Bernie Sanders Speech - Carson, CA

[SDBoiler1]

Has anyone figured out why Bernie Sanders refuses to get out of the race?

He still has a slim mathematical chance to win the pledged delegate count, but I don't see how he can win over the superdelegates and get the Democrat nomination. In this speech he says he's going through to the Democrat convention in Philly. He also rips Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party.

He says he has the "energy and enthusiasm" on his side (vs. HRC), and I think he's right on that point.

 

[pboiler18]

Until the convention votes are cast, Bernie is technically still in it. His only hope is to win the at large delegate count and through brute force convince 250 of the superdelegates to switch. I think a few would but honestly most of those superdelegates have been bought and paid for for A LONG LONG TIME by the Clintons and the party brass.

I also think Sanders would get royally smoked in the general....so establishment Dems have little incentive to flip to him at this point.

 

[qazplm]

Has anyone figured out why Bernie Sanders refuses to get out of the race?

He still has a slim mathematical chance to win the pledged delegate count, but I don't see how he can win over the superdelegates and get the Democrat nomination. In this speech he says he's going through to the Democrat convention in Philly. He also rips Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party.

He says he has the "energy and enthusiasm" on his side (vs. HRC), and I think he's right on that point.

View embedded media

Explain to me how the guy who has garnered only 45% of the Dem vote, and is 2.5+ million almost 3 million votes behind Hillary, and is almost 300 pledged delegates behind Hillary the person with the energy and momentum?

He can draw a crowd, sure. But the true test of who has energy and momentum is who got the most votes.

As to why he's staying in. I don't know.

The charitable answer is that he's a true believer who thinks he's fighting for a movement and feels like he must do everything he can to move that movement forward even as he realizes eventually that he has to support a "lesser" option in his mind since the alternative will be Trump. That version of Bernie will eventually do what Hillary did, rally his followers around the winner.

The cynical answer is that he's spent his whole life in the wilderness effectively as a lone kook (albeit a lone kook who is a Senator). Now, over the last year, he's gained a pretty strong national following. That's gone to his head, and now he believes he's truly the liberal Messiah, destined to win, and if he doesn't win it's only because of "the Establishment (TM)."

The most likely answer is a little of column A, and a little of column B. I'm hoping it's more A than B, but I'm skeptical that a guy who only became a Dem because it was the only path to running for the Presidency is not, shall we say, likely to be the most committed of party members.

Regardless, just like most Hillary supporters sucked it up and voted for Obama, most Bernie supporters (particularly the ones who are Democrats) will suck it up and vote for Hillary.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

1. He really believes in his message and will use all the time possible to get it out.
2. The D's want him to stay in because he's bringing in some under 30 vote to the D's.
3. He dislikes Hillary and wants to put the screws to her.
4. ????
5. Profit
6. Illuminati

 

[qazplm]

Until the convention votes are cast, Bernie is technically still in it. His only hope is to win the at large delegate count and through brute force convince 250 of the superdelegates to switch. I think a few would but honestly most of those superdelegates have been bought and paid for for A LONG LONG TIME by the Clintons and the party brass.

I also think Sanders would get royally smoked in the general....so establishment Dems have little incentive to flip to him at this point.

Many of those same SDs went for Obama, so they must not have been bought and paid that much. If Bernie had the PD lead, they'd go for him. He doesn't, and he won't and he's even farther behind than she was Obama.

I think the polls showing him doing better than Hillary are based on the fact that he's barely been attacked by anyone. There is a ton of stuff out there concerning his comments on a host of things that would cause folks to turn on him. He has his own electability problems, it's just no one cares enough to dig too deep on them because no one thinks he has a shot of winning the nomination. So I agree with you to some extent on the lack of incentive to flip to him, although I don't think Trump would "royally smoke" anyone.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Explain to me how the guy who has garnered only 45% of the Dem vote, and is 2.5+ million almost 3 million votes behind Hillary, and is almost 300 pledged delegates behind Hillary the person with the energy and momentum?

He can draw a crowd, sure. But the true test of who has energy and momentum is who got the most votes.

As to why he's staying in. I don't know.

The charitable answer is that he's a true believer who thinks he's fighting for a movement and feels like he must do everything he can to move that movement forward even as he realizes eventually that he has to support a "lesser" option in his mind since the alternative will be Trump. That version of Bernie will eventually do what Hillary did, rally his followers around the winner.

The cynical answer is that he's spent his whole life in the wilderness effectively as a lone kook (albeit a lone kook who is a Senator). Now, over the last year, he's gained a pretty strong national following. That's gone to his head, and now he believes he's truly the liberal Messiah, destined to win, and if he doesn't win it's only because of "the Establishment (TM)."

The most likely answer is a little of column A, and a little of column B. I'm hoping it's more A than B, but I'm skeptical that a guy who only became a Dem because it was the only path to running for the Presidency is not, shall we say, likely to be the most committed of party members.

Regardless, just like most Hillary supporters sucked it up and voted for Obama, most Bernie supporters (particularly the ones who are Democrats) will suck it up and vote for Hillary.

The "energy and enthusiasm" is more of a perception issue than a numerical thing. Since he has large, raucous crowds and mostly younger voters, he will gain something of a perception of having energy. His spiel is pretty good - I disagree with much of his message, but I do respect what he has done in this cycle. He is definitely a more dynamic speaker than HRC and her shrill voice. As he said in the clip, he's taken on the "Clinton machine" head on and has fared pretty well, despite what many would consider a "kooky" message.

Personally, I think your "Column B" assessment is more correct although there is a kernel of truth to "Column A" too.

I also think that a decent chunk (can't guess how much it is) of Sanders supporters would rather sit out the election than vote for Clinton. Some of these people just hate her and what she stands for. Most of these people will not go for Trump either. (In essence, they will disenfranchise themselves).

 

[qazplm]

The "energy and enthusiasm" is more of a perception issue than a numerical thing. Since he has large, raucous crowds and mostly younger voters, he will gain something of a perception of having energy. His spiel is pretty good - I disagree with much of his message, but I do respect what he has done in this cycle. He is definitely a more dynamic speaker than HRC and her shrill voice. As he said in the clip, he's taken on the "Clinton machine" head on and has fared pretty well, despite what many would consider a "kooky" message.

Personally, I think your "Column B" assessment is more correct although there is a kernel of truth to "Column A" too.

I also think that a decent chunk (can't guess how much it is) of Sanders supporters would rather sit out the election than vote for Clinton. Some of these people just hate her and what she stands for. Most of these people will not go for Trump either. (In essence, they will disenfranchise themselves).

I know your hope is for that last bit to be true, but I'll say it again. After the end of the nomination process in 08, polling was done. 40% of Hillary supporters said they would never vote for Obama.
What ended up happening?

So long as Bernie does a moderate amount of make-up with Hillary, the large majority of his folks will vote for Hillary.

Your comments on "shrill" voice show your biases pretty plainly. You respect him because you hate Hillary and would respect anyone who is competitive with her (even though in most elections, we'd consider a 55-45 popular vote showing to be not very competitive).

Bernie certainly knows how to paint with broad brushes, and he knows how to capture discontent and anger and speak to it. That's not the same as being dynamic. Reagan was dynamic. Obama is dynamic. JFK was dynamic (although RFK was better). BS is not dynamic. I won't deny that Hillary is someone who is uncharismatic to a large audience. There are plenty of people who say she is plenty charismatic in small groups, but the reality is, she ain't transferring that quality to larger audiences for a myriad number of reasons.

But there's more to enthusiasm and energy then being charismatic. You clearly don't like her policies, but there's a whole bunch of folks who love her wonkishness and her policies...obviously, they voted for her. Some of her voters will be anti-Trump voters for sure.

If I could have picked any Dem to run, I'd have picked someone other than Hillary or Bernie. Both have flaws. But neither are either the best of what some folks think of them, or the worst of what others think of them.

 

[pboiler18]

Many of those same SDs went for Obama, so they must not have been bought and paid that much. If Bernie had the PD lead, they'd go for him. He doesn't, and he won't and he's even farther behind than she was Obama.

I think the polls showing him doing better than Hillary are based on the fact that he's barely been attacked by anyone. There is a ton of stuff out there concerning his comments on a host of things that would cause folks to turn on him. He has his own electability problems, it's just no one cares enough to dig too deep on them because no one thinks he has a shot of winning the nomination. So I agree with you to some extent on the lack of incentive to flip to him, although I don't think Trump would "royally smoke" anyone.

He would royally smoke a socialist. Hillary would be but shes a criminal so....

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

It's easy. He and Trump are bringing out NEW voters and lots of BIG rallies (people actually shout and scream versus show up a wave their flags and banners) People who are ANGRY at what's going on in our political system. My take is that as long as his finances permit it, he will fight to get BIG money out of our political system while he has the stage. (ie Citizens United)

As for those who support Bernie (I am one) I still doubt the majority will support Hillary and yes, I know I am in the minority on the board . . lol ! . Just because OLDER life-long democrats switched from Hillary to Obama doesn't mean it will happen again. Their allegiance was to the party. Those following Bernie think "Independently" and want change, ANY change, to send a message again and again and again ! (Until we get it right, one way or the other)

I think the big issue for Bernie supporters is whether they vote at all. Young people are apt to stay home - disenchanted with the process. Older people are more likely to VOTE for someone ELSE ! (knowing that sends an even bigger message)

Being older than most in this camp, the election is shaping seem to be Hitler vs Satan (ie Donald Duck, KKK or John Miller depending on personality of the day v.s. Shillary, witch or Hillary for hire) - not sure our country will be better off with either Donald or Hillary.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

And the biggest issue of all ?? . . . what happens to the representatives and the senators that are running ! I personally think and hope it will be a year of "throw the bums out !"

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

And the biggest issue of all ?? . . . what happens to the representatives and the senators that are running ! I personally think and hope it will be a year of "throw the bums out !"

nah. only 53 percent of Americans could identify their representative's political party, which is extra sad considering there are only 2 options for most seats. 22% got it wrong and 26% didn't know. I'd love to see the numbers on how many know what district they are in or the name of their representative. There's very little chance any bums will be thrown out when the electorate is a bunch of ignorant slobs who don't know who the bum is in the first place or why he/she is a bum!

 

[qazplm]

He would royally smoke a socialist. Hillary would be but shes a criminal so....

a normal republican might, Trump would not.

 

[qazplm]

It's easy. He and Trump are bringing out NEW voters and lots of BIG rallies (people actually shout and scream versus show up a wave their flags and banners) People who are ANGRY at what's going on in our political system. My take is that as long as his finances permit it, he will fight to get BIG money out of our political system while he has the stage. (ie Citizens United)

As for those who support Bernie (I am one) I still doubt the majority will support Hillary and yes, I know I am in the minority on the board . . lol ! . Just because OLDER life-long democrats switched from Hillary to Obama doesn't mean it will happen again. Their allegiance was to the party. Those following Bernie think "Independently" and want change, ANY change, to send a message again and again and again ! (Until we get it right, one way or the other)

I think the big issue for Bernie supporters is whether they vote at all. Young people are apt to stay home - disenchanted with the process. Older people are more likely to VOTE for someone ELSE ! (knowing that sends an even bigger message)

Being older than most in this camp, the election is shaping seem to be Hitler vs Satan (ie Donald Duck, KKK or John Miller depending on personality of the day v.s. Shillary, witch or Hillary for hire) - not sure our country will be better off with either Donald or Hillary.

Except Trump isn't bringing out new voters. Politico studied this and the vast majority of folks he brings out might be new to the primaries but they have voted in most of the recent presidential elections.

There are plenty of folks in both parties who don't bother to vote in the primaries but regularly vote in the GE.

Bernie has certainly captured the youth vote, so by definition that's probably a new voter. Then again, the youth vote is the least reliable vote in the GE historically. Of course, polling shows the youth vote is vigorously opposed to Drumpf and prefers Hillary over him by a yuuge amount even if they really wish they had Bernie.

You realize Hillary has pledged to nominate judges who would reverse CU right?

Every time people use the word Shrill, they reveal a little about themselves that has nothing to do with Hillary.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I know your hope is for that last bit to be true, but I'll say it again. After the end of the nomination process in 08, polling was done. 40% of Hillary supporters said they would never vote for Obama.
What ended up happening?

So long as Bernie does a moderate amount of make-up with Hillary, the large majority of his folks will vote for Hillary.

Your comments on "shrill" voice show your biases pretty plainly. You respect him because you hate Hillary and would respect anyone who is competitive with her (even though in most elections, we'd consider a 55-45 popular vote showing to be not very competitive).

Bernie certainly knows how to paint with broad brushes, and he knows how to capture discontent and anger and speak to it. That's not the same as being dynamic. Reagan was dynamic. Obama is dynamic. JFK was dynamic (although RFK was better). BS is not dynamic. I won't deny that Hillary is someone who is uncharismatic to a large audience. There are plenty of people who say she is plenty charismatic in small groups, but the reality is, she ain't transferring that quality to larger audiences for a myriad number of reasons.

But there's more to enthusiasm and energy then being charismatic. You clearly don't like her policies, but there's a whole bunch of folks who love her wonkishness and her policies...obviously, they voted for her. Some of her voters will be anti-Trump voters for sure.

If I could have picked any Dem to run, I'd have picked someone other than Hillary or Bernie. Both have flaws. But neither are either the best of what some folks think of them, or the worst of what others think of them.

Guilty as charged. I am no fan of HRC or what the Clinton machine has become. (She does have a shrill voice, qaz.) When I was younger, I actually liked Bill Clinton for awhile, because he worked with the Republicans (he was kind of forced to, but to his credit, he did) and balanced the budget and reformed the welfare state. At the time, I thought NAFTA would be a net positive for the country, but that hasn't seemed to be the case (hindsight is 20/20).

You're probably right, that BS is more loud than charismatic.

 

[pboiler18]

a normal republican might, Trump would not.

How so? Hillary should be worried about how he's been able to capture the moderate Dem vote while Hillary has been busy pandering to minorities and the youth vote to try and beat Bernie. A lot of the moderates have picked sides already....and it ain't yours.

 

[qazplm]

How so? Hillary should be worried about how he's been able to capture the moderate Dem vote while Hillary has been busy pandering to minorities and the youth vote to try and beat Bernie. A lot of the moderates have picked sides already....and it ain't yours.

lol pandering to minorities...who make up 40 percent of the Dem primaries...crazy! And no, she's not pandered to the youth vote, that's Bernie Sanders promising free college for everyone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...83bdd6-0e4c-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html

"Our polling found that just 60 percent of GOP moderates said they would vote for Trump in a matchup with Clinton. Only 10 percent were ready to vote for Clinton, but fully 30 percent said they would vote for some other person, wouldn’t vote or weren’t sure what to do. Only 6 percent of Republicans voted for Barack Obama in 2012."

Moderates voted for Obama 56-41 in 2012, but you think somehow that number is going to flip because of Trump? Eh, don't think so. And moderates usually don't "pick sides" til election day, that's why they are moderates.

 

[MJ-79Boiler]

You realize Hillary has pledged to nominate judges who would reverse CU right?

Every time people use the word Shrill, they reveal a little about themselves that has nothing to do with Hillary.

Yes, I realize she has said things. However, that doesn't mean I believe them, or her. I am not the only person holding that view either (ie TRUST)

As for your last comment, I think you are little too quick to judge people Qaz - I was just listing comments I have heard from both sides.

You have to admit, both candidates have more than their share of warts ! Sadly, this election may boil down to who scares fewer people versus who will help the average American the most

 

[jadeezra]

He has the momentum because there is a huge following that would rather not vote or vote for trump before Hillary... Myself included and I know many others on a personal level who will do the same.

Where you Hillary people would vote sanders rather than trump. If your in denial about what's really going on right now you're in for a huge surprise come November. I know similar things happened in 08. This isn't the same don't kid yourself

 

[kescwi]

He has the momentum because there is a huge following that would rather not vote or vote for trump before Hillary... Myself included and I know many others on a personal level who will do the same.

Where you Hillary people would vote sanders rather than trump. If your in denial about what's really going on right now you're in for a huge surprise come November. I know similar things happened in 08. This isn't the same don't kid yourself

My wife is a Republican who is saying she will not vote for Trump and can't see herself voting HC, but last week interestingly enough when she heard Elizabeth Warren named as a potential VP she perked up and did say she could vote for a HC/EW ticket.

I know that means nothing in the grand scheme but I doubt my wife is unique, she sees what's happening in the world around her and is growing increasingly concerned. I think too much is being made of the socialist part of BS and not enough to the reformer part. People don't want free stuff as much as they want out of this regulatory capture, finance, insurance, middleman...dominated world of paying an ever increasing vig on personal productivity. Its not taxes killing off the middle class and small business as much as usury and insurance on over inflated assets and regulation catering to large corporations.

 

[SDBoiler1]

My wife is a Republican who is saying she will not vote for Trump and can't see herself voting HC, but last week interestingly enough when she heard Elizabeth Warren named as a potential VP she perked up and did say she could vote for a HC/EW ticket.

I know that means nothing in the grand scheme but I doubt my wife is unique, she sees what's happening in the world around her and is growing increasingly concerned. I think too much is being made of the socialist part of BS and not enough to the reformer part. People don't want free stuff as much as they want out of this regulatory capture, finance, insurance, middleman...dominated world of paying an ever increasing vig on personal productivity. Its not taxes killing off the middle class and small business as much as usury and insurance on over inflated assets and regulation catering to large corporations.

Your wife is a Republican and thinks a HRC ticket is better with Fauxcahontas in it? Again, you said you're wife's a Republican? Both Sanders and Fauxcahontas are fundamentally Socialists, although Warren doesn't describe herself as one.

 

[kescwi]

Your wife is a Republican and thinks a HRC ticket is better with Fauxcahontas in it? Again, you said you're wife's a Republican? Both Sanders and Fauxcahontas are fundamentally Socialists, although Warren doesn't describe herself as one.

Yes she is a Republican and gives money to Republicans. I guess what might be throwing you off is that she thinks for herself and is not a AM radio/Fox News watching Republican who simply gets angry and regurgitates the drivel they listen to all day long and as such say things like "Fauxahontas." My wife adds to the economy, runs restaurants, hires people, uses local venders, buys local product... In her life she actually makes compromises when necessary to get the job done and doesn't piss and moan and whine that it's ruining her way of life, her values, morals...and yes, as a Republican she actually believes there is a place for government, proper regulation and oversight.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

VP is so unimportant and lacks any real power that I think I'd actually appreciate Warren being named to the Hillary ticket and taken out of the Senate.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yes she is a Republican and gives money to Republicans. I guess what might be throwing you off is that she thinks for herself and is not a AM radio/Fox News watching Republican who simply gets angry and regurgitates the drivel they listen to all day long and as such say things like "Fauxahontas." My wife adds to the economy, runs restaurants, hires people, uses local venders, buys local product... In her life she actually makes compromises when necessary to get the job done and doesn't piss and moan and whine that it's ruining her way of life, her values, morals...and yes, as a Republican she actually believes there is a place for government, proper regulation and oversight.

Yeah, kescwi, you really berned me with that response. You have no f^&%ing idea what I do for a living, what I watch on TV, read on-line, (I don't listen to AM radio EVER), or basically anything about me. No need to get your dander up about your wife. I'm sure she's a fine, upstanding citizen and businesswoman.

Elizabeth Warren is a Progressive kook, and she basically lied about being Native American (thus "Fauxahontas") in order to make it easier to get high-profile Professorships at places like Harvard and to further her political career. The last I read about her was that she was at most 1/32 Cherokee, but that the Cherokee Nation could not verify that she was in fact Cherokee at all.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Yes she is a Republican and gives money to Republicans. I guess what might be throwing you off is that she thinks for herself and is not a AM radio/Fox News watching Republican who simply gets angry and regurgitates the drivel they listen to all day long and as such say things like "Fauxahontas." My wife adds to the economy, runs restaurants, hires people, uses local venders, buys local product... In her life she actually makes compromises when necessary to get the job done and doesn't piss and moan and whine that it's ruining her way of life, her values, morals...and yes, as a Republican she actually believes there is a place for government, proper regulation and oversight.

Do you know why she likes Warren? She's not my type. She beats up big banks with her statements on one hand and then manages the dumping of billions of dollars into their laps in the other. She's the queen of "you didn't build that". Not trying to start an argument, just wondering what moderates see in her that they like.

 

[kescwi]

VP is so unimportant and lacks any real power that I think I'd actually appreciate Warren being named to the Hillary ticket and taken out of the Senate.

I don't think when she said it she viewed EW as a Cheney type VP but rather Gore, someone who would stir up a debate on a subject my wife thinks is important.

And again the bigger issue for my wife is, alone she can't see herself at this time voting for either Trump or Clinton so I imagine what she was articulating more than anything is how bad an election year it is when a possible VP selection is the only thing that might bring her out to vote.

 

[kescwi]

Do you know why she likes Warren? She's not my type. She beats up big banks with her statements on one hand and then manages the dumping of billions of dollars into their laps in the other. She's the queen of "you didn't build that". Not trying to start an argument, just wondering what moderates see in her that they like.

My wife believes in finance reform, she believes you need SEC that truly polices, you need regulation of finance and insurance. And since she has been a partner of mine from bubble, to collapse of bubble, to buying foreclosures, to flipping foreclosures to rent, to selling rentals as bubble 2.0 began blowing up she has seen how destructive runaway lending can be so she also believes in consumer protection.

I doubt she sees a woman in a blue jump suit with red cape in EW but she does see someone out talking about it. What I know she agrees with her on is that for markets to function properly there needs to be regulation. Without it we are seeing the what happens, bad actors not only survive but begin to thrive and ultimately drive out good actors. Kind of the same dynamic as Gresham's law.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

My wife believes in finance reform, she believes you need SEC that truly polices, you need regulation of finance and insurance. And since she has been a partner of mine from bubble, to collapse of bubble, to buying foreclosures, to flipping foreclosures to rent, to selling rentals as bubble 2.0 began blowing up she has seen how destructive runaway lending can be so she also believes in consumer protection.

I doubt she sees a woman in a blue jump suit with red cape in EW but she does see someone out talking about it. What I know she agrees with her on is that for markets to function properly there needs to be regulation. Without it we are seeing the what happens, bad actors not only survive but begin to thrive and ultimately drive out good actors. Kind of the same dynamic as Gresham's law.

Thanks. I believe EW has played both sides of the fence there. I appreciate the thoughts.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Bernie's just an angry old man at this point, and his acolytes are just younger and have more energy.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Has anyone figured out why Bernie Sanders refuses to get out of the race?

He still has a slim mathematical chance to win the pledged delegate count, but I don't see how he can win over the superdelegates and get the Democrat nomination. In this speech he says he's going through to the Democrat convention in Philly. He also rips Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party.

He says he has the "energy and enthusiasm" on his side (vs. HRC), and I think he's right on that point.

View embedded media

Bernie Sanders is a total infiltrator of the US Government. He is there as a decoy and a decoy alone to provide costume legitimacy to Hillary Clinton. It is how this Council on Foreign Relations Royal Institute of International Affairs takeover of the United States has worked since its inception. You got to make the horse race look legitimate. For that to happen the other horses got to look like they are racing. Bernie Sanders has won countless elections against Hillary in the popular vote but Hillary gets all the delegates. He never challenges the system on this. He takes it like a whimpering phony old hag. Because he is a fraud. Maybe a puppy bark and a slight snivel but that will be his best effort challenging the system. Trump doesn't take it and challenges these people because he is for real so far as the public can tell. It is an absolute fraud being conducted on the democratic voters. I can't tell who the hell is stupider. They also attempted this with Trump but his popularity is so great simply because he is not under their control to the extent he is a real horse in the race. They don't want real horses in this race let me assure you.

Bernie Sanders talks a big game against the audit of the Fed. But when he has the chance to be the deciding vote he finds a little sneaky reason to vote against it. Then when it comes up for a revote after the bill becomes anything but an audit the Fed bill except in name alone he votes for it knowing it won't have enough votes to pass. It is a dog and pony show this guy. A total dog and pony show. He goes on TV and says hey there is a death camp. I have an idea, lets all walk in it. Yah there are wolves out there feed yourselves to them and be commies. Commie lick that e'll fix it. What could go wrong. Hey here is an idea lets pay all of our money in taxes to the government to people like Hillary clinton who has 8 billion dollars in her tax free foundation slush fund account for taking bribes from foreign enemies, lets not start our own businesses and make our own way. Let be under their control not ours. His solution is give all your money to globalist UN British agent politicians and let them decide what to do with your money. I mean Hillary Clinton on a government salary has several billion dollars and that is just what is known in her slush fund. What could go wrong? Naturally when you pay all your money in taxes like a slave does they give it back to the slaves? If people are dumb enough to believe that you better believe they're dumb enough to be a democrat in this election.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Bernie's just an angry old man at this point, and his acolytes are just younger and have more energy.

He certainly does come across as an angry old man at times, but I can also understand his disgust with the Establishment powers that be. Many of his ideas are kooky and would be ruinous for the USA, but I think he genuinely believes what he is saying. Millennials probably look at him as a grandpa-like figure.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

A lot of millennials (and people in my generation too!) saddled themselves with tons of student debt for degrees that weren't worth anything and think they should be paid six figures at 24 for their Communications degree. So of course they like his "free college for everyone!" idea, which is just ludicrous.

 

[kescwi]

A lot of millennials (and people in my generation too!) saddled themselves with tons of student debt for degrees that weren't worth anything and think they should be paid six figures at 24 for their Communications degree. So of course they like his "free college for everyone!" idea, which is just ludicrous.

This taking on debt for degrees at the levels students currently are is a problem but lending to students studying in fields that have a slim chance at launching them into a career where they would be capable of repaying the loans, as well as issuing loans to students at a high risk of not even earning a degree, is an even bigger problem.

Similar to the housing bubble, even the prime borrowers in retrospect were taking on bad loans due inflated values, it would seem finding a degree today with enough value is getting harder, but subprime loans are symptom of the larger problem of every debt fueled bubble, the need to bring in more and more borrowers to keep the bubble inflated.

It is ludicrous to think as it currently is that "free college for everyone" is possible, but I also wonder if the current system of large campuses with large bureaucracy and large infrastructure... is sustainable.

 

[SDBoiler1]

This taking on debt for degrees at the levels students currently are is a problem but lending to students studying in fields that have a slim chance at launching them into a career where they would be capable of repaying the loans, as well as issuing loans to students at a high risk of not even earning a degree, is an even bigger problem.

Similar to the housing bubble, even the prime borrowers in retrospect were taking on bad loans due inflated values, it would seem finding a degree today with enough value is getting harder, but subprime loans are symptom of the larger problem of every debt fueled bubble, the need to bring in more and more borrowers to keep the bubble inflated.

It is ludicrous to think as it currently is that "free college for everyone" is possible, but I also wonder if the current system of large campuses with large bureaucracy and large infrastructure... is sustainable.

This is exactly right. The numbers of professors hasn't grown exponentially over the last 20 years, but the number of bureaucrats and administrators on college campuses certainly has. It definitely isn't sustainable and needs to be addressed aggressively.

Purdue under Mitch Daniels has actually taken on this challenge better than most of his large, public university counterparts have. Even he would have to admit there there's quite a bit more cutting that could be done and not impact the quality of a Purdue education much if at all.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

This is exactly right. The numbers of professors hasn't grown exponentially over the last 20 years, but the number of bureaucrats and administrators on college campuses certainly has. It definitely isn't sustainable and needs to be addressed aggressively.

The states provide too much money for education. I'm looking at Virginia's state budget and each of the big universities (VCU, UVA, VT) are commanding over 1.1B a year each. VT is getting on the order of 40k per enrolled student! With that kind of tax base I think it ought be damn near free. The parents paying taxes get raped on one side and the kids coming out with debt get raped on the other. What a proud system.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

This taking on debt for degrees at the levels students currently are is a problem but lending to students studying in fields that have a slim chance at launching them into a career where they would be capable of repaying the loans, as well as issuing loans to students at a high risk of not even earning a degree, is an even bigger problem.

I liked Rubio's idea of private lending for students. Someone/someplace can lend a below-average student money for their General Studies degree if they want, but it is higher risk, whereas someone else can loan a great student money at lower interest but lower risk for a STEM degree.

Repayment and interest accrual only starts after graduation, and failure to repay the loan is not harmful to the student's credit as the risk is incurred solely by the lender.

I'm not explaining it 100% correctly, but I actually liked the idea. Not sure how feasible it was but it struck me as more feasible than "Free Stuff for Everyone" and more principled as well.

 

[qazplm]

I liked Rubio's idea of private lending for students. Someone/someplace can lend a below-average student money for their General Studies degree if they want, but it is higher risk, whereas someone else can loan a great student money at lower interest but lower risk for a STEM degree.

Repayment and interest accrual only starts after graduation, and failure to repay the loan is not harmful to the student's credit as the risk is incurred solely by the lender.

I'm not explaining it 100% correctly, but I actually liked the idea. Not sure how feasible it was but it struck me as more feasible than "Free Stuff for Everyone" and more principled as well.

I'm not suggesting "free stuff for everyone" but at the same time, one thing Sanders is correct about is that a college degree is the new HS degree. The unemployment rate for folks with a college degree is barely above 2 percent while for folks without it, it's almost three times that.

Back in the 70s and before, you could have a high school degree and still get a decent paying job that you could support a family on...not much anymore.

So what do you do? Is the answer free college for everyone? No. Certainly the rich and upper middle class don't need free college. But you could at least make community college, associates degrees and technical schools free or near free with government grants.

This would:

a. allow the poor and lower middle class to get a trade without going into debt
b. give a poor, but intelligent and hard working student, a head start towards a bachelors again without going into debt
c. from there I would look to increase grants and decrease loans to at least cover tuition and fees for most at public only universities.
d. Loans could still be used for room and board and other needs (often this is the biggest part of college costs anyways). I would make loan repayment tied to income after college, and I would continue and expand programs that encourage folks going into certain areas or public service (military, etc).

I think Sanders is more right than folks want to admit, but his program is, per usual, over-simplistic and simply "make it free" which is both unfeasible and subject to easy mockery which allows folks to ignore the good points he makes about education.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I liked Rubio's idea of private lending for students. Someone/someplace can lend a below-average student money for their General Studies degree if they want, but it is higher risk, whereas someone else can loan a great student money at lower interest but lower risk for a STEM degree.

Repayment and interest accrual only starts after graduation, and failure to repay the loan is not harmful to the student's credit as the risk is incurred solely by the lender.

I'm not explaining it 100% correctly, but I actually liked the idea. Not sure how feasible it was but it struck me as more feasible than "Free Stuff for Everyone" and more principled as well.

Why not offer some sort of civil service option for HS graduates where service can equate to some sort of tuition assistance/deferral akin to the GI bill? Service could include a varying array of programs, from infrastructure improvement to mentoring.

This would alleviate concerns over getting something for nothing as well as offer a public good. It's an old idea, but I think Kasich may have mentioned something like this during the campaign.

 

[Purdue97]

I liked Rubio's idea of private lending for students. Someone/someplace can lend a below-average student money for their General Studies degree if they want, but it is higher risk, whereas someone else can loan a great student money at lower interest but lower risk for a STEM degree.

Repayment and interest accrual only starts after graduation, and failure to repay the loan is not harmful to the student's credit as the risk is incurred solely by the lender.

I'm not explaining it 100% correctly, but I actually liked the idea. Not sure how feasible it was but it struck me as more feasible than "Free Stuff for Everyone" and more principled as well.

Not sure any lender would get their money back if non repayment was in no way harmful to student. Right now, with student loans being reported to credit agencies there is an extremely high delinquency rate and high default rate. And the worst part is all one has to do is ask for forbearance(literally all one does is click a few buttons) if one cannot repay for a few months. Or call and have one's payment lowered. Tough to figure out why it is such an issue.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Not sure any lender would get their money back if non repayment was in no way harmful to student. Right now, with student loans being reported to credit agencies there is an extremely high delinquency rate and high default rate. And the worst part is all one has to do is ask for forbearance(literally all one does is click a few buttons) if one cannot repay for a few months. Or call and have one's payment lowered. Tough to figure out why it is such an issue.

There should be some teeth in signing for a loan. There has to be consequences for non-repayment.

Still, when a student graduates with a Bachelor's degree and $100,000 in student loan debt it's like having a mortgage payment right out of school (at least in some cheaper locales).

Doing what you're talking about only defers the pain - the loan still has be repaid. It sucks having to pay back the equivalent of a small mortgage payment over 25 or 30 years, and you build no equity. Granted, you got a degree (hopefully), and it helps if it's in a field of study that will actually pay.

 

[Purdue97]

There should be some teeth in signing for a loan. There has to be consequences for non-repayment.

Still, when a student graduates with a Bachelor's degree and $100,000 in student loan debt it's like having a mortgage payment right out of school (at least in some cheaper locales).

Doing what you're talking about only defers the pain - the loan still has be repaid. It sucks having to pay back the equivalent of a small mortgage payment over 25 or 30 years, and you build no equity. Granted, you got a degree (hopefully), and it helps if it's in a field of study that will actually pay.

Pretty much agree. I was just stating the options students have, and how easy forbearance/renegotiate to do to basically say there is no excuse for it.