Okay, first off I don't see how a single person not liking him counts as proof he can't work with anyone ever. For all I know he could be an outlier.
Secondly, you used anecdotal evidence to support your case that ranting about the establishment alienates delegates, but criticize me for making a case via anecdotal evidence. Pretty sure the Burden of proof is on you case.
I used that as the most recent example, from one of the most long-standing critics of Sanders. I pointed to several other examples over the months of Bernie alienating his colleagues. I most recently suggested
looking up old C-span videos. More examples exist in written medium. Less than two years ago, Bernie stated, "the Democratic Party does not represent, and has not for many years, the interests of my constituency, which is primarily working families, middle-class people and low-income people." To Playboy, Bernie once stated "what the Democratic campaign program is about is: We’re pretty bad, but they’re worse, vote for us. That’s true: We’re pretty bad, but the Republicans are worse, and that’s the reason you should vote for Democrats." In a recent television ad
Bernie stated (and was rated as mostly false) "Wall Street banks shower Washington politicians with campaign contributions and speaking fees. And what do they get for it? A rigged economy, tax breaks and bailouts, all held in place by a corrupt campaign finance system. And while Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour. $200,000 an hour for them, but not even 15 bucks an hour for all Americans." Yeah, giving 20 million people healthcare, giving 4.2 million people a meaningful pay raise, and letting the Bush tax-cuts expire for all but the bottom 98% are really great examples of not caring about working families, middle-class people and low-income people. I'm not saying that the democrats are perfect, but making the good the enemy of the perfect only ensures that we wind up with nothing.
More so, even wikipedia says of Sanders, "During his first year in the House, Sanders often alienated allies and colleagues with his criticism of both political parties as working primarily on behalf of the wealthy." Representative Joe Moakley said of Bernie, "He screams and hollers, but he's all alone." Bill Richardson, who worked alongside Bernie in the House before becoming Governor of New Mexico, described Bernie as "a homeless waif" (referencing that nobody wants to work with him). It's no secret that Sanders has a quarter-century record of alienating off his colleagues. And in the alternative, let's assume that Bernie is right about his colleagues being beholden to Wall Street, fact remains that denigrating the institution of Congress and your colleagues is not a good way to get people on your side. And even if one does believe that congresspeople are beholden to big money, it is foolish to believe that the representatives (small "r") never do anything good for the middle and working class as there are countless examples to the contrary.
the other stuff
The difrence between getting your college tuition payed for and 5-10 years of college debt is rather substantial. What I'm saying is that small difrences aren't.
Politifact reported that Bernie's policy proposals to pay for free college is "mostly false." This does not even include unintended consequences of free college, such as increased students and increased need for professors and university buildings (which would raise the cost of paying for college, while the amount Bernie plans to allocate is based on today's figures). More fundamentally, it relies on an assumption that states would even go along with it (footing 1/3 of the bill), when the medicaid expansion in Obamacare provides strong evidence that such a thing would not happen across the nation (ergo, leaving some cost to the student to pay over 5-10 years). None of this should be seen as an attack on Bernie as much as a skepticism that he can fulfill his promises. In sum, I think that when looking at what Bernie can realistically accomplish alongside what Hillary could, the differences are pretty minor. Additionally, one thing I have noticed is that Hillary's policy proposals tend to utilize instances in which she could improve things by executive powers and presidential fiat (example, student loan rates), which do not need Congressional approval. That is the kind of policy wonk that I think would be best suited to the presidency, because, and I belabor the point after almost 9 months, I believe that she can get more things done that will help people in need.
Additionally, all this argument is is a focus on a specific portion of the record to highlight a difference as opposed to examining their aggregated records, which tells a more complete story. It's intellectually dishonest to focus solely on the part of their records that is most beneficial to yourself while ignoring the rest. It is spurious research done for the purpose of supporting the position you want (as opposed to finding the fact). Finally, fact is, Hillary and Bernie are incredibly similar politically (and I concede, Bernie is slightly to the left of Hillary), and it is a misrepresentation--if not a full-blown lie--to treat an exception to such a fact as the norm.
I respect you deeply and think you're probably one of the smartest board members. I just think you picking Hillary is dumb.
Cool story, bro.
