the knowledge of the last four years, I just can't understand why you wouldn't vote, at least if you are left of center.

I also cannot understand why election day isn't on a Sunday, or a holiday. It should be the highest holiday the US has. Any democracy has, actually.

Biden is also somewhat too old for my taste, but no candidate is perfect. Age does bring experience though, and he has long-lasting relationships with people on both sides of the aisle. That will help. Personally, I really liked Buttigieg, and I'm happy to see that he'll like have a role in the Biden administration.

> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.

Those are all standard centrist neoliberal goals - aside from the green new deal, which Biden already explicitly said won’t be anything nearly as radical as what AOC/Bernie were shilling.

All of which, even if inadequate are better goals than the dark authoritarian visions of the far-right : ).

Systemic racism has been danced around by centrists until now.

And yeah I agree we have to wait and see what the Biden administration actually does.

But as a Progressive I'm heartened because now there's an opportunity for Progressives to push the Biden administration. With Trump, there was zero chance of that.

As the FDR quote goes, "You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."

I don't think any Progressives have idealistic visions of a Biden administration. What they are hoping for is a degree of influence and an opportunity to exert political pressure or leverage.

Which is how politics is : )

> He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism

In case folks haven’t clued in yet, using this phrase is probably the single most important contributor to why the democrats almost lost the election and lost so many seats. The house is absolutely going red in 2022 if they don’t clue in and drop the identity politics nonsense. There is no “systemic” racism, and this is an unnecessarily divisive narrative.

The really interesting thing is that when Democratic platform proposals are on the ballot, they pass even in red states.

For example, this year Florida voted for Trump by 2% AND a $15 minimum wage by 20 points.

The actual policy is extremely popular, but if a Democratic politician brings it up it just gets labelled socialism.

It's funny, because if you talk about gun control, most Republicans think the same thing about Democrats. The difference being they've been burned over and over by compromise and the fact once something is passed it never gets reviewed or sunset for relevance.

It cuts both ways. People disagree, and where they disagree is the most likely place for both sides to hold the other side to account for previous behavior.

It's part of why I was so disgusted about fast tracking the Supreme Court nomination after McConnell set a precedent the Presidency before.

In terms of game theory it just cemented that the other side couldn't be trusted.

This is very inaccurate, and seems to be a misunderstanding among the “defund the police” democrats. And that’s precisely the problem.

What I don't understand is, Bernie is painted as this rabid socialist, but what are his positions that people don't actually like? He wants single-payer healthcare. So do most Americans. (And as a Canadian I can tell you, it sure is nice not having to worry about cost every time I need to visit the doctor, or if I were to have an accident and need to go to the hospital.) If not that, then what?

For one thing, people don’t like the impossible price tag associated with his ideas. They don’t like throwing good money after bad. They are in fear of having their life depend on a system that might function similar to other organizations like the DMV or the VA or USCIS. And generally speaking, if you have insurance, quality of care is much better than Canada. So even compassionate people who understand why it’s a problem for people who can’t afford care still have some reluctance to an irreversible commitment that carries so much risk. It’s purely rational on their part, and it’s hard to criticize people for acting rationally.

I'm not sure it's actually true that the quality of care is much better than Canada. The one negative I see to the Canadian system is that it's true people can wait months for elective (but still very important) surgeries like joint replacements. It's not true, as some propaganda states, that we wait months to see the doctor, can't get prescriptions, or die in the hallways of hospitals waiting for a room. In fact we can go to any walk-in clinic when we need to see a doctor, or to any hospital when we have an emergency, and be seen without an appointment. (You can also make an appointment with your family doctor if it's non-urgent). To me that seems far superior to having to choose from those covered by your insurance, and then sometimes being unsure of what will be the cost to you until after the fact.

I will agree with you that the standard of care for those with the best insurance in the US is probably better than the Canadian system. But the standard of care here is still very good, and even as someone who could afford that good insurance, I wouldn't want to switch. Also, the US already spends more public money on healthcare than Canada does per capita despite not having single payer, so it appears there's a lot of efficiency to be gained.

Edit: please don't down vote my parent in disagreement. They answered my question in good faith and helped illuminate that viewpoint. Shouldn't be punished for that.

I have a lot of exposure to both countries systems, including close people with chronic and terminal illnesses, major and minor surgeries, etc. And yes there’s a reason that it’s not rare for wealthy Canadians come to the US for medical treatment.

Regardless, I’m answering the question that was asked. You didn’t ask which health care system is better, you asked what people don’t like about Bernie’s policies. I’m attempting to offer some clarity into why people hold those positions. And do keep in mind that even if governments in other countries manage to run a decent health care system, that does very little to boost the confidence of opponents that the US government will be equally as functional in their implementation, or how long it will take them to sort it out. They have provided too many examples of poorly run institutions for some people to just disregard.

But your question wasn’t only about health care. When I say impossible price tag, I mean everything:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-maj...

Thanks, those are fair points; I do appreciate the thorough answer to my question. And for what it's worth, I'm Canadian, but I'm pretty happy with the moderate dealmaker Biden as the eventual nominee (and President-elect). I agree with you that given the existing situation, a public option as opposed to a complete replacement of the existing system is a more realistic path to providing healthcare to everyone, with less room for catastrophic error. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that even that will happen now, but who knows.

As for the rest, some aspects of it do look a bit unrealistic to me. Others look ambitious but morally right, and something I'd like to see up here too, like a real focus on basic housing as a universal right, and a corresponding push to end homelessness. Regardless, you did help me see the opposing point of view; thanks.

> people don’t like the impossible price tag associated with his ideas.

The US government spends more on healthcare than many single payer systems, and has worse outcomes.

This fact doesn’t change the price of what he has been proposing. Also, I wasn’t only referring to health care. He has a lot of ideas. Free college, guaranteed free housing for all, medical debt and student debt forgiveness for all, free child care for all, increased social security, etc.

Nordic countries say hi! Those are all standard over here. We pay more taxes yes but we don't have to worry about the extra costs of the above, so it's a clear (to me) net win.

It's an impossible pricetag only because we don't tax the rich.

Billionaires have taken $50 trillion from the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class are afraid of taxes because they have nothing left to give.

No, they haven’t. When you order snacks from Amazon, Bezos isn’t “taking” your money. You’re giving it to him.

What's the difference?

Poor and middle class Americans are afraid of higher taxes because they don't have enough money.

Where did all the money go? To 400 billionaires.

50 of them now control as much wealth as the poorest 165 million Americans.

Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty, and what do we do about it? Pray to Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos?

What do I have to convince them to give their wealth to me?

Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty. 10% of Americans hold 70% of wealth, and they are all getting richer. Their income comes either from the rest of us or from inflation.

You’re misinformed. Wealth is not zero-sum.

When I hear single-payer healthcare, I don't think about the Canadian system, but the English system, which is terrible, compared to the quality of care you get in Germany, or most people get in the US.

Which brings me to another reality: Most people in the US have access to a very good healthcare standard. It's not so much that they don't want all people to have that, but they do wonder if that requires a complete change of system for them.

So, I don't know much about the English system, but I do know the NHS is very popular in England. Are you sure it's actually terrible? Or could there be an element of the same propaganda I see in the US about the Canadian system, like people waiting months to see a doctor, etc.?

It its more fair (no two classes like in Germany), and that's why it's well liked, but it's chronically under-funded. For example: https://www.physiciansweekly.com/elective-surgery-ban-for-sm...

Waiting times: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711192/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50397856

"defund the police" means "defund the police", it is a clear and unambiguous sentence. If you mean "let the police do their job", don't run on "defund the police". It's not that people didn't look close enough at the slogans (and by the way we have seen many cities actually defund their police depts so it doesn't help the idea that the slogan means anything else).

I don't think that Biden himself holds leftist views but he also did nothing to distance himself from this fringe, and if he is not neutralised by a republican senate, I think there is a legitimate concern that he will be held hostage by the left wing of the democratic party and apply many of those policies (not the least because Kamala Harris would if he steps down for health reasons).