Recently, I saw a post on Facebook from someone who I usually agree on when she most of the time that she posts things.
But early on Saturday morning, she posted something that effectively suggested that Bernie Sanders 2020 was the same as Ralph Nader in 2000: a spoiler.
That seemed so blatantly false and wrong to me, and from someone who’s opinion I usually value and take seriously.
And so I responded. Here is what I wrote to her in response to this post:
I usually agree with most of what you post, but not this. Nader never exceeded 2 - 3 percent of the vote, never won any states. Bernie won numerous states in 2016, and is currently the frontrunner in 2020. Also, polls show him beating Trump, and by a wider margin than any other Democrats. Believe the anti-Bernie hype if you want, but the facts, and the polls, don't bear that out. Look it up for yourself if you do not believe me.
Again, you can believe what you want to believe. But the facts just don't bear this out, and reveal it for the anti-Bernie prejudice that it is.
In between that first and second paragraph, I had inserted links to two articles. The first one was from USA Today, in an Op-Ed piece that suggested that Bernie Sanders has a clear path to victory over Trump, and that Democrats really need to take him seriously. The second one was from Newsweek, and it showed that polls revealed that Bernie Sanders leads Trump in polls by a wider margin than any other Democrat running for the White House.
There was one woman who commented that she believed he was a spoiler in another sense, that he led his followers to believe that he could do anything, and quickly then saying that he could not, implying that he was misleading.
This was how responded to that:
I've heard that "pie in the sky" argument before. Here's the thing, though: the United States stands alone among industrialized nations as the only such country that fails to produce affordable, universal healthcare for it's citizens. In other words, every other advanced country has such a system that Bernie is proposing already in place, and has had it for decades. Not one of them has decided to turn away from it, which to me, seems to suggest that it works. Meanwhile, we debate this issue every year, especially with every election, and it never gets resolved. We want to tinker with a broken system. In fact, our "for profit" system ranks by far as the most expensive system in the world. So, it seems like we are the ones who believe in this impossible dream that "for profit" healthcare will actually produce viable answers. Pete Buttigieg does not even provide healthcare to his own campaign staff, so I'm willing to bet that he will not have answers. Otherwise, we lag behind other countries in combating climate change. Even tiny Iceland - a country with fewer people than Newark, New Jersey - led us in certain aspects of clean energy development. We can do better, unless we listen to skeptics like you who want to convince everyone that we are too limited to do better.
There was another person who took exception to Denmark constantly being used as a reference point, and suggesting that she was sick and tired of hearing about Denmark. Since I believe this is just an excuse and a distraction, I answered her as well with the following:
It works in literally dozens of other countries, though. Literally, every industrialized nation except one. Can you guess which one does not have it, the only country in the developed world to provide it's citizens with affordable, universal healthcare. Try to get past Denmark, if you have a problem with that country for some reason, and ask yourself if so many other countries can make it work so much better, why can't we?
The links to both articles that I placed in her comments section can be found below. In addition, I am adding another link to an article, this one by The Hill, which shows that Sanders has just jumped ahead and taken the lead in Texas, as well. I did not add this link to her post, because it might feel like I am really going too far and trying to be holier than thou. But here on my own blog, I will share what I like, and this, to me, proves that Bernie is not Nader, and that he is very, very relevant in the 2020 race:
Sanders jumps to first among Dems in Texas, Trump still leads top contenders: poll by Marty Johnson, February 14, 2020:
BERNIE SANDERS LEADS DONALD TRUMP BY WIDEST MARGIN OF ALL 2020 CANDIDATES: ELECTION POLL BY SHANE CROUCHER ON 1/22/20:
Moderate Democrats have a duty to consider Sanders. He has a clear path to beating Trump. By Jason Sattler, Opinion columnist for USA Today, February 9, 2020:
Bernie Sanders isn't even my favorite senator running for the 2020 nomination. But I see his potential to unite the Democratic Party and oust Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment